Obama got 3 million more votes than Bush in 2004

[aphex]

Eh? I heard on Fox this morning that turnout was around 137 million.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Obama wins by 5-6 percents in the pop vote and crushes mccain in the electoral vote, he paints the map blue, and this is all Projo the clown can come up with?

The same retard who was calling the election for McCain in early september.

Do you have anything of substance to offer this thread? Or are you going to rabidly keep hitting the reply button and dish out internet tough guy assaults on the OP?

If you weren't so dense you'd realize my point is that the OP is insubstantial itself. This is a stupid thread from a confirmed clown.

"Obama's only up 8 points! OMGZ!"

For all the yapping about generic democrats, Obama overperformed expectations while the house and senate were actually dissapointing for dems.

Were you dropped on your head as a kid or did your mother mate with a tard?
Where did you get the impression this thread is about how much Obama won by? This thead is discussing the lower than expected turnout. This election has been hyped as huge and with huge new voter turnout. Yet it should be right at 2004 levels of voter turnout. I had heard a projection of 140-160 million by some analysts. Meaning projections were off. Did any of what I just wrote sink into that Neanderthal skull of yours?

Please do us a favor and dont come back. You waste everbodies time.

 

[Ferocious]

ummm this will easily surpass the 2004 record.

No doubt a lot of politcal virgins on this board.

 

[aphex]

http://ap.google.com/article/A...7v24HM_wbT8JQD948LJRG0

WASHINGTON (AP) ? America voted in record numbers, standing in lines that snaked around blocks and in some places in pouring rain. Voters who queued up Tuesday and the millions who balloted early propelled 2008 to what one expert said was the highest turnout in a century.

It looks like 136.6 million Americans will have voted for president this election, based on 88 percent of the country's precincts tallied and projections for absentee ballots, said Michael McDonald of George Mason University. Using his methods, that would give 2008 a 64.1 percent turnout rate.

"That would be the highest turnout rate that we've seen since 1908," which was 65.7 percent, McDonald said early Wednesday. It also would beat the old post World War II high of 63.8 percent in the famed 1960 John F. Kennedy-Richard Nixon squeaker. The 1908 race elected William Howard Taft over William Jennings Bryan.

The total voting in 2008 easily outdistanced 2004's 122.3 million, which had been the highest grand total of voters before.

So the thread is based on a false premise? C'mon Prof.

 

[Vic]

The spin in this thread is epic.

Okay, first, not all the votes are in yet. At this time, CNN shows a vote tally of 119,142,788 at 97% reported. Meaning the full vote tally should be about 123 million.

Second, at this time, Obama's margin of victory is 53% to 46%, with a spread of 7,349,042 votes. Bush beat Kerry in 2004 by 50.7% to 48.3% and a spread of just more than 3 million votes.

Finally, of the approximately 3+ million votes remaining to be counted, the majority of them are in the blue strongholds of the Portland and Seattle metro areas, both of which are running about 70% Obama, meaning that Obama's margin of victory is only going to widen further as the final results come in. I wouldn't be surprised if his final vote tally is about 65 million.

edit: 136 million? CNN's precincts reporting figure of 97% must be off then.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: aphex
http://ap.google.com/article/A...7v24HM_wbT8JQD948LJRG0

WASHINGTON (AP) ? America voted in record numbers, standing in lines that snaked around blocks and in some places in pouring rain. Voters who queued up Tuesday and the millions who balloted early propelled 2008 to what one expert said was the highest turnout in a century.

It looks like 136.6 million Americans will have voted for president this election, based on 88 percent of the country's precincts tallied and projections for absentee ballots, said Michael McDonald of George Mason University. Using his methods, that would give 2008 a 64.1 percent turnout rate.

"That would be the highest turnout rate that we've seen since 1908," which was 65.7 percent, McDonald said early Wednesday. It also would beat the old post World War II high of 63.8 percent in the famed 1960 John F. Kennedy-Richard Nixon squeaker. The 1908 race elected William Howard Taft over William Jennings Bryan.

The total voting in 2008 easily outdistanced 2004's 122.3 million, which had been the highest grand total of voters before.

So the thread is based on a false premise? C'mon Prof.

I am looking at the results on cnn.com and foxnews.com.

With most states at 99+% precincts reported it sits at about 120 million. Oregon, and Washington are at about 50 and 66% reported. Where is that article coming up with 16.7 million more voters?

 

[shadow9d9]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

2008* 148,218,161* 64.1%*


I think it is the highest turnout since 1908.

 

[BoomerD]

MORE votes than Bush? Oooh...he gots politikul capitul!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic
The spin in this thread is epic.

Okay, first, not all the votes are in yet. At this time, CNN shows a vote tally of 119,142,788 at 97% reported. Meaning the full vote tally should be about 123 million.

Second, at this time, Obama's margin of victory is 53% to 46%, with a spread of 7,349,042 votes. Bush beat Kerry in 2004 by 50.7% to 48.3% and a spread of just more than 3 million votes.

Finally, of the approximately 3+ million votes remaining to be counted, the majority of them are in the blue strongholds of the Portland and Seattle metro areas, both of which are running about 70% Obama, meaning that Obama's margin of victory is only going to widen further as the final results come in. I wouldn't be surprised if his final vote tally is about 65 million.

edit: 136 million? CNN's precincts reporting figure of 97% must be off then.

That article was written 10 hours ago when 88% of precints were reporting. My guess is they had some bad math in their estimation of what it would look like at 100%. Your estimation of ~123 million sounds much more realistic.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Topic Title: Obama barely got more votes than Bush in 2004
Topic Summary: Turnout looks to be lower too

I wonder how the media will spin this news.

I believe they are still saying this election had the highest turnout ever.

You are a sad and pathetic

Oh, the ironing.

Seconded... the ironing is delicious

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Baked
Barrack Obama won the election. /thread

Oh the irony...

Seems that for years and years after both 2000 and 2004 the left tried to argue that Bush did not actually win.

Now it seems that Obama won, thus all discussion must stop. :roll:

Are you brain damaged? dumbya did NOT win in 2000, it was a supreme court decision, he LOST the popular vote, Gore went limp and didn't challenge him enough.
He won in 2004, and most sane people are still trying to figure out why.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

2008* 148,218,161* 64.1%*


I think it is the highest turnout since 1908.

Ok this is getting silly. Where did they come up with 148 million voters? Is CNN and all the other sites wrong when they are showing ~120 million @97% precincts reporting?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: aphex
http://ap.google.com/article/A...7v24HM_wbT8JQD948LJRG0

WASHINGTON (AP) ? America voted in record numbers, standing in lines that snaked around blocks and in some places in pouring rain. Voters who queued up Tuesday and the millions who balloted early propelled 2008 to what one expert said was the highest turnout in a century.

It looks like 136.6 million Americans will have voted for president this election, based on 88 percent of the country's precincts tallied and projections for absentee ballots, said Michael McDonald of George Mason University. Using his methods, that would give 2008 a 64.1 percent turnout rate.

"That would be the highest turnout rate that we've seen since 1908," which was 65.7 percent, McDonald said early Wednesday. It also would beat the old post World War II high of 63.8 percent in the famed 1960 John F. Kennedy-Richard Nixon squeaker. The 1908 race elected William Howard Taft over William Jennings Bryan.

The total voting in 2008 easily outdistanced 2004's 122.3 million, which had been the highest grand total of voters before.

So the thread is based on a false premise? C'mon Prof.

Of course he will NEVER come back into thread to admit he was wrong, nor will he fix the thread title which he now knows is false.
Hence, why I call him out time after time for his false, misleading threads that almost always are based on blogs or editiorials that he tries to pass off as "news".

 

[jonks]

Bush's numbers were high in 04 because Evangelicals came out in record numbers, mostly to vote for gay marriage bans on 30+ state ballots, a successful Rovian tactic. But Only Good For One Use, Void Where Prohibited. Lacking such a divisive non-issue in 06 and 08, they got creamed.

Reps lacked a wedge issue this election and actually had to run on the issues, though they tried mightily to make it about Obama's character and associations. Whoops. Hope they try again in '10 and '12.

This is exactly why Rep politicians never want Roe overturned. Once it is, they lose the threat of abortion and all the people who come out to vote just for that issue.

 

[First]

What is it with fringe wingnuts being allergic to research and having pride in anti-intellectualism?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This race will be a lot closer than everyone thinks.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Obama will win by less than 300 electoral votes.

BUMP.

 

[First]

Oh, and of course, bump:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Typically the polls lag and the progress of the surge will show in the polls soon.

64% of U.S. oppose Iraq..

BUMP. :laugh:

 

[Desturel]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yes he did win.

But the media story seems to be wrong.

Black turnout looks to have only gone up by 1%.
Youth turnout looks to have only gone up by 1%.

And overall turnout went DOWN.

Many Republicans didn't bother to vote. I know the "in my office" thing is always relative, however "in my office" half of the Republicans did not vote. About 1/4 of them voted for McCain. The rest wrote in people like Nader and Ron Paul.

NEW voter turn out was up. Old (aka lifelong republican) voter turn out was down.

Some didn't want to stand in line. Some saw it as a foregone conclusion that Obama was going to win so they didn't waste their time. Some of them hated both McCain and Obama, thus would not participate in the "farce" that this election had become. (actual words that were spoken to me.)

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uhh... why don't you try to address the topic instead of chanting and whining about the politics. The title and summary may be wrong but you've offered nothing besides vitriol...not that anyone is surprised by that.

Another pathetic, whining loser heard from. Uhh... Why don't you piss up a rope. :thumbsdown:

YOUR fucking Traitor In Chief gave us eight years of reasons for vitriol. YOUR fucking Traitor In Chief has gave us eight years of illegal war, eight years of illegal, treasonous assaults on the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution, eight years of aiding and abetting the Wall Street and industrial criminals who raped and pillaged our financial institutions, eight years of utter incompetence in managing the business of running the nation.

YOUR jackass candidate, John McCain lost because he squandered his own honor, his own integrity and his own legacy in history to pimp your party's lies, bigotry and hatered.

The good news is, [/b]HE LOST![/b] The better news is, in winning, Obama shattered a once impenitrable color line, once and for all. We finally stepped up and something to show the world that we still take the values enshrined in our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution seriously.

That battle is not over, but it's one more step than we had ever taken in our entire history... until yesterday. :light: :thumbsup:

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Ok this is getting silly. Where did they come up with 148 million voters? Is CNN and all the other sites wrong when they are showing ~120 million @97% precincts reporting?

I don't know the exact answers. But a precint can vary dramatically in size. If those last few percent of precincts were small, then there are about 1-2 million votes uncounted. If those last precincts are big, then there are 9-10 million votes uncounted. Lets assume there are 6 million uncounted there making the total 125M.

Also, just because a precinct has reported doesn't mean that they have counted all of the votes. Provisional votes tend to be counted by Friday. Mail in votes, especially from overseas just need to be postmarked by Tuesday and may arrive in a week or two (at least this was allowed in the past elections). Thus, the precincts that have reported certainly haven't reported ALL of the final votes. Lets assume there will be 10% more votes, so 125M * 1.1 = 137M total votes.

Of course my assumptions are rough.

 

[Aimster]

P&N ownage.

Laugh

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Topic Title: Obama barely got more votes than Bush in 2004
Topic Summary: Turnout looks to be lower too

I wonder how the media will spin this news.

I believe they are still saying this election had the highest turnout ever.

You are a sad and pathetic

Hahaha!

I for one didn't vote..... Race had ZERO to do with it, but age did.

I was for Obama since he was younger and I figure he would have a technological advantage. Maybe he can get science and high tech moving again?

Hope so....

 

[Eeezee]

Not all of the votes are in yet, so doing a number analysis of total votes for either candidate is meaningless. In 2004, 1.9 million provisional ballots were cast, of which 675k were not counted. Assuming a similar number this year, that's over one million valid votes that have not yet been counted!

Also, there are the mail-in votes from around the country and from around the world to consider. There are millions of votes out there that you're unable to include in your analysis.

 

[StageLeft]

Going only on the first 12 or so posts in this thread we have a clear example of people letting their bias get in the way of any meaningful contribution. Profjohn makes a valid point, regardless of one's history with him and his partisan statements.

 

[mshan]

If OP wants to talk about underperforming expectations, where did McLame flip even one blue state red (New Hampshire?), let alone even sucessfully defend one of the true battleground states that Bush won in 2004? Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Florida... :shocked:

He got totally smoked in the electoral college and Obama arguably even exceeded very lofty immediate pre-election guesstimates if he ends up with 375 or even 364 electoral votes.