Obama got 3 million more votes than Bush in 2004

[miketheidiot]

so whats the current vote Breakdown?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In 2004 Bush received 62 million votes

In 2008 Obama received 62.9 million votes, just over a 1% increase.

McCain on the other hand received 3+ million LESS votes than Kerry.

Suggests several things:

Turn out was lower than in 2004.

McCain lost because he lost the people who voted for Bush in 2004, and about half of those voters don't seem to have voted at all.

Despite all the talk about turn out and increased enthusiasm that doesn't seem to have shown up on election day.

Look at the total votes cast in the past three elections:
2000 105 million votes
2004 122 million votes
2008 118 million, as of 1130AM

I wonder how the media will spin this news.
I believe they are still saying this election had the highest turnout ever.

Exactly. McCain had 4 mill less votes than Bush got in '04. Yes, some switched over to BHO but with new voters as they were not all the 4 mill switched. Many stayed home or did like me and voted for neither(3rd party). Basically McCain didn't get the "base" like Bush did and he probably lost a some of the "moderates"/"independents" who Bush had.

Overall, the (R) turnout looks to be lower which is a big part of the McCain loss.

If the BASE of the GOP is 4 million voters, then you have a sad party. MOST OF THE BASE came out. Get over it. I am the base, and I voted McCain. Most of the rest of the base came out. Of course there are idiots like you who decide to stay home and then you're now crying about technicalities because the math doesn't add up.

I can guarantee you half the voters in this country vote based on hype and can be easily persuaded through misinformation.

Obama made a better candidate than Kerry, and that's how you get the rest of the moderates. It's not that moderates/centrists abandoned McCain after voting Bush in 04, it's that they find the other side more appealing. Bam, that's it.

We got crushed yesterday ok? I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. I'm still amazed at the sheer number of people who came out for McCain though. There's plenty of us looking at the popular vote, but too bad it doesn't matter.

Wrong. I never claimed the base was only 4 million. I am not crying about anything. I expected this. When your base has a problem getting excited about your candidacy you will have lessened turnout of said base. That is the case in the current situation. Sure, Palin helped get quite a few excited but not near enough and she shouldn't have had to - they should have been there for the top of the ticket.

 

[DrewSG3]

Chris Matthews just said the turnout was 133 million.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In 2004 Bush received 62 million votes

In 2008 Obama received 62.9 million votes, just over a 1% increase.

McCain on the other hand received 3+ million LESS votes than Kerry.

Suggests several things:

Turn out was lower than in 2004.

McCain lost because he lost the people who voted for Bush in 2004, and about half of those voters don't seem to have voted at all.

Despite all the talk about turn out and increased enthusiasm that doesn't seem to have shown up on election day.

Look at the total votes cast in the past three elections:
2000 105 million votes
2004 122 million votes
2008 118 million, as of 1130AM

I wonder how the media will spin this news.
I believe they are still saying this election had the highest turnout ever.

The MSNBC Hardball show just said that 133 million people voted in this election cycle.

 

[chess9]

Let's wait until the numbers are all in before we jump to analytical conclusions. There is a lot of work to be done yet at a few Boards of Elections. Re-visit this topic in a week.

-Robert

 

[DrewSG3]

Black turnout up 13% from 11%

 

[RightIsWrong]

Did anyone consider that a lot of PST folks already knew the outcome so they just didn't bother to wait in what they thought would be long lines?

By 7:00pm PST, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virgina were already called and Obama was all but assured the victory.

A more accurate measure would be to compare the voter turnout in states in the EST and CST to the turnout in the 2000/2004 cycles. You could also compare the votes for Obama vs. the votes for Bush in those states also. It would be a more telling gauge IMO.

 

[chess9]

I just checked with my Board of Elections online. They still haven't finished counting absentee ballots from overseas, mail-in ballots from locals, contested ballots, and provisional ballots. Lots of work to be done yet. If this is typical of all Boards of Elections, and I believe it is, we are probably looking at a few million uncounted votes nationwide, at least.

Chris Matthews doesn't know how many people voted. No one knows. YET!

-Robert

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: MrChad
I'm a little surprised that turnout was lower this year. I wonder how much of that can be attributed to a) voters outside of swing states believing that candidate A or B was a foregone conclusion or b) fear of long lines.

I haven't heard the media talk about voter turnout much at all.

Turn out was not lower than 2004. As a matter of fact, for the first time in history Presidential voting has increased for 3 straight elections.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In 2004 Bush received 62 million votes

In 2008 Obama received 62.9 million votes, just over a 1% increase.

McCain on the other hand received 3+ million LESS votes than Kerry.

Suggests several things:

Turn out was lower than in 2004.

McCain lost because he lost the people who voted for Bush in 2004, and about half of those voters don't seem to have voted at all.

Despite all the talk about turn out and increased enthusiasm that doesn't seem to have shown up on election day.

Look at the total votes cast in the past three elections:
2000 105 million votes
2004 122 million votes
2008 118 million, as of 1130AM

I wonder how the media will spin this news.
I believe they are still saying this election had the highest turnout ever.

The MSNBC Hardball show just said that 133 million people voted in this election cycle.

And it's probably going to keep going up, at least a little bit. CNN right now has Obama with 63.8 million votes, almost 1 million more than this morning when ProfJohn made this thread. Trying to do meaningful analysis now is a ridiculous exercise, and based on the comments in this thread, done more I think to make Republicans feel better than because it's thoughtful analysis.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ScottyB
He won by a huge margin. Republicans lost this election big time. Get over it.

He is just trying offer some analysis.


If the data is correct, he makes an interesting point.

I agree.

I wish he (PJ) has linked us up with the data source. Until reading his post I was still under the impression that voter turnout was very high. I could've sworn I recently heard about 130M voted?

I've been looking forward to getting some numbers from someone like Chuck Todd or Karl Rove. I think it'll be interesting to how actual turnout compared to predictions. E.g., I heard earlier today that college age voters were the same proportion as the last 2 elections. If so, the predicted *boom* in their turnout once again failed to materialize.

Fern

Check CNN, its in fairly easy to understand numbers Total in 04 was about 122 mil, count right now is just over 120. I know ABC was talking about the surprising low numbers during coverage last night and did again during tonights broadcast.

 

[mshan]

Ideallogically blind partisans should at least consider how easily they are swayed by today's talking points (or, put more bluntly, are you an idealogically blind fool, or truly just an idiot) :roll:

McLame got his arse kicked in the one poll that counted, the electoral college...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Jesus what is with all the auto-trolls in this thread? Is there something wrong with looking at the number post election? I for one do find it interesting that voter turnout was down. This was hyped up by the media and parties as the biggest election in decades and that there was a huge and I mean huge new voter push. Either there wasnt a new voter push that was successful or it didnt makeup for people who didnt vote at all.

Votes for President were not down - I believe more people voted this year.

Johnnie neglected to include the million-plus votes to Nader, Barr and other 3rd party candidates

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 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.

You need to read up about the 2000 election so you can stop repeating this false hood.

If the Supreme Court had done NOTHING!!! Gore would have lost!!!! That is a fact that is not disputed by anyone!!!! Not even Gore!!!!!!!!!!! Do I need to add more exclamations before you will get it??

The news paper group that studied the ballots afterwards determined that the method that Gore wanted would have wound up with Gore losing by an even larger margin that the final official tally.

The only way Gore could have won in 2000 is by a complete recount of the entire state, which NO ONE was calling for.

Again, and you can look it up. If the Supreme Court had done NOTHING Gore would have still lost.

 

[GoingUp]

I think that by early evening the race was already called for O, with polls still open on the west coast, so repubs probably stopped voting, which also bodes bad for them in their senate race in Oregon.

 

[ProfJohn]

As of 11:15PM CNN shows a total of 63.9 million votes for Obama and 56.4 mil for McCain. A total of 120.3 million.

I have NO clue how many votes are left out there, nor do they list Barr and Nader's totals on the front page. Wikipedia shows a million votes between the two of them, so we are up to 121.3 million. But they also claim 148 million total votes cast, so where did the other 20 million votes go????

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did anyone consider that a lot of PST folks already knew the outcome so they just didn't bother to wait in what they thought would be long lines?

By 7:00pm PST, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virgina were already called and Obama was all but assured the victory.

A more accurate measure would be to compare the voter turnout in states in the EST and CST to the turnout in the 2000/2004 cycles. You could also compare the votes for Obama vs. the votes for Bush in those states also. It would be a more telling gauge IMO.

It would be incredibly stupid of them to just not bother going to the poles. Plenty of local and state issues to vote on to make it worth voting anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As of 11:15PM CNN shows a total of 63.9 million votes for Obama and 56.4 mil for McCain. A total of 120.3 million.

I have NO clue how many votes are left out there, nor do they list Barr and Nader's totals on the front page. Wikipedia shows a million votes between the two of them, so we are up to 121.3 million. But they also claim 148 million total votes cast, so where did the other 20 million votes go????

Spoiled ballots, etc I would guess. I'm pretty sure they count them in the votes cast, but not votes gotten by candidates.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As of 11:15PM CNN shows a total of 63.9 million votes for Obama and 56.4 mil for McCain. A total of 120.3 million.

I have NO clue how many votes are left out there, nor do they list Barr and Nader's totals on the front page. Wikipedia shows a million votes between the two of them, so we are up to 121.3 million. But they also claim 148 million total votes cast, so where did the other 20 million votes go????

Spoiled ballots, etc I would guess. I'm pretty sure they count them in the votes cast, but not votes gotten by candidates.

Well it will be hard to compare 2004 and 2008 if that is the fact.

All we can really do is compare the total votes for each candidate and make a guess. I would expect that a similar amount of ballots were spoiled in 2004 as well.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
But they also claim 148 million total votes cast, so where did the other 20 million votes go????

Uh-oh, what did the liberals do?

 

[chess9]

It's ACORN'S fault.

-Robert

 

[smack Down]

McCain sucked so badly democrats didn't even need to go out and vote. When the outcome is predetermined there is never going to be high turn out.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did anyone consider that a lot of PST folks already knew the outcome so they just didn't bother to wait in what they thought would be long lines?

By 7:00pm PST, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virgina were already called and Obama was all but assured the victory.

A more accurate measure would be to compare the voter turnout in states in the EST and CST to the turnout in the 2000/2004 cycles. You could also compare the votes for Obama vs. the votes for Bush in those states also. It would be a more telling gauge IMO.

This.

I worked at a election polling place in CA. We had nonstop people coming in during the morning hours, plenty of people in the afternoon, and from 6-8PM we didn't see more than 20 people come in. I think we saw over 800 people throughout the day though.

 

[SirStev0]

gotta hate that foot taste in your mouth.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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:

Hey look, trolling post by someone who should know better...


So are you going to address the points of this thread or are you going to continue to spew your usual vitriol and lies?(lies = yet again trying to claim McCain was my candidate) Has your BDS progressed that much that you can't control your outbursts anymore?

cad calling someone a troll? :laugh: