Friday, November 07, 2008

The Great Turnout Myth Of 2008

As someone who will not, cannot and wouldn't know how to, succumb to a cult following, I've been thoroughly amazed by the ability of the Obama campaign to create total fictions about their candidate, his opponents and every circumstance surrounding him and get the media to report the script on cue and to a tee. The latest such example is how Obama so inspired Americans of all walks of life to become involved and participate in the political process for the first time. The word "apathy" was no longer commonplace because of the hope and opportunity The One represented. Well, the election turnout numbers are starting to become a little more concrete and, as it turns out, this year's turnout was basically the same as it was four years ago when President Bush faced off against Sen. John Kerry. One of the Obama networks, CNN, reports:

A new report from American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that voter turnout in Tuesday’s election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago — or at most has risen by less than 1 percent . . .

“Many people were fooled (including this student of politics although less so than many others) by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004,” Curtis Gans, the center’s director, said in the report. “But we failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats.”

In 2004, 122 million Americans voted in the presidential election. Estimates are that between 126.5 and 128.5 million Americans voted this year. Statistically, when looking at the total number of registered voters, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the 2004 and 2008 election turnout. The study finds that fewer Republicans and more Democrats voted this year. Wasn't that what this election was all about? Faking out the Republicans as much as possible to convince them it's a waste of time to come out and vote, while encouraging Democrats at every step to vote in massive numbers? If you're a student of history, you will discover that the same tactics successfully employed by David Axelrod and the Obama campaign in this year's presidential election are the same tactics deployed by every significant, charismatic tyrant who rose to power pretending to be something he was not and fooling a majority of the populace into so believing. Remember this: things are not as they appear when it comes to anything respecting Barack Obama. Buyer beware.

19 comments:

jbargeusa said...

Low republican turn is the cause of the figures, and thus Obama is like a tyrant? You're venturing into weirdness with that one. By the way, I do have one question for you: do you consider
Barack Obama to be a good father to his 2 daughters? Do you consider Barack Obama to be a good family man? I eagerly await your response?

Advance Indiana said...

Like you, I have no idea what kind of father Obama is to his two daughters. I've never been in his home or watched him interact with them. And don't twist my words. I said he rose to power the same way some of the great tyrants rose to power.

Wilson46201 said...

In 2004 in Indianapolis 323,673 total votes were cast but in 2008 there were 374,088 total votes: an increase of 15.6%. Not too shabby!

A careful examination of downticket races shows the hardcore GOP turnout remained pretty static - the surge of voters voted Democratic...

indyernie said...

In the end the truth will prevail. It will take four and maybe eight years but it will come out. Obama has to stand and deliver. I for one don't think he will.
One day in the near future I may have to eat my words, but I truly believe that it will be Obama’s supporters asking someone to pass them the salt and pepper.

Advance Indiana said...

Hey, Wilson, tell that anonymous blogger friend of your's who calls himself StAllio to do a little bit more research on Hamilton County before he starts tossing around figures to discredit me. You might want to start by telling him that Hamilton County's population grew by nearly one-third from 2000-2006. The population expansion in Hamilton County explains a significant amount of the higher number of voters in Hamilton County this year from four years ago.

jbargeusa said...

Okay, fair enough. You're saying his campaign used "the same tactics deployed by every significant, charismatic tyrant" and so I will simply ask you directly: do you think Barack Obama is a tyrant?

jbargeusa said...

Another question: If there is low Democratic turn out is that the responsibility of the Republican Party? Or is that charge one-sided?

jbargeusa said...

And, finally: Have you ever come across any evidence in the media or on-line that Barack is not a good family man? It appears that he is very close to family and I'm curious if the right (and I'm including you in that, Advance Indiana) is willing to grant the possibility that Barack is a good father and a good husband.

Advance Indiana said...

That remains to be seen, jbargeusa. He's never held an executive position in his life so we have nothing to judge him by.

Downtown Indy said...

How can Obama be a good parent when he's consumed with his political career?

Oh, sorry. That question only applies to women.

jbargeusa said...

Here's what I think: he isn't a tyrant. He's a good family man. And if Republicans don't vote it is the fault of their own party.

artfuggins said...

You are correct that voter turnout in Marion County only increased approximately 70,000 voters. In 2004, Kerry carried Marion County by 6000 votes with 162,000 votes. This year, Obama carried the county by 106,000 with 237,000. It seems to me that many more Dems voted and republicans stayed home.

tarrandwoolley said...

Actually, the numbers were up in 2008, at a minimum, by 5.3% of the elligible voters from 2004. Additionally, AP is reporting 136.6 million voters, and noted that "The total voting in 2008 easily outdistanced 2004's 122.3 million, which had been the highest grand total of voters before." Guess your facts are a little sketchy, as usual.

Advance Indiana said...

The AP numbers were grossly overstated. They were initial estimates which proved to be wrong.

tarrandwoolley said...

Gary, the point was even using your numbers the vote was up by over 5% nationally. And, the AP story went through to explain ALL the different numbers and statistics touted by various groups, including numbers similar to those presented in your post, and did not cherry-pick just one set of statistics as the be-all end-all like you have.

spooknp said...

This year, Obama carried the county by 106,000 with 237,000. It seems to me that many more Dems voted and republicans stayed home.

If these people were "Dems," then Jill Long Thompson and other Dems got the same ratio of votes correct? Surely these "Dems" never voted for any Republicans.

Advance Indiana said...

At least 2.6 million eligible voters were added in the last four years from naturalizations alone. There is an expanded number of persons of voting age in the U.S. over the last 4 years as well. When you factor in new citizens and growing population figures, you get your static overall numbers.

artfuggins said...

Spooknp.....Dems dont always vote straight tictet but yes, Obama received republican votes......people who were unwilling to vote for the negative candidate that their own party nominated.

Mike Kole said...

I took the turnout to be the flip of the Indy mayoral race. Low turnout by the defeated candidate's party faithful.

Nice one, downtownindy.