2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

sozobe wrote:

My F-I-L just told me that Ohio is supposed to be the Florida of this years' election. His advice was to put off moving there. ;-)

Glad to know you'll be out there swinging that state. You go girl!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

timber, That 7.2% sounds awfully low. I think in California, the voter turnout was something on the range of 43%.

Quote:

Article Last Updated: Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 5:34:22 AM PST
Democracy Inaction: Presidential primary election turns out to be unprecedented dud with lowest turnout on record for such an election

By Steve Geissinger - SACRAMENTO BUREAU

SACRAMENTO - By arguably the most important measure, this week's election was a historic dud.

Despite Arnold Schwarzenegger, an early presidential primary and myriad candidates and issues, only two of every five registered voters bothered to cast ballots, making it the worst California presidential primary turnout on record.

Participation was even lighter than the statewide average in some heavily Democratic Bay Area counties.

Even worse, declining turnouts appear to be the trend, with the previous low for a presidential primary set just eight years ago. The turnout two years ago was not only the lowest for a non-presidential year but the worst overall for any California primary on record, dating back to 1916 ...

Something of a disconnect between your perception and the reality, there, c.i. , or at least so it would seem from the numbers as recorded and reported.

0 Replies

Two fifth makes ... 7.2%?

0 Replies

Good q, Walter. It sounds like 40 percent to me!

0 Replies

You guys are missing the point ... the Primary turnout has been historically low nationwide, with but a couple of exceptions, and trending ever moreso. California's primary, despite a number of statewide and local issues sharing the ballot, was the third lowest on record, period. No matter how many participated, fewer participated than has been the norm. That, c.i. , is precisely why Vasconsellos wants to extend the California vote to the 14-thru-17-year-old crowd. First, not enough folks are participating in the electoral process, and second, those who do are trending toward an older, and coincidentally more conservative, demographic than has been customary. That is troubling for The Dems ... naturally so.

0 Replies

timber, you did reply to C.I.'s assertion that turnout was 43% by quoting the article that said no, it was 40%, with the comment, "Something of a disconnect between your perception and the reality, there, c.i. , or at least so it would seem from the numbers as recorded and reported."

He's a whole 3 percent off! (If that -- "two out of every five" is a less precise term, and could easily be referring to exactly 43%.)

I suspect nimh might be able to work some magic in terms of stats and what they actually mean, but in terms of any of the more recent primaries, I think everyone expects the nominee to be Kerry and so don't see much urgency to vote for him... now. The urgency in November is a very different story.

0 Replies

You may be right about the November Urgency ... that remains to be seen. What has been seen, regardless the percentage, is that voter participation in primary elections is at near-all-time-lows nationwide, and, although some 40+% turned out in Claifornia, that is still the third lowest on record. Bear i8n mind, if you will, that the March elections in California are not merely Presidential Primaries; they are a major component of the state's own domestic legislative calendar. The point precisely is that so far, there appears to be less electoral excitement gripping The Electorate at Large than The Media would have us believe. That may or may not extend into November. We shall see.

0 Replies

The Media would have us believe? What do you mean? Your assertions to the contrary (low turnout et al) come from The Media, too.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote

Quote:

timber, you did reply to C.I.'s assertion that turnout was 43% by quoting the article that said no, it was 40%, with the comment, "Something of a disconnect between your perception and the reality, there, c.i. , or at least so it would seem from the numbers as recorded and reported."

He's a whole 3 percent off! (If that -- "two out of every five" is a less precise term, and could easily be referring to exactly 43%.)

"timberlandko" wrote

Quote:

You may be right about the November Urgency ... that remains to be seen.

And IMHO is right about the percentage and your response as well - as I see it.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

timber, you did reply to C.I.'s assertion that turnout was 43% by quoting the article that said no, it was 40%, with the comment, "Something of a disconnect between your perception and the reality, there, c.i. ,

The disconnect was in CI's claim that California's turnout was high, not the percentage he cited. Get it?

0 Replies

For those of you who still do not have the skills to read, I said "something on the range of 43%."

0 Replies

Scrat, this is what C.I. said:

Quote:

timber, That 7.2% sounds awfully low. I think in California, the voter turnout was something on the range of 43%.

Not: "The turnout was high."

The article posted to refute that -- to show the disconnect -- showed that the range was something like 40%. 40% vs. 43% is not much of a "disconnect", especially when the phrasing -- "two out of every five" -- makes it entirely possible that it was exactly 43%.

Pretty cut and dried.

0 Replies

And for those people that likes to misquote, I never used the word "high."

0 Replies

Sozobe/CI: Point taken. I inferred that CI's point was that CA was an exception to the trend towards lower turnout, but yes, I see now that what he actually wrote was simply that 7.2% seemed low by comparison with CA's turnout. You are both right. I should have read that statement again before responding based on memory. Anyhow, I suspect this was the point Timber was trying to make, and that he may have inferred as I did, but I think I'll let him answer for himself before I make another boo-boo. :wink:

p.s. I don't "like" to misquote, but it does happen from time to time.

0 Replies

:-)

0 Replies

My whole point was that California's turnout was below par when compared to the historic average for California, and in that mirrors the nationwide trend as demonstrate3d so far this year. Its not the specific this-instance percewntage that is the issue, it is the manner in which this intance's percentage compares historically. In California, and in most of the rest of the nation, there really isn't much voter excitement. An interesting comparison re California is to look at the turnout figures for the October Recall as compared to this March's election. The difference in voter interest is quite apparent.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Oh, and, hey, PDiddie ... did you happen to notice this?

Quote:
Voter turnout low for presidential primaries

By Erin Kelly, Gannett News Service

The sentence Timber didn't finish (you know, where he trailed off in a "...") continues as follows:

Quote:

... although it was higher than in the past two presidential election years.

I.e., turnout was the highest of the past decade.

Now, we all know political activism isn't what it used to be anymore back in the 70s and 80s, but that represents a literal enough "resurgence" for Democrats - not just any "perception [that] lives only in their own minds".

Fcourse, one can point out that turnout would have had to be higher than the past two times to be credibly impressive - after all, the 96 primaries were about reelecting Clinton, and in 2000 Gore didnt face anything as stiff a competition as we've seen now, either.

On the other hand, looking back to those elections that had a higher turnout than we've seen now, it should be noted that in 1992 the Democratic race was still wide open by Super Tuesday, with Brown replacing Tsongas as Clinton's main challenger. This time round, the race was considered done by Super Tuesday, which will have depressed turnout rates.

The article actually almost spells this out, by specifying that "a record high 23.5% of eligible voters turned out for New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation Democratic primary. Turnout was a record low in Connecticut and New York on Super Tuesday, March 2".

0 Replies

Its an interesting article on another count, too - this one:

Quote:

0 Replies

timber, You're still not "getting it." I never said anything about it being high or low in California. Got that?

0 Replies

Would you like me to repost my quote? I didn't think so.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know