Results! Election night'04 ... your armchair expert analysis

Quote:

Voter turnout highest since 1968

Driven by an intense race for the presidency, a greater percentage of Americans voted Tuesday than at any time in more than three decades.

Figures tabulated Wednesday by The Associated Press showed that 114.3 million people had voted with 99 percent of precincts reporting. However, about 120 million people cast ballots, including 5.5 million to 6 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted, said Curtis Gans, director of the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.

The 120 million figure represents just under 60 percent of eligible voters -- the highest percentage turnout since 1968, Gans said.

One county clerk in Illinois spoke for poll workers across the country on Election Day when he summed up the turnout with one word: "Gangbusters."

Four years ago, in the election that led to Republican George W. Bush's narrow victory over Democrat Al Gore, slightly more than 54 percent of eligible voters, or about 105.4 million, voted.

President Clinton's 1996 re-election bid drew just 49 percent of eligible voters, about 96.3 million. But his 1992 challenge to the first President Bush brought out 55.2 percent of eligible voters, or about 104.4 million.

At least six states -- Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia -- and the District of Columbia set new voter-turnout highs, according to Gans' analysis.

"On both sides, the presidency of George Bush was a lightning rod," he said. [..]

In California, the estimated voter turnout was 12 million, a record for the state.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20041103/lbs041102.gif

0 Replies

Tried to watch, but c-span server is overloaded, cnn requires a pass and msnbc requires a higher media player than i have installed ... i'm giving up.

0 Replies

Pretty standard -- thanking everyone -- I'm still bawling my eyes out.

0 Replies

Phoenix writes

Quote:

I had heard a commentator mention this some time ago. I certainly hope that this will come to pass. The moderates need to put a leash on Bush, and his ultra conservative compatriots!

As a libertarian (little 'L') I am a social liberal, but it should not be inferred that I purport to march in lockstep with the left on social issues. A careful analysis of what Bush and company have actually said and done--this separated from what the left/media have said that bush and company have said and done--indicates a fairly moderate policy on most things. The exit polls are now suspect, but if they got anything right it was what motivated people to vote in the way they did. High on the list in all exit polls was moral values. Bush and company may in fact be more in the mainsteam than some realize and are almost certainly less radical than they are portrayed.

0 Replies

Started with something about let the healing begin.

0 Replies

sozobe:

If I could be there I'd hand you a hankerchief.

Will you be alright with my condolences instead?

I'm gonna need some shoulders to cry on myself.

0 Replies

Did you find FreeDuck's wailing and gnashing of teeth thread? Lots of shoulders there.

(I've gone through about half a box of kleenex so far, but thanks. :-))

0 Replies

Aww Sozobe ...

I'm so sorry.

And you tried so hard, in the heart of it all ...

<nods, attempts a smile>

It'll be OK, girl. In the end.

0 Replies

((((((((Sozobe))))))))

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The news media should fire their exit pollsters as this organization has proved to be pretty close to 100% incompetent.

Foxfyre wrote:

Roger, can you remember any year when they were off as much as they were this year though? It's hard not to smell a rat.

Incompetent because the data was leaked or incompetent because of the numbers they came up with?

The numbers weren't actually so bad. I mean, the final exit poll numbers as I'm looking at them now aren't very off-target. Pretty much on-target, in fact.

The ones that came in during the day, through Slate, compiled incrementally, were sometimes further off - so you have a good point about leaking data thats still incomplete and unreliable. But not even that far off.

The problem is that they only needed to be, say, 3% off in order to end up calling the winner wrong in a bunch of races - thats what you get with a close race.

But click that link above, for example, and find what the complete exit poll data says:

National: Bush 50, Kerry 49. Real results: Bush 51 Kerry 48. Thats close enough.
Florida: Bush 51 Kerry 49. Real results: Bush 52 Kerry 47. Close enough.
Ohio: Bush 51 Kerry 49. Real results: Bush 51 Kerry 49. On-spot.
Iowa: Bush 50 Kerry 49. Real results: Bush 51 Kerry 49. On-spot.
Nevada: Bush 50 Kerry 48. Real results: same.
New Mexico: Bush 50, Kerry 49. Real results: same.

I mean, I get your point: I've seen the numbers come in here via Slate too as election day progressed. Florida and Ohio triumphantically announced here as both going to Kerry 51/49. Iowa going to Kerry 50/49. Nevada going to Kerry 49/48. New Mexico going to Kerry 50/48.

All wrongly called winners.

Yet even looking at those data, the actual percentage points weren't far off. In all of these cases (just checking the closest races that were called wrong), even those preliminary exit polls weren't off more than 2% on each candidate's percentage.

In fact <checks some more states>, even those preliminary exit poll data ebrown posted from Slate, they got both candidates at 2% or less from their actual score in 12 out of 16 states. Only in Michigan (3% off on Bush), Colorado (3% off on both candidates), New York (4% off on both candidates) and New Hampshire (completely FUBAR) was it worse. And that was the preliminary data; as said, the complete exit poll data has all those data practically spot-on.

So the lesson here is:

- Don't trust a preliminary exit poll to tell you the right winner when the race is within a 5% margin
- But trust it to be within 2-3% on each candidate's numbers 4 out of 5 times
- And trust the complete exit poll data to give you a pretty-near complete reflection of what people actually voted. Which makes these exit polls still by far the best assessment we have of voter breakdowns and motivations.

Foxfyre wrote:

The exit polls are now suspect, but if they got anything right it was what motivated people to vote in the way they did. High on the list in all exit polls was moral values.

Can't cherry-pick which of the questions in one and the same exit poll you deem to be reliable and which "suspect" - you gotta buy 'em for what they are (see above) - and they come together.

0 Replies

I can draw whatever perspective I wish Nimh. I am not an 'all or nothing' person unlike some others. I can give people or Presidents (or pollsters) credit for what they get right as well as note what they get wrong even if they are mostly wrong.

The vote says more people think Bush gets more right than wrong, or at least they trust him to get more right than they trusted Kerry. You can pooh pooh the spread all you want, but for there to be a 3% spread after the best of the pollsters had it at 1% or less, and after ugliest and most dishonest campaign in my memory, and after the best efforts of a media who was blatantly mostly supporting Kerry, for Bush to receive a substantial majority, not just a plurality of the vote, is his mandate to stay the course for the next four years.

If some choose to be divisive and destructive, well it's a free country. Their candidate and George Bush are encouraging a coming together to find a common ground and work together. That is the course I recommend.

0 Replies

Quote:

Their candidate and George Bush are encouraging a coming together to find a common ground and work together. That is the course I recommend.

Hmm, one would think that that 'common ground' would neccessitate some concessions from both sides of the isle on divisive issues, correct?

Given that the Republicans now control all three branches of our nation's governance, do you really believe this is going to happen?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The vote says more people think Bush gets more right than wrong, or at least they trust him to get more right than they trusted Kerry. You can pooh pooh the spread all you want, but for there to be a 3% spread after the best of the pollsters had it at 1% or less, and after ugliest and most dishonest campaign in my memory, and after the best efforts of a media who was blatantly mostly supporting Kerry, for Bush to receive a substantial majority, not just a plurality of the vote, is his mandate to stay the course for the next four years.

Thats a lot of different points in one paragraph, most of which more ideoligical.

But my post was quite specific, actually.

You'd called the exit polls "100% incompetent".

But in fact, the final exit poll data, which I linked in above, can serve fine as illustrations of voter preferences - because the numbers they give are almost exactly equivalent to the actual election results.

But sure, you were talking about the preliminary data that was leaked from the exit polls and bandied around prematurely, and got quite a few races wrong in terms of who won (which on election night itself, is all that matters of course).

I was just pointing out that they were no further off than your standard margin of error. If you see a poll, any poll, you've always got to realise that it will be off a few percentage points this way or that way, not even yet because they did anything wrong, but simply because of the margin of error.

If you say this makes them useless in calling close races then, you'd be right.

But it does not make the poll incompetent, let alone 100%.

Any poll that has a candidate's support within the margin of error of what he actually got, fulfilled its stated purpose.

And as we now delve into the data to see what actually happened here - who voted for whom and why and how do different groups break up? - the question of whether they called the winner right becomes irrelevant - as long as they got each candidate's share of the vote roughly correct.

Can we trust a poll if it says 42% of Latinos voted Bush, or 63% of the poor voted Kerry? Why not, if it succeeded in getting their total numbers within a percent or two as well?

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

You'd called the exit polls "100% incompetent".

A little precision please. I called the exit polls "pretty close to 100% incompetent" and early in the evening they were practically screaming that it was a virtual runaway for Kerry in all the key states that Bush won. Obviously they were wrong.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

A little precision please. I called the exit polls "pretty close to 100% incompetent" and early in the evening they were practically screaming that it was a virtual runaway for Kerry in all the key states that Bush won. Obviously they were wrong.

LOL!

The whole point about my post was to add "a little precision". As you will know by now, the one thing I'm most allergic to is people just putting something out, to hell with details or factuality ...

<shrugs> I linked in the full exit polls. They're pretty accurate. I even, meeting you half way, linked in the preliminary exit poll data that was released/leaked "early in the evening", that I'm assuming you're referring to again now. It wasn't claiming it was "a virtual runaway" for Kerry, yet alone "practically screaming" that. It had Kerry winning the elections because it put states like Florida and Ohio in Kerry's column - by a margin of just 2%. Revised to just 1% in follow-up data. That's a "virtual runaway"? <frowns>

I don't have a partisan point to make here - my point about exit polls doesnt really benefit either of the two camps. I'm just trying to nip the bullshit in the bud, precisely because I happen to be anal about "a little precision" ... Thats me Razz

0 Replies

There are several things about which I am willing to argue with Nimh. The statistical features of polls and polling are not among them. I think his understanding and descriptions of their statistical characteristics is entirely correct. Whether people with their own agendas used and present this statistical data in an objective manner is a separate question. This may relate to the exit poll matter.

What an interesting and exhausting election! In spite of the numerous flaws that beset every aspect of the process, some valuable truths do come through. This is no doubt much easier to say for one whose candidate won, however, I hope I would do the same if the result had been otherwise. I was very pleased to see Kerry break what would have been a dangerous pattern of litigation in close elections, by his gracious concession. I'm sure that was difficult for him, but he did it well.

No healing is needed. Life and politics will always remain competitive, and there will be no shortage of opportunities to engage on the same issues again in the continuous unfolding of human affairs.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

Quote:

It is time for Kerry to concede.The popular vote is the benchmark of an election. Every hour the Dems wait is injurious to our nation.
The provisional vote count in Ohio statistically is a foregone conclusion.
Therefore, for the sake of our nation and our future I would urge the Democratic party to concede.

Who the hell are you quoting, panzade?

Kerry should drag this thing out to the very end. Until every single vote is accounted for.

Agree, Gus, though the time has passed Sad

.... Every single vote is important. The votes of those who waited in line for hours should be counted before Bush OR Kerry announce anything.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I was very pleased to see Kerry break what would have been a dangerous pattern of litigation in close elections, by his gracious concession. I'm sure that was difficult for him, but he did it well.

georgeob1 is quite right, yet so far, as I know, he's the only Conservative A2Ker who has acknowledged this. Kerry did have the right, because of the flaws of the electoral methods, to move his near-half of the country into the pattern of anger, legal litigation, and -at the end of the story- de-legimitization of the democratic process. He thought of his country first, and he is to be commended in his accepting defeat.

georgeob1 wrote:

No healing is needed. Life and politics will always remain competitive, and there will be no shortage of opportunities to engage on the same issues again in the continuous unfolding of human affairs.

There may be no ABSOLUTE need of healing. Yet, President Bush has the chance of extending his hand and compromising on some issues dear to the losers of yesterday's election. If he grabs the opportunity, he may be remembered as a leader in a difficult time for America.
I fear he read the electoral result as a referendum in favor of his more radical policies. I fear he will miss the chance, and help make the political, social and cultural divide among the Americans, and between the US and the rest of the world, even wider.

0 Replies

"There may be no ABSOLUTE need of healing. Yet, President Bush has the chance of extending his hand and compromising on some issues dear to the losers of yesterday's election. If he grabs the opportunity, he may be remembered as a leader in a difficult time for America.
I fear he read the electoral result as a referendum in favor of his more radical policies. I fear he will miss the chance, and help make the political, social and cultural divide among the Americans, and between the US and the rest of the world, even wider. "

In total agreement with you here, nimh. If unity is important in what looks like a divided nation, then he'd be very wise to do it.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

In total agreement with you here, nimh. If unity is important in what looks like a divided nation, then he'd be very wise to do it.

I'm flattered by your confusion.

0 Replies

Results! Election night'04 ... your armchair expert analysis

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know