squinney wrote:There were discrepencies between exit polls, registered voters vs. turnout,
Of course theres gonna be "discrepancies" between exit polls and actual results. Exit polls are
polls.
squinney wrote:questionable numbers of turnout in certain states, etc. Will be interesting to see the final tallies.
As I noted here yesterday, I crunched some numbers myself, and am surprised other sources haven't questioned some of the more obvious discrepencies. (Like why was California turnout down 10% from 2000, and Florida's and Arizona's up 25% and 35% respectively when other states had an average 15% increase in votes cast?)
Like Soz said, two out of those three are obvious. After last time's nightmare, of course Florida turnouts would be hugely up this time. This was the state that mattered, along with Ohio. This was where the candidates went, continually. And all this anger about their vote not counting last time, and making sure that this time would be different ... countered by conservative voters seeing the storm brewing and thinking they
had to stop it, somehow ... that Florida's turnout was excessively high doesn't surprise me a bit.
Conversely, California was indeed a Kerry shoe-in. It was never contested this year. Neither candidate ever went there. The whole focus and coverage of the elections must have been less there than elsewhere.
This was different last time round. In a symbolic gesture of bravado, Rove in 2000 decided that it would make Bush seem a confident winner if they acted like California was winnable. So Bush went campaiging there and everything. California was considered contested, and thus people came out. Now there was really no need to.
squinney wrote:I considered that about California, too. But, they still know the popular count matters.
But it
doesnt <shrugs>. Not beyond a merely symbolic level, and apart from the more dutiful citizens and the most enthusiastic partisans, people are not going to massively turn out to cast a symbolic vote. A hundred thousand more Californians could have turned out and it wouldnt have made any difference whatsoever. I guess they knew that.
squinney wrote:And, just the week before, their Govenor came out sounding more like a democrat than republican. Perhaps the whole voting thing has worn them out recently.
Possibly. And having a Republican Governor who sounds like a Democrat actually would dampen turnout - it makes the "enemy image", the Republican boogeyman Democrats elsewhere massively turned out against, less powerful a mobilising force.
squinney wrote:Arizona was a HUGE surprise considering the number of articles recently about illegals entering and not having enough border patrols. If Bush can't get that under control in 3 years, why give him more time? We'll see.
Arizona is also a very conservative-minded state, and has been for a very long time. Kerry showed some real chutzpah to contest it initiatally, but it was always a long shot. Why turnout was so high there though I dont know. But there are a lot of things that can impact turnout. Close state races. A controversial ballot initiative that attracted a lot of attention. Stuff like that.
squinney wrote:Won't start any conspiracy theories, but I certainly don't believe the 3 million votes went to Bush.
The very last thing we need is more wacko conspiracy theories. People went around talking of the Un-President and speculating about all kinds of different fraudy ways going on, and it just turned more people off. Engaging in more of that is a sure-fire way to prolong the self-isolation.
)
