Wall looming before Obama?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Of course having a contested primary is adding voters to the polls. But you are a fool if you think that is the sole (or even biggest) factor right now driving people to vote. Look at the turnout in the primaries in 2004 or 2000 for the Democrats which were contested and compare that turnout to 2008. Get back to me on your results. Take a look at the turnout in Michigan and Florida too, even knowing their votes wouldn't count at all! Sure, the turnout would have been higher if those states were contested, but with no contest, no advertising, and assurances that their votes would be meaningless, a total of 2.34 million people voted in the Dem primary in those states (compared to a total of 914,000 in 2004). You have blinders on in this election, Tex. It isn't going to go well for Republicans. Boehner and the House Republicans know it, and I think you do too but don't want to say so.

Compare the Dems turnout at any point in time during this primary season to that of Republicans as well. You simply have to conclude, if you are being honest, that the Democrats have a ton of passion and energy this year that independents and moderate Republicans are latching onto, as well as groups that previously haven't been involved at significant levels in the political process

Heh, the elections of 2000 and 2004 were not "contested" elections by the definition we're using here. I'm amazed "if you are being honest" that you'd even bring them up. I don't remember the last time the Democrat party had a nomination contest last throughout the entire primary season, but it wasn't those.

I don't disagree that Democrat turnout is generally higher, the contest notwithstanding. The current political climate lends itself to that. But if Democrat turnout in November (or voter turnout in general) greatly exceeds the '04 turnout (as a percentage of the population) I will be surprised, and I expect it to be less. I think 2004 saw the greatest voter turnout since 1968.

And I still don't see why we're bringing Republican turnout into this debate. As far as my argument is concerned, it has nothing to do with them.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, the elections of 2000 and 2004 were not "contested" elections by the definition we're using here. I'm amazed "if you are being honest" that you'd even bring them up. I don't remember the last time the Democrat party had a nomination contest last throughout the entire primary season, but it wasn't those.

I don't disagree that Democrat turnout is generally higher, the contest notwithstanding. The current political climate lends itself to that. But if Democrat turnout in November (or voter turnout in general) greatly exceeds the '04 turnout (as a percentage of the population) I will be surprised, and I expect it to be less. I think 2004 saw the greatest voter turnout since 1968.

And I still don't see why we're bringing Republican turnout into this debate. As far as my argument is concerned, it has nothing to do with them.

I am not talking about every single primary. I am talking about the early primaries that WERE contested. And if you are being honest, you know as well as I do that Kerry was NOT the favorite early on. You are wanting to claim that the entire turnout right now is due to the existence of a contested election. It just isn't. Check Iowa in 2000 and 2004 (or any other year in history for that matter) and compare it to 2008. Do the same with New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada's caucuses. Get back to me. You know exactly what I am saying, and you are willfully ignoring it (no surprise). I will bet you money that 2008 turnout is higher than 2004 (or any other year in history). People are energized. People other than your people, that is.

And we are bringing Republicans in because MY explanation for the high turnout is that it is due to energy on the Dem side in opposition to Republicans. If it was a simple function of there being a contested race, then the Republicans would have also seen an equivalent turnout in their contested primaries (through Florida) as the Democrats. They didn't see even close to the same turnout because the contested election isn't the reason people are voting in droves (like you want it to be). Again, check Michigan and Florida where the election wasn't contested at all (and where the votes literally didn't matter at all) and compare to 2000 and 2004.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am not talking about every single primary. I am talking about the early primaries that WERE contested. And if you are being honest, you know as well as I do that Kerry was NOT the favorite early on. You are wanting to claim that the entire turnout right now is due to the existence of a contested election. It just isn't. Check Iowa in 2000 and 2004 (or any other year in history for that matter) and compare it to 2008. Do the same with New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada's caucuses. Get back to me. You know exactly what I am saying, and you are willfully ignoring it (no surprise). I will bet you money that 2008 turnout is higher than 2004 (or any other year in history). People are energized. People other than your people, that is.

And we are bringing Republicans in because MY explanation for the high turnout is that it is due to energy on the Dem side in opposition to Republicans. If it was a simple function of there being a contested race, then the Republicans would have also seen an equivalent turnout in their contested primaries (through Florida) as the Democrats. They didn't see even close to the same turnout because the contested election isn't the reason people are voting in droves (like you want it to be). Again, check Michigan and Florida where the election wasn't contested at all (and where the votes literally didn't matter at all) and compare to 2000 and 2004.

I'm not "willfully ignoring" anything. I simply disagree with you.

On second thought you're right, it is more than the fact it's a contested election. We have two highly polarizing individuals running, one who thinks she should be coronated and the other who thinks he's the Messiah. Moreover, we have a race run not on issues, but on identity politics. As a consequence, their followers (read: YOU) are highly agitated and motivated.

Dean's were like this too. Kerry's weren't. Gore's are now, but probably weren't then. I don't think either Romney's or McCain's reached this kind of fever pitch. So you're right, this cycle is especially unique. I think you'd have to go far back in either party to find the like ... probably Reagan/Ford or maybe McGovern/Humphrey (?).

The point is, I don't think it carries over. One of your guys wins, Obama (likely) or Clinton, and these "record turnouts" fade into standard election-year trends.