Dem Primary Turnout Among Lowest on Record

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040309-112653-9667r.htm

looks like we have our work cut out for us...

-------------------------------------------------------
Voter turnout in the Democratic presidential contests that quickly sealed the nomination for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was one of the lowest on record, according to a study released yesterday.

The findings were in sharp contrast to the media-driven image of an angry and energized Democratic electorate turning out in droves in the party's delegate-selection contests through the Super Tuesday primaries.

With the exception of New Hampshire, the report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, which tabulates and analyzes voter participation, said that turnout "was generally low — in the aggregate, the third-lowest on record."

"Only an estimated 10.3 million citizens ... nationally participated in the selection of Sen. John Kerry as the Democratic nominee," it said.

vote AGAINST Bush. I'm convinced of it.

It was wrapped up early so people didn't bother. There were RECORD turnouts in the earlier primaries, before Kerry wrapped it up...

The early primaries had huge turnouts, and only the later numbers declined after it was certain who the winner would be.

Moonie Times is trying to assure that the Dem fires are dampened.

Won't happen. Not till the Bush thugs are gone.

about what might be done in local races in places (like here) with May primaries. Higher turnout= more commitment to the various races = more involvement (voluntary and other) - all of which will be very important in November.

But, I really think the November turnout will be huge no matter what.

of local strategies that can increase turnout. Eg - an effort to "send a message"... something that steps up party outreach early... with the ultimate goal of increasing commitment to working for the fall campaigns. Something to build local momentum rather than to concede it doesn't matter.

That's because the decision on who was going to be the nominee was decided very very early, before Super Tuesday. When it became a Kerry Edwards race it was essentially over and people stopped turning out because essentially, their vote didn't matter.

that the reason is cause it slowed down after kerry was the visible winner. any numbers by the first states

personally i am dissappointed. not that i am optimistic. just have to work harder to get people out to vote. not that i can do much here, lol

I voted on Super Tuesday but it was largely symbolic. It was Kerry/Edwards by then, I was voting for Kerry and Edwards wasn't really in contention in my state. I just voted because it felt like part of the process of removing that cancer of an administration, so I wanted to go in and cast a vote. However, I wouldn't expect too many people to feel that way. It was really over and a lot of people don't really get into it until AFTER primaries.

But we have major problems to overcome and not just a presidential candidate to elect.

I thought turnout was high in most states up until Super Tues. I could see why it has dropped since Kerry has all but wrapped up the nomination. I know in CT the turnout was low. No one was at the poll when I voted and it was just about 6 p.m.

The media and pundits have been hammering away since iowa that Kerry was going to be the nominee, and once gephardt, dean, clark, and then edwards dropped out, so did the sense of horse race for the front runner status. Most people sensed almost month ago that Kerry had it in the bag which is probably why only the diehards have showed up in later voting states.

Voter turnout has been at record levels in every Primary held so far ..... every fuckin' one of them. This is just a simple lie.

The total vote that has set Kerry to be the nominee is relatively low, but there were 9 other folks in the god dam race, for Christ's sake.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

turnout!!

Bush is gonna lose that state....

They didn't turn out either because they already knew who their candidate was to be. After Super Tuesday we did also.

In some states the turnout was low. Maryland, for instance. In others, the turnout exceeded the 1992 turnout, which was fairly high (Ohio and Georgia). California turnout was lower than 1992 but remained quite respectable. The last four states had low turnout, but that is to be expected, since the nomination was already substabtially decided. new York had low turnout, but that hardly matters, as it will go solidly Kerry. I think comparing the overall number here is the deceptive move. Wisconsin turnout, for example, easily exceeded the last three cycles, but that is obscured if you count in Florida and Texas, where the turnout was low as a function of the early decision process. That's why the Washington Times waited until after FL, TX, LA, etc. to release this study.

:headbang:
rocknation

nearly every precinct caucus reported numbers way up, in some cases way, way up, from 2002. My precinct went from 43 in 2002 to 246 in 2004. Nobody had enough sign-in forms or presidential preference ballots.

If that's "poor turnout," I'd like to see what they consider "good turnout."

The "low turnout" soundbyte is Republican psy op.

Do you actually think the Moonie Times is a legitimate news source?!?!?

Oooo, I'm so scared and demoralized. :eyes:

Try something better next time, will ya? :hi:

to tell how many participated but compared to previous years estimates are that it was ten times the amount or more. People were crowded in and could hardly move.

There is a HUGE groundswell of Democrats here who are turning out and volunteering in droves--far more than ever before. I have never seen this amoung of discussion and anger over anyone like these people here are saying about Bush.

This thing from the Wash Times, is crap. More inventions and unabashed twisting of the truth.

I wonder what the hell they are talking about.

And that was after an odd, shortened campaign after Gephardt dropped out.

Missouri's going Blue!

Found a St. Louis source that said turnout was up.
Every other source says turnout down about 20,000 from 2002.

Never mind.

drive-by post?

Why post a Wash Times article here? Everybody knows it's trash. What's your point in posting this, "agitprop"?

"drive-by post?"

no, i posted shortly before i left work and came straight home to go to my son's t-ball practice. i apologize for not standing by to address each flame.


"oh, and by the way, do you buy your Tobey Keith CDs at Walmart?"

so, this means i'm a repub? not only a repub, but one of the "sheeple", the lowbrow fundie who hums the party line all the way to the corporate devil?


Try something better next time, will ya?

yeah, i will. i'll make sure i don't post anything that's not cheerleading or "everything's coming up roses" optimism.

i apologize for offending those "who can be trusted" here. apparently, if one can't afford the gold star or hasn't been here long enough to have four-digits worth of posts, they're suspect. that's cool.

actually, i'm not trying to make any waves. i saw an article that suggested that there's a discrepency between the notion that democrats are highly motivated and what appeared to be statistical data to the contrary - leading me to contend that we have our work cut our for us, as stated in my original post.

i guess i was encouraging democrats to redouble their efforts in some twisted attempt to demoralize them and undermine their cause.

mods, feel free to delete this thread. it obviously hasn't the validity spur to any useful discourse.

big tent you got here, folks. big tent.

-william

"There is always room for a man of force, and he makes room for many." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Interesting comment. Interesting moniker. Have you read the rules for posting an article from a source like the WT? Quite the defensive, sanctimonious attitude there...

i can't seem to find the rules governing which sources are allowed and which aren't. if i recall correctly, however, posting links from mainstream (even if considered right-leaning) sources was allowed, so long as the original poster stated some opinion about the piece.

my opinion, based on what i read, was that we need to work harder and i stated such. if i've violated a rule, perhaps you could enlighten me as to the wording of it. i made an honest effort to find it.

i guess, yeah, i was defensive when it was implied that i "buy my toby keith at wal mart" and accused of "drive by" posting...

it's no big deal. i spend 3 or 4 hours a night reading here and there are some powerful voices. it gives me a lot of faith in the future of our country. but i can also accept that there are paranoid and elitist assholes here that snap at anyone who violates their little insulated world.

carry on...

truth isnt painful to me good or bad. as you said, i clearly heard, just means we have to get to work. as others have said, can be because they knew kerry was gonna win and didnt bother or waiting for election. i know amarillo had really poor turnout for democrat. there are a couple reasons, knew kerry was going to win adn we wanted a republican area man to win the state senate, we only had republicans run. we had to chose which side to vote for

:thumbsup:

Very gullible in your acceptance of this spin from the WT or insincere.

Instead of choosing to respond to the more thoughtful responses on this thread, like my first one, you choose instead to launch a sanctimonious, defensive diatribe on the entire site because of a few barbs that you recieved. Why is that? If you wanted thoughtful discussion, why didn't you engage in it with those who posted thoughtful remarks?

i was comforted by what you said and it made sense. i guess i didn't respond because i came home and read through the thread and was amazed that so many people were implying i was a disruptor.

but you make a good point and i should have thanked you for your insight.

i also appreciate your fluent use of the word 'sanctimonious'. and if i remember my middle school vocabulary class, if you say it once more, it's yours...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you've been reading DU as you said, you should be aware that the Wash Times is a Moonie RW Bush-loving rag.

and turnout was high up in every state where it was still contested with Kerry

Do you know anything about this Moonie paper? I think you probably do.

if it is, i stand corrected and apologize for posting it. the statistical data is from the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. are they a right-wing think tank or something? if so, again please correct me.

if they're not, and their statistics are verifiable, then i don't see where the problem lies. if they pad or spin their statistics, then that seems to be a matter for debate and clarification, not impugning my character. but maybe that's easier.

i promise (belieeeeve me) to never post anything from them again.

but if rev. moon's influence means that concrete mathematical figures undergo some insidious transformation between the source and their printing presses, then he's got some hella mojo going on.

and when we're talking about reporting facts, not editorializing, your logic would dictate that if they reported a dog had burst into flames in times square, it would be a lie, regardless of whether 1000 people witnessed it.

so, to recap for my personal benefit: anything in washington times = lie.

got it.

thanks.

And anyone who questions your sources = "paranoid and elitist assholes"

But then again, I would rather be be a paranoid, elitist asshole than a sanctimonious asshole. :P

were extremely well attended. In some places they were running out of ballots.

Sounds like they don't give a damn, doesn't it? I hope this hurts Repub senatorial candidates.

"Only an estimated 10.3 million citizens ... nationally participated in the selection of Sen. John Kerry as the Democratic nominee," it said. That constituted just 11.4 percent of the electorate, The Republican presidential primary turnout was the lowest on record. An estimated 4 million voters, or 6.6 percent of the eligible electorate in the 11 states that held primaries went to the polls. But, unlike the crowded field of candidates in the Democratic primaries, President Bush was assured of renomination."

Welcome to DU~

The Washington Times is an overtly right wing rag, owned by the "Reverend" Moon. It is usually the only major newpaper to make reference to the "Committee for the Study of the American Electorate" -- because this is a lap-dog organization that serves solely right-wing disinformation interests. Nonetheless, USA Today (not exactly Mother Jones) picked up the story as well, primarily due to the fact it was peddled through Gannett, too. (Press contacts are key to effective disinformation.)

Note of interest: The Gannett reporter, however, had the grace of quoting a DNC spokesperson:

A Democratic National Committee spokesman said his party is encouraged by the fact that turnout increased over 2000 levels in virtually every primary state so far.

The CSAE has received almost its only funding from "The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation," an almost neofascist right-wing funding source.

Curtis Gans is the Director of the of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. Gans (and the "Center") were part of the Disinformation Brigade called out in November 2000. (See CNN SPINterview)


It's also interesting to note that the CSAE's website (if not the front organization itself) is almost defunct (http://www.gspm.org/csae/index.html).

Curtis Gans is another interesting story ... but we'll leave that for another time.

thanks for the info, tahiti. it's nice to be educated and i appreciate you taking the time to post this.

-- http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-09-voter-turnout_x.htm
Democratic turnout — at 11.4% — was the third lowest on record, although it was higher than in the past two presidential election years. Democratic primary voters were united by their intense dislike of President Bush, but seemed to see little difference in the policy positions of the competing Democrats, according to the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. <snip>

Democrats may have made a major mistake in front-loading their primaries to choose a nominee quickly, Gans said. Polls taken during the primaries showed that 20% to 30% of American voters do not know enough about Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry — the presumptive Democratic nominee — to have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him
• 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, when 10 states held primaries or caucuses.

• Vermont recorded its second highest primary turnout ever — 16.5% — on Super Tuesday, as voters went to the polls to give their former governor, Howard Dean, his only Democratic primary victory.

• The best Democratic participation was in states that didn't share their Election Day with any other state: New Hampshire, Iowa and Wisconsin. Voters in those states got more direct attention from candidates than voters in states that held their primaries on the same day as other states.

• To boost turnout, the report recommends lengthening the primary process so that voters have four months rather than six weeks to get to know the candidates and become engaged in the election.

This is the most energized democratic base in about 70 years and everyone knows it. The only reason that the turnout was low was because this nomination was wrapped up so quickly and so one sided.

Yes, with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, and maybe a couple of others, turnout hasn't been very good.
You can easily check out almost any state by going to that states, secretary of state web-site.
This ain't the "moonie times" talkin'.
Please go check out the facts.
Google any states democratic presidential primary and you can easily get the facts , state by state.