The Conservative Cave

Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2008 => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 11:47:44 AM

Title: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 11:47:44 AM
in 2004 (according to CNN), 121,000,000 people voted for president.  while they are still counting dead people in cuyahoga county right now, the turnout for 2008 doesn't appear as though it will eclipse that mark.  at the moment we are at 119,000,000, plus whatever bob barr and that crazy woman may have managed to scrape together.

whatever else may have happened, this is not the "turnout tsunami" that was being foretold.  first time voters turned out in about the same numbers as they did in 2004.  so did notoriously elusive "youth vote".

there was nothing innovative or fundamentally new about what happened last night. we lost because a lot of the exact same people that voted for the republican in 2004 went for the other guy in 2008.  I think we need to keep this in mind as we try to dig ourselves out of this hole that we are in. 

Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Hawkgirl on November 05, 2008, 12:10:35 PM
Fox just aired a 122 million in 2004 vs 136 million last night.
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 12:10:51 PM

to this same point, mccain lost almost 20% of the people that voted for bush in 2004. 

nail.  coffin.

and it couldn't be any more more glaringly obvious than it is in indiana, where a 500,000+ vote win in 2004 became a narrow defeat (20,000 votes or so, it appears) in 2008.

there was obviously the typical fraud going on in gary/lake county, but still. 

Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 12:17:42 PM
Fox just aired a 122 million in 2004 vs 136 million last night.

fox said a lot of things last night that they had to unsay.  they were virtually unwatchable from 10:00 on.
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Hawkgirl on November 05, 2008, 12:20:01 PM
They just aired that 5 minutes ago with Rove.
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: RightCoast on November 05, 2008, 12:22:07 PM
fox said a lot of things last night that they had to unsay.  they were virtually unwatchable from 10:00 on.

Not to mention their website was not working at all for me - I don't know about anybody else but about the 7:30-8:00 mark when the first real polls closed I got very sporadic and inaccurate updates.
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 12:29:59 PM
They just aired that 5 minutes ago with Rove.

good for rove.  he was a little erratic at times last night, too.  he needs to end his broadcast career, and sign on to the palin campaign, or the jindal campaign.

another post-disaster attempt at amusement on an otherwise gloomy day . . . according to opensecrets.org, obama drew $639,000,000 in campaign donations.  if he gets 62,000,000 votes, that means that he paid $10+ apiece for them.  he could have taken them all to a movie.  that may be unfair, since I think that includes the primaries;  if you throw in those 17,000,000 votes, he only paid them $8+ each. 

this probably only matters because you can't run a government on a limited budget if you are used to running your campaign with an endless supply of free money.  um, I hope no one believed (no one here did, I know) that claptrap about 95% of everyone getting a taxcut, and everything being fine . . .  :whatever:



Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 12:31:03 PM
Not to mention their website was not working at all for me - I don't know about anybody else but about the 7:30-8:00 mark when the first real polls closed I got very sporadic and inaccurate updates.

they jazzed themselves into trouble with that insanely flash hyper map.  it didn't work for most of the night.

Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Zeus on November 05, 2008, 01:03:37 PM
Personally I think "low voter turnout" is just another meme.

Think about it for a moment. A country with a population of 350 million people have over 100 million turnout at the polls. Now out of the 350 million people back out the children, ineligible felons, ineligible immigrants legal/illegal etc etc. Suddenly 100 million turning out to vote is no way in hell a low voter turnout.
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: RightCoast on November 05, 2008, 01:04:21 PM
they jazzed themselves into trouble with that insanely flash hyper map.  it didn't work for most of the night.



Figures.  Liberals get to make out like bandits, Palin can be said to be a non-issue, even though CNN could have called the race back in September if it wasn't for her. And even Faux looks foolish and immature on the big night.
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 01:07:07 PM
Figures.  Liberals get to make out like bandits, Palin can be said to be a non-issue, even though CNN could have called the race back in September if it wasn't for her. And even Faux looks foolish and immature on the big night.

fox kept going on and on and on about their freaking graphical gizmos.  the "launcing pad", or whatever. :whatever:  gimme tim russert and his whiteboard any day of the week.

Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: RightCoast on November 05, 2008, 01:45:42 PM
fox kept going on and on and on about their freaking graphical gizmos.  the "launcing pad", or whatever. :whatever:  gimme tim russert and his whiteboard any day of the week.



That's when I ended up turning them off about 9:00 they were still mentioning  the stupid thing.
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: overlord on November 05, 2008, 02:13:37 PM
good for rove.  he was a little erratic at times last night, too.  he needs to end his broadcast career, and sign on to the palin campaign, or the jindal campaign.

another post-disaster attempt at amusement on an otherwise gloomy day . . . according to opensecrets.org, obama drew $639,000,000 in campaign donations.  if he gets 62,000,000 votes, that means that he paid $10+ apiece for them.  he could have taken them all to a movie.  that may be unfair, since I think that includes the primaries;  if you throw in those 17,000,000 votes, he only paid them $8+ each. 

this probably only matters because you can't run a government on a limited budget if you are used to running your campaign with an endless supply of free money.  um, I hope no one believed (no one here did, I know) that claptrap about 95% of everyone getting a taxcut, and everything being fine . . .  :whatever:





Jindal/Palin in 2012? :hyper:
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: overlord on November 05, 2008, 02:14:58 PM
Jindal/Palin in 2012? :hyper:

Holy shit!! 

http://www.zazzle.com/jindal_palin_2012_bumpersticker-128139053855621814
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 02:16:12 PM
Jindal/Palin in 2012? :hyper:

either way works fine for me.  and you have to believe that they are both already making plans in that direction. 
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 02:18:24 PM
Holy shit!! 

http://www.zazzle.com/jindal_palin_2012_bumpersticker-128139053855621814

I like this one (http://mugs.cafepress.com/item/palinjindal-2012-mug/302523984) a little better  :-)

Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: lastparker on November 05, 2008, 02:35:27 PM
No matter the final voting numbers, I know that the blacks came out in record numbers.
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Chris_ on November 05, 2008, 02:37:21 PM
good for rove.  he was a little erratic at times last night, too.  he needs to end his broadcast career, and sign on to the palin campaign, or the jindal campaign.

another post-disaster attempt at amusement on an otherwise gloomy day . . . according to opensecrets.org, obama drew $639,000,000 in campaign donations.  if he gets 62,000,000 votes, that means that he paid $10+ apiece for them.  he could have taken them all to a movie.  that may be unfair, since I think that includes the primaries;  if you throw in those 17,000,000 votes, he only paid them $8+ each. 

this probably only matters because you can't run a government on a limited budget if you are used to running your campaign with an endless supply of free money.  um, I hope no one believed (no one here did, I know) that claptrap about 95% of everyone getting a taxcut, and everything being fine . . .  :whatever:





They could all watch the appropriate movies:

(http://files.list.co.uk/images/2008/08/21/producers.jpg)
(http://blog.newsweek.com/photos/levelup/images/original/Poster-for-_2200_The-Star-Chamber_2200_.aspx)
Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: Wretched Excess on November 05, 2008, 03:40:54 PM
No matter the final voting numbers, I know that the blacks came out in record numbers.

comparing exit polls (since that's all we have) for the last two elections, african american turnout was up 2%, from 11% in 2004 to 13% in 2008.   but there was a big increase in the intensity of african american support for obama.  he received 96% of the vote yesterday, whereas kerry "only" got 88% of the black vote in 2004.


Title: Re: The massive turnout that wasn't
Post by: TheSarge on November 06, 2008, 07:25:14 AM
The Democrat party didn't get their filibuster proof majority in the Senate and didn't pick up even half of the seats in the House they and the so called "experts" said they would.

The Democrat Party got lucky. They ran their dream candidate a socialist appeaser whith shady ties to domestic terrorism embezzlers and a group being indicted for vote fraud...and they had the media in this country playing CYA for them the entire way...glossing over or completely ignoring very alarming and frightening things about their candidates past and present associations and beliefs.

The Republican party ran someone we couldn't stand most didn't want to vote for and acted half the time like he didn't want to be there either.

Technically the race shouldn't have even been close.

Especiall with Bob Barr, Ralph nader and Moonbat McKinney taking votes away from both sides.

But it was.