Jan 09 2008

Dem Turnout Continues To Crush GOP

Published by at 11:27 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

When we were done with Iowa I noted a very disturbing trend from 2000/2004 to 2008. The trend was enormous gains in Democrat voter numbers while the GOP stayed flat. Here are the numbers I computed after Iowa:

The dems increased turn out by a whopping 89% in 4 years, while the GOP increased theirs by only 28% in 8 years. We don’t have GOP numbers from 2004 because they did not hold caucuses, but the numbers are pathetic. If you average the increase over the period you see 22%/year increase for the dems and 3.5%/year for the GOP.

The sad news has been repeated in New Hampshire which explains why New Hampshire went Blue since 2000. Here are the turnout NH numbers from 2000 and 2008 by party:

Democratic ballots cast: 156,862
Republican ballots cast: 239,523
2008 (Secretary of State prediction)
Democratic ballots cast: 260,000
Republican ballots cast: 240,000

Let me compute the trend numbers again. The Democrats saw an increase of 66% from 2000 to 2008, or an average of 8%/yr increase. Also, in 2000 the Democrat primary voters were 65% of the total GOP primary voters (which tells me the GOP had the vast majority of the independents who make up 44% of NH voters and are a larger segment than either the Dems or GOP).

Now look at the anemic GOP numbers. The percent increase over 8 years is not even worth computing (it is tenths of a percent). But even worse the Dem Voter block is now larger than the GOP – which can only mean a massive shift of independents. Party turnout alone cannot account for those increases in voter-share since 2000. NH is worse the Iowa for the GOP. My guess is this trend will not subside or be an outlier event.

Again I must ask the hardliners in the GOP – do you really think throwing insults at moderates helps???

Update: The final tallies are even worse than the estimates abovw. The GOP numbers did not move at all and the dems had a blow out:

With ballots from all but one small town reporting, an Associated Press count showed 526,671 residents voted in the Democratic and Republican primaries, breaking the previous record for a presidential primary of 396,385 in 2000.

With only the town of Windsor yet to report, there were 287,821 Democratic ballots cast and 238,850 Republican ones.

Looking at the 2000 numbers that is actually a net loss for the GOP – which is pathetic. The new Dem number is 83% increase from 2000, which is right in line with what they saw in Iowa. 83% increase compared to a net loss for the GOP! Even worse, in 2000 Dem primary voters were 65% the size of the much larger GOP turnout. Now in 2008 the GOP is only 83% of the Dem voter turnout. The deniers can pretend this is meaningless – but the math is brutally cold and un-objective. The GOP is dying and it can thank the hardliners who throw insults more than solutions.

And of course these 80+% increases in Dem support while the GOP barely maintains are not due to the physical migration of voters into the states. Besides the ludicrous model of all new residents being Dems only, the fact is neither IA or NH has seen growth at levels that would be reflected in 80% increases in turnouts in primaries (where many people do not vote). I guess denial is a wonderful thing, so many seem to enjoy it.

38 responses so far

38 Responses to “Dem Turnout Continues To Crush GOP”

  1. AJStrata says:

    Actually, the 2000 dem primary was heavily contested (Bill Bradley). There were many who did not think Gore would work after Clinton’s fiasco.

  2. AJStrata says:


    This both NH and Iowa now – not just NH.

  3. NewEnglandDevil says:

    AJ – FWIW – in open style primaries (as a registered independent), I’ve tended to vote in the opposite party primary than the party I intended to vote for in the election. That way I could vote for the least unfavorable candidate to oppose my chosen candidate. I have no idea if any other independents ever use that calculus.


  4. crosspatch says:

    “What concerns me is the price Repubs will pay in the southwest for being so stiff on immigration. ”

    That is true. Arizona’s anti-migrant policies are already starting to hurt the economy there. Companies are pulling out of Arizona, and others are canceling expansion plans there. And the funny thing is that more farms in Arizona and Southern California and just moving to Mexico. Then the produce becomes an import.

    Americans are so emotional and yet so dumb sometimes. Sure, it isn’t the best of situations to have so many illegals here, but the benefit is having lots of produce grown right here in the US that we don’t have to import from Mexico … 20 miles away. See, all these laws are doing is encouraging farmers to move their fields a few miles across the border and everyone’s food bill goes up in the US. So everyone is a little bit poorer … but by golly there aren’t any illegals around!

  5. Jules Roy says:

    “The far right destroyed the GOP”

    Actually it was George W Bush and his neocon allies who have been running the show this past seven years. They have made America universally hated. Their empire building and big government policies are destroying the US dollar. They have created more divisions among conservatives. Their immigration policy is destroying the cohesion of what was once a nation but is now a balkanized multicultural society in PERMANENT conflict with itself. Something about a house divided comes to mind….

    Most non-Americans think it is a good thing to see the party of permanent war for American world domination and Greater Israel destroyed. Unfortunately the neocons will escape and find refuge elsewhere. Neoconservatism is a parasite that has destroyed its host (ie., the GOP).

  6. The Macker says:

    That sounds fascistic.

    Using our power to help others is not imperialistic. Protecting the only democracy in the ME is noble. And since when should we care what non-Americans think?

  7. WWS says:

    Oh how nice, an Isreali-hating neo-nazi showed up. Hold on, Jules, I hear David Duke calling you home.

  8. Jules Roy says:

    That sounds fascistic.”

    Opposition to neoconservatism is fascistic? You do, of course, realize that neocon roots are in Trotskyism, right? The Trots and Stalinists have a long history of calling their opponents ‘fascists’. That way they don’t have to bother making an argument. Instead you dehumanize your opponents. It would appear that they’ve taught you well.

    “Using our power to help others is not imperialistic.”

    How old are you? Politicians aren’t about helping others.

    “Protecting the only democracy in the ME is noble”

    There’s nothing noble about ethnic cleansing. Just before Annapolis Olmert’s government announced plans to build more apartments on occupied Palestinian land (Maale Adumim). Believe it or not when members of an ethnic group or nation who are rooted to a specific piece of land they get upset when you force them from it and then replace them with colonists of another ethnic group or nation. It may be one of the reasons the Israelis oppose open borders.

    Besides what do you mean by democracy? Is Iran a democracy? Chicago, where the deceased vote?

  9. Jules Roy says:

    “Oh how nice, an Isreali-hating neo-nazi showed up. Hold on, Jules, I hear David Duke calling you home.”

    You are right. Everyone on earth who opposes the Israel First agenda of the neocons is really just a David Duke clone. What amazes me is how many billions of them around the world there are yet these neo-Nazis can’t seem to get elected anywhere. Strange.

    Though it is interesting that of all my remarks you singled out the reference to Israel. I see where your priorities lie. Or maybe you can’t put up a moral defence for American world domination so you look for something you can use to shut down debate. It’s a tactic that tends to work. Just ask Je$$e Jack$on and CAIR.

    “And since when should we care what non-Americans think?”

    But I thought you said you wanted help others rather than being imperialistic. The mask slips.

  10. Jules Roy says:

    The worst candidate by far is the independent’s favourite John McCain.

    Not only does McCain support wars in the Middle East he supports them everywhere!

    I give a McCain presidency two years before he gets the country into a showdown, possibly a war, with Russia.

  11. WWS says:

    The nonsense from Jules doesn’t just sound fascistic, it is. This is the same old stormfront/David Duke/KKK nonsense that’s been around for years. Most of these guys latched onto the Ron Paul campaign and are now sore and venting since they see he’s going nowhere.

    go give DD a big sig heil, Jules!

  12. Terrye says:


    You sound like Ron Paul fan, don’t you have a militia meeting to go too?

  13. Terrye says:


    The truth is until Bush became President the Republicans were not in a majority. Historically, they rarely have been. The Democrats usually outnumber them, however, a lot of those Democrats tend to vote for the Republican when he is running for President, like Reagan.

    I read over at Captains Quarters that Rasmussen said the Republicans had actually seen a small uptake in over all party identification since 2006 and are within a couple percent of the Democrats.

    However, it is true that righties like our friend Jules here do scare people away.

    As far as the Miers thing, the personal attacks against that woman were tactless and cruel. Add to that the fact that the same people who swore the President had a right to his nominee had a cow as soon as he came up with a nominee who was not on their short list. The truth is she might have been a fine justice, but thanks to the loud mouth chattering class, we will never really know that.

  14. The Macker says:

    “neocons” are simply ex-leftists who became conservative.

    Bush’s robust policy to defeat terrorism and help freedom loving people is only “empire building” in some people’s mind. Clearly, we are laying the foundation for their own self government in Iraq and Afghanistan and encouraging same in Lebanon, Palestine and Iran.

    Anyone who complains about losing ethnic “cohesion” here and Israel’s defensive actions there, deserves some kind of label.

  15. kathie says:

    I’m thinking that this country is in great need of Statesmanship.

  16. Bikerken says:

    It constantly amazes me how the leftists tell us that unless we kiss the ass of Latinos that they will hate us and never vote for a republican again. So we should give them everything they want and they will be staunch republican voters. First of all, illegals shouldn’t be voting anyways. Second, if legal latino citizens are going to vote against those of us who only want legal immigration, they are not worth a rat’s ass, they don’t care about this country as much as they care about latinos and are never going to support a conservative anyway. Third, although you constantly say that illegals don’t vote and latinos only want to become good american citizens, you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that even you don’t believe what you are saying. Who do you libs think you are fooling?

  17. AJStrata says:


    its amazing how people like you say kiss your ass or else….

    We never say kiss Latino’s asses – we say pass comprehensive immigration reform and forget about deporting them.

    And that is when the insults fly from those who really want THEIR asses kissed.

    Tancredo-ites don’t have the votes to get their way. When will they face up to that? It is not forcing anything. It is respecting democracy, where you lose but respect the process and those in it.

  18. The Macker says:

    You are free to assess the worth of your opponents, but they are free to assess your’s. And it doesn’t take much effort to understand why legal hispanic immigrants and their descendants would feel solidarity with new hispanic immigrants, even illegal.

    Your stiff necked approach to immigration has little to do with “what’s best for the country” and more to do with what you are able to understand.