2008 Election Turnout Myth Debunked
No record voter turnout, folks. Move along, nothing to see, no history made here.
Simple explanation:Â It was disenchanted Republicans who, by staying home or not voting at the top of the ticket, handed the Presidency to Barack Obama. (h/t – Instapundit)
Turnout in last week’s election increased from four years ago but fell far short of some forecasts largely because many Republican voters either stayed home or left blank the presidential section of their ballots.
In states won by President-elect Barack Obama, turnout was more than five percentage points higher than in states won by Republican John McCain, according to a Globe analysis of data compiled by a pair of researchers who study voting patterns in US elections.
Both Curtis Gans, director of American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate, and Michael McDonald, a professor at George Mason University, have conducted state-by-state reviews of unofficial returns, which are still being tabulated in many states. Each had predicted significantly higher turnout than materialized on Election Day.
“I looked at the significant increase in registration and the long lines at the early-voting polling places,” said Gans, who has been studying turnout rates for 36 years. “It turned out the intensity was one-sided; it was on the Democrats’ side.”
Hey, Sarah Palin tried her best to generate Republican excitement — and she did. But even I had a hard time marking a check next to John McCain on my ballot.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
33 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You needed a study to tell you this?
It was entirely predictable.
Comment by Dave — November 14, 2008 @ 6:29 pm - November 14, 2008
I actually got involved full boar in the McCain campaign BECAUSE of Sarah Palin, not McCain! I really made calls and voted for HER over the old guy. She is the future and I think it is so amazing how the left and the GOP establishment is trying to blame her for a lousy campaign the old guy ran. But, a lot of people just could not vote for the old guy.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — November 14, 2008 @ 8:08 pm - November 14, 2008
The sad truth is many Republicans could only pull the lever for McCain because of Palin – certainly true for me. You can’t win an election when 1 party is just voting against the other guy and not for their own. Kerry in ’04 was beyond dreadful, but most Republicans voted FOR Bush.
I don’t know if Republicans will learn our lesson. I won’t vote for another Dem Lite like McCain. I totally understand conservatives at least leaving the top of the ticket blank.
Comment by Peg C. — November 14, 2008 @ 8:30 pm - November 14, 2008
Whoa, conservatives are really stupid.
All these idiots like Rush and Sean are like “Wah, Wah, Wah, We need a true conservative, I’m not voting.”
If they really wanted a true conservative, they would have voted for McCain because Barack sucks! Why do they like him so much?
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — November 14, 2008 @ 9:10 pm - November 14, 2008
Also Sarah Palin is a lot worse than McCain. Talk about a true conservative: she raised taxes on oil companies (the same policy Barack endorses) and did other non-conservative stuff. Why do conservatives like her? (Answer if your conservative, but only if your TRUE CONSERVATIVE (whatever that means).)
I bet a lot of ppl voted for her cuz she liked to talk about Bill Ayers. Newsflash: CNN might not tell you this, but Bill Ayers is not taxes.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — November 14, 2008 @ 9:12 pm - November 14, 2008
The reality is you can’t win any national election when you lose Hispanics 2-1, when you lose youth voters 2-1. Which, BTW, more voters aged 18-29 voted (18% of the electorate) than over the age of 65 (16%).
The Republicans need to figure out why their message is toxic to those demographics.
Comment by Erik — November 14, 2008 @ 9:33 pm - November 14, 2008
All these idiots like Rush and Sean are like “Wah, Wah, Wah, We need a true conservative, I’m not voting.â€
Can’t speak for Rush, but I know Sean was on the air every day pulling for McCain, and even moved his show to Ohio and Pennsylvania in the last weeks before the election to push for McCain.
Why do conservatives like her?
We admire Sarah Palin because she isn’t a child of privilege. She came from very humble beginnings, a family that lived in a cabin and hunted for their winter food. On her own strength of will, she rose to become mayor, a member of oil and gas commission, and a governor with an 80% approval rating who confronted and mucked out the corruption in her own party.
And she did this with a wonderful family beside her, that lives their values. She didn’t abort her “imperfect” child, but viewed him as a blessing.
If she were a Democrat with the same record, the MSM would have gushed over her as a fresh face, a reformer, a rugged outdoorsman who broke open barriers for women and praised her climb to the top.
And when the elites hate on Sarah Palin, they hate on all of us who weren’t born to privilege and had to make it through life on our own efforts.
Comment by V the K — November 14, 2008 @ 9:37 pm - November 14, 2008
I don’t think I ever heard Rush say he wasn’t voting McCain… that doesn’t mean that he didn’t complain about him (as many of us stupid conservatives did).
Comment by SoCalRobert — November 14, 2008 @ 10:43 pm - November 14, 2008
So basically, you don’t care about her policies.
McCain takes on his own party, and he’s NOT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE.
Palin does, and she’s a reformer.
But I’d like to hear you address why she raised taxes on big oil even though that’s not what a true conservative would do.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — November 14, 2008 @ 11:53 pm - November 14, 2008
Since the state (i.e. citizens) of Alaska OWNS the oil, perhaps the tax increase was simply the state raising the price of a commodity that was fetching record prices on the world market (just tossing that out… I don’t know the entire story).
Some of that money was returned to the citizens with an extra royalty payment ($1200 per head, I think, in addition to a $2000 payment).
I like Palin but I will confess to knowing little about her opinions on specific issues (I can deduce some things that way). She just wasn’t in the public eye long enough. We’ll have time now to see what she thinks.
As far as McCain not being a “true conservative”… on many issues, he certainly is.
When it comes to taking on the GOP’s profligate spending – kudos. But when it comes to issues like campaign finance “reform” and immigration – he’s wrong.
I don’t agree with the “stay at home Republicans” who want ideological purity. As I commented regards Prop 8, it’s not possible to get everything you want in a democracy. You do the best you can.
Comment by SoCalRobert — November 15, 2008 @ 1:33 am - November 15, 2008
Which is why the media called states for Comrade Obama without a single vote being counted or with less than 5% of precincts reporting. That’s why they dig calling Florida before the polls in the panhandle close. Call me naive, but I think the folks who try to convince us that elections are over before they’re over, or in some cases before they begin, should have a special place set aside on the 8th Circle, Bolgia 1.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 15, 2008 @ 2:49 am - November 15, 2008
Mitchell, forgive me, but the money Alaska gets from the oil industry comes through leasing land and mineral rights — which belong to the people of Alaska — to oil companies. There is nothing un-conservative about renegotiating contracts for production rights, which is what Palin did.
Now, what other supposed “un-conservative” things did she do? Lowering property taxes? Lowering sales taxes? Balancing the budget? Cutting spending? Her moratorium on the gas tax?
Perhaps you refer to the sports stadium she had built in Wasilla as mayor? Except that stadium was put to a vote of the people, and they wanted it knowing full well it would put them in debt. Cities do this all the time with large projects because their limited budgets dont allow them to pay out of pocket for big projects. Again, nothing un-conservative about it.
Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2008 @ 3:56 am - November 15, 2008
You mean the guy who just rallied behind a $700 Billion bailout that now isnt even going to be used for what we were told it must be used on right away or the entire economy would collapse?
Hmmm, a billion dollars in earmarks, or a $700 billion dollar socialist hand out? Guess which spending concerns me more?
Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2008 @ 4:01 am - November 15, 2008
Well, lets look at WHAT each of them worked to reform. Shall we?
John McCain “reformed” campaign finance laws limiting political speech in order to prevent corruption. According to McCain you see, it is Americans trying to protect their interests through campaign contributions, and not the limitless power that congress has allowed themselves, that corrupts politicians.
He also tried to “reform” immigration law by insisting everyone who came here illegally should be made a citizen, and that anyone who supports upholding immigration law is racist or xenophobic.
Palin on the other hand, defeated a corrupt governor, investigated corruption in her own party, signed sweeping ethics legislation to end self-dealing, and cut the size and cost of her own office.
One sure sounds more conservative than the other to me.
Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2008 @ 4:25 am - November 15, 2008
How, exactly, is it thus?
What’s more, how does it help these people to raise corporate taxes to the point that even more jobs are shipped overseas? How do they get security from a military gutted from stem to stern? How do they benefit from “windfall profit taxes” that takes money away from their retirement accounts? How do they benefit from the abolition of secret ballots? How do they benefit from higher prices to pay for the punitive taxes or to pay unions more money? How do they benefit from losing jobs so their employers can pay a fraction of the workforce higher minimum wage? How do they benefit from college professors and teacher’s unions keeping them stupid? How do they benefit from being forced to keep their children in colossal failures hysterically called “schools”? How do they benefit from over $1 Trillion in new spending? How do they benefit from being divided into classes and victimhood status?
How do they benifit from liberals deleterious treatment of gays, blacks, Hispanics etc?
How do gays benefit from calling people nigger? How do gays benefit from the anti-gay legislation from liberals? How do Jews benefit from the left’s anti-Semitism and hatred for Israel? How do blacks benefit from being crushed under the liberal heel? How do Seasoned Citizens benefit from the left’s obvious hatred of them?
I can go on and on, of course. I do hope that you grow a pair and answer my questions.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 15, 2008 @ 4:40 am - November 15, 2008
Better than any of that, how in the hell will ANY of us benefit from a Call me if you need me president????
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 15, 2008 @ 4:41 am - November 15, 2008
So basically, you don’t care about her policies.
From what I’ve seen, her policies are first rate. Energy independence and economic growth through development of domestic resources. Cutting wasteful government spending. Firing public employees that are not working in the public’s interest. Strong national security. What’s not to love?
McCain takes on his own party, and he’s NOT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE.
Because he takes on his party from the left. He attacks Republicans who want secure borders as racists and “ch*ck*nsh*ts.” He supports government regulation of campaign speech that cripples conservatives groups but gives unions and George Soros a free pass. He threw constructionist judges under the bus to appease the Democrats. He attacks businessmen as unpatriotic. (“I led for patriotism, not profit.” as he spat at Mitt Romney in the primaries.)
Palin does, and she’s a reformer.
Because she goes after real corruption. She doesn’t just bash conservatives to curry favor with the media.
But I’d like to hear you address why she raised taxes on big oil even though that’s not what a true conservative would do.
Under Governor Palin, the state law to tax oil companies was changed, and the legislature approved a higher rate than she had asked for. To me, the fact that Alaska has no income tax, no tax on retirement income, no state sales tax, and that Sarah Palin was able to stash aside $6 billion in reserve cash at a time when other states were running deficits and asking for bailouts … kind of sort of balances out the state increasing taxes on a natural resource.
Comment by V the K — November 15, 2008 @ 8:58 am - November 15, 2008
The Republicans need to figure out why their message is toxic to those demographics.
Easy; it involves working hard, following the law, and earning your own money.
What Chairman O did was to promise these 18 – 29 year olds that basically the government would act just like their parents; free food, free rent, free education, and no expectation of work or actually having to do anything.
And as for Hispanics, of course those who came to this country illegally and are registered to vote by groups like ACORN illegally are not going to support a party that insists that people follow the law and not steal the identities of hardworking Americans. Heck, Barack Obama himself openly supported his aunt remaining in the country illegally, receiving welfare illegally, being employed by one of his Democrat governmental cronies illegally, and receiving free healthcare at taxpayer expense illegally.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2008 @ 1:20 pm - November 15, 2008
#13: AE – I revise and extend my remarks to exclude the bailout-palooza… a bipartisan fiasco if there ever was one.
Comment by SoCalRobert — November 15, 2008 @ 2:09 pm - November 15, 2008
Wait, so now trying to secure the borders makes you anti-securing the borders?
McCain introduced an immigration bill that would have secured the borders.
But the conservatives shot it down, so now immigration is still not solved.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — November 15, 2008 @ 3:40 pm - November 15, 2008
McCain introduced an immigration bill that would have secured the borders.
No. McCain introduced an immigration bill that promised to secure the borders, but guaranteed amnesty. In the details of the McCain-Kennedy bill, we find out that additional border fencing was made conditional on consultation with the Mexican government. When John Cornyn pointed out that the enforcement provisions were weak, McCain famously dropped the F Bomb.
Meanwhile, all illegals got automatic “provisional” legal status within 24 hours of filling out an application, with no safeguards against forged papers or identity theft. John McCain even fought to exempt illegals from paying back taxes or being made ineligible for amnesty if they had committed identity theft.
Comment by V the K — November 15, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - November 15, 2008
No, McCain introduced a bill that would have secured the border and given immigrants a path to citizenship. It wouldn’t have just given everyone citizenship.
Now, you being the fiscal conservative you are, probably wanted the government to spend money investigating EVERY SINGLE Latino in America until they find ALL 12 MILLION ILLEGALS.
Seriously, do you actually think we should deport every illegal immigrant even though we don’t know who most of them are?
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — November 15, 2008 @ 7:49 pm - November 15, 2008
McCain even admitted that no one believed the government was serious about securing the border. The government promised to secure the border in exchange for Amnesty in 1986, and it didn’t happen then either.
McCain also didn’t want a physical barrier at the border. He wanted a virtual fence, which turned out to be a complete and utter failure.
You ought not make assumptions about what I want and don’t want. I wanted the borders secured, I wanted illegals to be ineligible for public assistance, and I wanted severe penalties for employers who hired illegals. Thus, the illegals would have an incentive to self-deport, with minimal federal intervention.
One class of illegals I would have wanted deported were criminals and gang members. The McCain-Kennedy bill would have made it actually harder to deport gang members and criminals, because the z-visas they were entitled to would have given them legal rights that would make the process of deporting them much more complex, expensive, and time-consuming.
No person, realistically expected the system proposed by McCain-Kennedy to actually work. ICE has lost track of 700,000 illegal alien fugitives who already had deportation orders. And they were supposed to keep track of 12 million of them? Get real.
Comment by V the K — November 15, 2008 @ 9:30 pm - November 15, 2008
Mitchell,
You ought to stop putting words in everyone else’s mouths, its getting you into trouble.
No I dont think the government should deport the 12 million (low estimate) illegal immigrants. I think they should do what they did under the Eisenhower adminstration, which worked very well, and increase accountability on employers. Make it easy for employers to check the citizenship status of anyone they wish to hire, and then punish those who break the law by hiring illegals. Turns out when they cant get jobs they not only leave on their own for the most part, they stop coming as well. As I said, it worked very effectively when Eisenhower did it.
And contrary to your assessment, because conservatives shot down the shamnesty bill (actually the vast majority of Americans opposed it, not just conservatives), the border fence is being built, and 20 million illegal aliens dont get the right to stay here by simply filling out a form (otherwise known as amnesty).
Comment by American Elephant — November 16, 2008 @ 1:31 am - November 16, 2008
Mitchell is a twit, disingenuous and a troll. McCain is not a reformer – he has made common cause with liberals while biting the conservative base in the ass repeatedly. Palin took on the Republican power base of corruption in Alaska, she did NOT bite conservative voters in the ass. She stands for exactly what we stand for. Does Mitchell understand the difference? Perhaps not, but perhaps he does and is just building strawmen for his liberal fantasies. No true conservative writes the utter poop that he writes.
Plenty of us conservatives voted for McCain but we hated doing it and we didn’t donate $$ — that makes a huge difference. How many McCain stickers and signs did you see? Precious few. Had we had a candidate we truly stood with and behind, both of those situations would have been completely different. I repeat, you cannot win when you are only voting against someone, not for someone. I agree with the PJ article that makes the case that Palin brought McCain way closer to winning than he otherwise would have. Can anyone think of a single other Republican veep choice that could have generated interest, let alone enthusiasm and excitment? Didn’t think so.
Comment by Peg C. — November 16, 2008 @ 10:18 am - November 16, 2008
I don’t think Mitchell is a twit or a troll. (I mean, he’s not Kevin for Set’s sake.) But I do think he needs to engage his skepticism more in considering the conventional wisdom on Sarah Palin and Comprehensive immigration reform as presented by the MSM.
And if he does engage his skepticism, he will find the Sarah Palin is not a brainless bimbo, but a woman whose accomplishments deserve respect. He will also find that McCain’s version of immigration form was woefully inadequate on border security, and would have handed out z-visas like library cards.
In my state, teenagers need six weeks of driving school, followed by six months with a learner’s permit, and a driver’s test before they can get a provisional driver’s license. Under McCain-Kennedy, an illegal would get automatic provisional amnesty within 24 hours of filling out a form. Does this seem right?
Comment by V the K — November 16, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - November 16, 2008
Mitchell is my nephew and has a unique and clever way of expressing things. So pay careful attention to his tone before taking issue with his points.
He’s wise beyond his years.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 16, 2008 @ 1:30 pm - November 16, 2008
Yes, and they stayed home or were disenchanted because Palin and McCain fed them garbage like this.
Comment by JR — November 16, 2008 @ 6:20 pm - November 16, 2008
The only excitement Sarah Palin generated amongst engaged Republicans were the heart palpitations those people felt in realizing what a monumental mistake was made in choosing her as the candidate for VP.
Comment by Kevin — November 16, 2008 @ 8:15 pm - November 16, 2008
Another of Kevin’s fantasies exploded.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2008 @ 9:12 pm - November 16, 2008
Not that I have a monopoly on my online moniker, but I want to point that the “JR” of #27 is not THIS J.R.
Comment by JR — November 16, 2008 @ 9:30 pm - November 16, 2008
29: I love how you all rail against the” liberal media”, yet you’ll reference it whenever it fits your theories. I actually believe what the Post says there (the democrats could have put up a dead dog this year and won). However, Palin did nothing but to further tick off Republicans – at least those who were clued in that 8 years of vapid, intelligence deficient president did not bode well for her candidacy. By the way, that also whacks the idea that having “executive experience” as a governor can mean squat when it comes to going from governor to president. Wasn’t Georgy-boy governor for 6 years before he became Prez?
Comment by Kevin — November 17, 2008 @ 6:40 am - November 17, 2008
LOL….the primary people Palin ticked off were woman-haters like you and Andrew Sullivan, Kevin, who are still screaming at the top of their lungs that her child was not hers and that her husband was having incestuous sex with their daughters, and were hanging effigies of her in public.
This is the typical narrative of misogynist leftists; they tried to paint Palin as stupid, they tried to trash her educational background, and they tried to play on their belief that all voters see women as idiots, just as these misogynist leftists do. That tells you one thing: they are terrified of her.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 17, 2008 @ 12:00 pm - November 17, 2008