WVa Results

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

That line of thought isn't proven out by the 2000 and 2004 vote totals. The exact same circumstances existed in 2000, and yet over 109,000 Republicans showed up to vote in the Primary. In 2004 there was even less suspense and still over 111,000 people came out to vote. The whole "McCain already has the nomination" argument just doesn't work.

Well, as you stated, 75,000 additional people voted as Democrats. And, about 100,000 less voted as Republicans. The math seems pretty clear to me.

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Help me understand why this surprises you. If McCain already has it sewn up, it seems unlikely that his supporters would go to the polls. However, it seems very likely that those who support the other candidates would come out with a protest vote.


That might be the "stretch" statement of the day. But the day's not over, so we'll have to see...

If your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain the 2000 and 2004 voter turnouts? They completely contradict what you are saying. If the presence of a presumptive nominee on the ballot was impacting voters, then we should have seen a voter turnout in the 105,000+ range just as we saw in 2000 and 2004. Instead we saw a better than 99% drop. How do you explain that???

Originally Posted by This_person

Well, as you stated, 75,000 additional people voted as Democrats. And, about 100,000 less voted as Republicans. The math seems pretty clear to me.

Well, sadly, everyone can't be right. We have Rush Limbaugh saying that his Operation CHAOS is in full swing, so some of the lack of Republican votes could be from that. We also have a state that has counted for squat in every previous primary season being in the spotlight, which draws a lot of voters who haven't voted before, so a large chunk of the 100,000 could have come from that. You also had a lot of Dems who really like the Clintons coming out to support their gal in record numbers.

So there are several reasons why the new 100,000 Dem voters cast votes last night, but I doubt you can say that 75,000 of them, or anywhere near that number, were Republicans.

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

If your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain the 2000 and 2004 voter turnouts? They completely contradict what you are saying. If the presence of a presumptive nominee on the ballot was impacting voters, then we should have seen a voter turnout in the 105,000+ range just as we saw in 2000 and 2004. Instead we saw a better than 99% drop. How do you explain that???

The cost of gas has more than doubled in just the last year. Why drive to to the polls for a done deal?

Originally Posted by aps45819

B Hussein Obama can not get enough delegates committed to clinch the nomination before the convention. It's numerically impossible, so why shouldn't he worry about getting whomped in WV?

Oh I remember, it's because the carpetbagger made a deal last year for the nomination with the super delegates

SS,DD

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Well, sadly, everyone can't be right. We have Rush Limbaugh saying that his Operation CHAOS is in full swing, so some of the lack of Republican votes could be from that. We also have a state that has counted for squat in every previous primary season being in the spotlight, which draws a lot of voters who haven't voted before, so a large chunk of the 100,000 could have come from that. You also had a lot of Dems who really like the Clintons coming out to support their gal in record numbers.

So there are several reasons why the new 100,000 Dem voters cast votes last night, but I doubt you can say that 75,000 of them, or anywhere near that number, were Republicans.

So, what is your belief of where the 100,000 went - regardless of who the nominee is? After all, Bush was clearly not a shoe-in in either election, just as McCain is not now. So, by the numbers you're reporting, there are 75,000 more democrats voting, and 100,000 less Republicans voting. And, Hillary beat the snots out of Barry, and McCain got less than show up for brunch at the Elks. Well, so did everybody else on the Republican side.

So, if it's not voter apathy, and it's not Republicans showing how much they don't want the more socialist of the two socialist candidates, what was it in your opinion?

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

SS,DD

You could make that your sig if you pulled your lips off Obama's azz long enough to type it in

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

If your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain the 2000 and 2004 voter turnouts? They completely contradict what you are saying. If the presence of a presumptive nominee on the ballot was impacting voters, then we should have seen a voter turnout in the 105,000+ range just as we saw in 2000 and 2004. Instead we saw a better than 99% drop. How do you explain that???

You may be right - who knows? But we shall see in Nov. how many votes McCain gets from WVA, and I'll bet it's more than 12.

Originally Posted by This_person

So, what is your belief of where the 100,000 went - regardless of who the nominee is? After all, Bush was clearly not a shoe-in in either election, just as McCain is not now. So, by the numbers you're reporting, there are 75,000 more democrats voting, and 100,000 less Republicans voting. And, Hillary beat the snots out of Barry, and McCain got less than show up for brunch at the Elks. Well, so did everybody else on the Republican side.

So, if it's not voter apathy, and it's not Republicans showing how much they don't want the more socialist of the two socialist candidates, what was it in your opinion?

I think it is voter apathy, but to that extent? 99% I mean that seems astronomically impossible to me. If we use IA as a model, and say 7% of those Republicans crossed over to vote Democrat for whatever reason... in fact, we'll go over the IA number and go to 10%, that only accounts for about 1,100 voters. That means about 80% stayed home, and all but 12 of the folks who did vote voted against McCain, a guy who got 12,000 protest votes in 2000.

Originally Posted by aps45819

You could make that your sig if you pulled your lips off Obama's azz long enough to type it in

SS,DD