2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTurnout in Swing States Exceeds 2008 (!!)
One of the more interesting numbers emerging from the continuing count of the 2012 Presidential election is this one: .01%. That's the margin by which the 2012 total vote in 12 designated "swing states" exceeds the total vote in those states in the 2008 election. More precisely, in 2008, 44,659,370 total votes were tallied in the twelve swing states. In 2012, at the current count, 44,665,350 votes have been tallied - an increase of roughly 6,000 votes, with more, no doubt, to come.
Let me repeat this: more people in the twelve swing state voted in 2012 than voted in 2008. Moreover, Obama's lead in those states is larger than his national lead in percentage terms, and pretty damn large in raw terms, at 1,801,140. Obama won the twelve swing states by 1.8 million votes. Just as a measure, Bush won the entire country by only 3.01 million (on edit: originally stated 2.01 million) in 2004. Needless to say, Obama won every swing state but North Carolina. Obama's margin nationally is over 4.45 million.
This was an ass-kicking. Don't let anyone tell you Obama pulled one out in a squeaker. This was a downright ass-kicking.
The media always mistook Obama's support. They misrepresented it as "enthusiasm" (a polite way of saying "unthinking fanaticism" in 2008. When they didn't see the same in 2012, they assumed Obama had lost his support. Wrong. It was never "enthusiasm." In 2008 it was joyful determination, a rebirth of progressive principles. In 2012, it was grim determination, a recognition of the importance of those principles. And that was Obama's argument both times. People make too much of "spin," as if rhetoric means deception or dishonesty. Rhetoric is simply the art of argumentation - Obama made successful arguments about the direction the country should take, both times.
I'll repeat again: more people in the twelve swing state voted in 2012 than voted in 2008. Obama, for his part, zooms toward 65 million votes overall.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHpla01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)yellowcanine
(35,702 posts)But Obama has a small lead in registered voters.
LiberalFighter
(51,170 posts)iemitsu
(3,888 posts)but (IMO) people are also sick of republican lies and bullshit. Voters are not buying that brand any longer. They are sick of a trickle-down economy that never quite waters their roots and people want a man for president, who understands them and will work to represent them, in the governments dealings with the business community. Americans see this in Obama (sometimes they see more than is really there) and they don't care if he is black.
The pundits don't see this because the system supports them well. They are identified as successful and validated by the status-quo. They believe they deserve the positions they hold and see Obama as a usurper in a house that does not belong to him.
They have convinced themselves that Obama was elected, last time, because Bush had soured Americans on republican policy and because Obama was a novelty or a fad and not because people really supported the policy positions that characterized Obama's campaign.
These are the same sorts of mediocre white men and women who sit on hiring boards and reject minority applicants "because we need the best possible candidate for the job". What they are really saying is that they need a white person for the job and that is how they assess President Obama. A token, a novelty, an affirmative action candidate, for them this is who Obama is and they can't understand anyone seeing him differently.
oswaldactedalone
(3,491 posts)Your insight is on the money.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)where mediocre, milquetoast workers, who perform their duties but never distinguish themselves, argue that the elite force, of which they are a part, will be watered down if even one "less than excellent" candidate becomes a member. By "less than excellent" they mean different than them.
LukeFL
(594 posts)babylonsister
(171,102 posts)had nothing to fear.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The turnout in NJ and NY was lower due to Sandy. You could argue a high percentage of those would have gone for Obama.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)That's what they kept saying. It was never true. I'm not sure that even the job approval numbers told the story. That would depend on the exact wording of each poll. The job Obama set out to do wasn't finished. I think a lot of people gave him less than total approval in those poll who still thought he was doing the best that anyone could under the circumstance. And personal favorablity was never all that low.
OhioworkingDem
(28 posts)Bush's margin over Kerry was 3.01 million, which changes your points that you were making. Can you edit your post so that it is accurate? When we make points backed up by data we need to make sure the data is spot on.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)(08) 2,401,462
(12) 2,566,632
6.89%
Damn....
and for nano second I thought Romney might take CO, but we had Amendment 64 which increased turnout.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)for 2014-16
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Ohio's turnout went from -4.2 yesterday to -2.67 now. Obama's lead in Ohio has gone from up 100,000 pretty consistently to now up 165,000. I think all the provisional ballots from the I-80 corridor are now coming into the count.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)It looks like we'll end between 57.5 and 60% of voting eligible nationally.
In 2008, it was 61.1% of voting eligible nationally. We'll still be down nationally about 2% in turnout.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)Not far from what I expected I suppose. Overall it really wasn't much dropoff.
LukeFL
(594 posts)To do with the difference if I am not mistaken.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Big populations that vote blue.
Julie
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)That's way out of the range of the national average. Even if we think NY would have voted at a much lower rate than 2008 (say, down 7%), it would still have given Obama perhaps another 200,000 vote margin, and that's assuming that the places that didn't vote were slightly more favorable to Romney than NY in general (say 57% Obama rather than 62.5%).
Cha
(297,812 posts)stating the GOTV wasn't as large as 2008 because the Independents weren't happy with PBO's accomplishments. Of course, it had nothing to do with reality as is often the case.
Just as an aside.. it just occured to me that McCain and his sidekick Palin lost Indiana for crissake!
http://theobamadiary.com/