Positive Thread for Everybody: Tracking Turnout, 2000 - 2004 Comparison

[markses]

As a beginning look at comparative turnouts, I’ve listed the results for the six state primaries/caucus from 2000. South Carolina is not included, since it doesn’t appear that it had a popular vote primary in 2000. I’ve listed the different dates of each state race in 2000, as these can be considered a factor in the turnout differential. As we saw in New Hampshire, there was a huge spike in Democratic primary turnout (from roughly 150,000 in 2000 to 220,000 in 2004). Let’s see if the same trend holds true across these six states.

Total of Democratic primary/ caucus votes in these 6 states in 2000 was 616,665

Delaware (2/5/00)
Gore 6349
Bradley 4465
LaRouche 279
Total 11093

North Dakota Caucus (2/29/00)
Gore 1711
Bradley 477
Total 2188

Missouri 2000 (3/7/00 – Super Tuesday)
Al Gore 171528
Bradley 89094
Larouche 906
Price 565
Uncommitted 3368
Total 265461

Oklahoma (3/14/00)
Gore 92654
Bradley 34311
Larouche 7885
Total 134850

Arizona (3/11/00)
Gore 55508
Bradley 14198
Harder 1087
Total 70793

New Mexico (6/5/00)
Gore 98715
Bradley 27204
Uncommitted 3298
LaRouche 3063
Total 132280

Total Votes 6 states
616,665

[DODI]

1. Thank! I have been wondering about this. Thanks for taking the time.

[morningglory]

2. Thank you. Great post! We need this info. n/t

[markses]

3. Delaware, Oklahoma already far surpass 2000 turnout

Delaware (currently at 85% precincts reporting)
Kerry 14,344
Lieberman 3,151
Edwards 3,149
Dean 2,970
Clark 2,641
Sharpton 1,605
Kucinich 291
Total 28,151

Oklahoma (currently at 54% - yes, 54%!!! - precincts reporting)
Edwards 47,898
Clark 47,482
Kerry 39,912
Lieberman 10,008
Dean 6,628
Sharpton 1,584
Kucinich 1,354
Total 154,866

[F.Gordon]

4. Current aggregate; totals

Clark 69053
Dean 28657
Edwards 168377
Kerry 171685
Kucinich 3750
Lieberman 22144
Sharpton 26308
Other 4204

Total 494178
9:21 EST
And this is only 4 of the 7 states reporting numbers.
Bush* and his dad are going to be playing a lot of golf next year.

[markses]

5. Where you getting those?

Or didja add em yourself?

[F.Gordon]

8. I can't add

converting thingee to other thingee..get numbers

[markses]

6. Delaware TRIPLES 2000 turnout

2000: 11093
2004: 32609 (99% Reporting)

Uhhhh, yowza!

[F.Gordon]

7. 9:43 EST, New Mexico trickling in

Clark 97207
Dean 44186
Edwards 218004
Kerry 238917
Kucinich 6201
Lieberman 30104
Sharpton 29654
Other 6687

Total 670960

At this rate Bush* won't be playing any golf in THIS country...
Edit: yea, yea...spelling....

[LeftCoast]

9. Anyone have turnout results from the last Pres election for these states?

That would be another interesting datapoint to look at. :)

[Renew Deal]

10. Over 10,000 people in ND

That's huge compared to 2000 and it was 0 Degrees all day.

[Toronto Ron]

11. Anybody have 1992 numbers?

I don't put too much stock in 2000 turnout numbers, since it was just a 2-man race with a clear favorite. I think 1992's situation is more comparable to the current one.

[markses]

23. OK...1992 number, as best as I could find them

Delaware
1992 Total (?????)
2000 Total 11093
2004 Total 32881

North Dakota Caucus
1992 Total 32786
2000 Total 2188
2004 Total 10508

Missouri
1992 Total (?????)
2000 Total 265461
2004 Total 416104

Oklahoma
1992 Total 416129
2000 Total 134850
2004 Total 299580

Arizona
1992 Total (????)
2000 Total 70793
2004 Total 220656

New Mexico
1992 Total 181443
2000 Total 132280
2004 Total 94568 (96% Reporting)

Looks like we have a lot of work to do! ;-)

[F.Gordon]

12. 10:08 EST, Arizona comin' in now

Clark 117817
Dean 51613
Edwards 252824
Kerry 280716
Kucinich 7287
Lieberman 35788
Sharpton 32154
Other 7993

Total 786192

Outstanding!!!!

[F.Gordon]

13. North Dakota enters mix

Clark 157741
Dean 75092
Edwards 280900
Kerry 351821
Kucinich 9390
Lieberman 45070
Sharpton 34092
Other 8607

Total 962713

[F.Gordon]

15. Smokin'....over a MIL

Clark 188421
Dean 88806
Edwards 300782
Kerry 413860
Kucinich 11967
Lieberman 53257
Sharpton 36679
Other 9270

Total 1103042

[Cascadian]

14. It's a positive sign.

People are ready for a change. They want to go back to certainty, prosperity, and somebody who does not lie all of the time. I hope more people will be out on Election Day when it really counts.


John

[Cooley Hurd]

16. Jeebus! This is REMARKABLE!

Our primaries are turning into a referendum on Bush!

I feel soooo warm and fuzzy inside! The long, national nightmare will soon be OVER!!!

YEAH!!!!! :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[markses]

17. Final Tallies

Delaware
2000 Total 11093
2004 Total 32881

North Dakota Caucus
2000 Total 2188
2004 Total 10508

Missouri
2000 Total 265461
2004 Total 416104

Oklahoma
2000 Total 134850
2004 Total 299580

Arizona
2000 Total 70793
2004 Total 220656

New Mexico
2000 Total 132280
2004 Total 94568 (96% Reporting)

[F.Gordon]

18. Doubled

Granted, South Carolina held a caucus in 2000, but the numbers are still very encouraging. Numbers are 2004, 2000, and 2000 GOP Totals

Arizona 220656 70793 301620
Delaware 32881 11093 30060
Missouri 416104 265489 114979
N Mexico 94248 132280 240810
N Dakota 10508 2188 9043
Oklahoma 299550 134850 124809
S Carolina 285565 9657 573101
TOTALS 1359512 626350 1394422

What's up with New Mexico Democrats?

[markses]

21. New Mexico is the anomaly here

Wonder if it's an absentee ballot thingee???

[King of New Orleans]

22. New Mexico

New Mexico in 2000 held their primary in conjunction with the primary for all other elections. This year they moved it up into a stand alone caucus/election.

[beyurslf]

19. This is great BUT ... look at dates too.

OK may have more than doubled their turnout... but by March 14 in 2000 we had a nominee. With the compressed calendar states have moved up their importance and their votes have more of a voice.

[markses]

20. I noted the date differences in the first post

"I’ve listed the different dates of each state race in 2000, as these can be considered a factor in the turnout differential."

Of course, you are correct.