Karl Rove should be scared of our turnout

[Ficus]

Take heart people - whomever you support (unless you are jumping ship) - look at our turnout numbers! These are incredible.

All I can say, is that if I'm Karl Rove, and I lost the last election by 500,000 votes, and the Democratic turnout is this high in January and February, I'm scared.

Mobilize! Defeat Bush!

[Renew Deal]

1. I completely agree

Someone did a turnout breakdown yesterday. The numbers were eye opening. ND had like 400% the turnout from 4 years ago. This has been the trend everywhere.

[mastein]

2. Open vs. Closed Primaries

When you look at the numbers it is worthwhile to look to see if it is an open or closed primary/caucus. There are many open or semi-open (Iowa for example allows you to switch on the spot at most locations) caucuses and primaries. Those looking for the action may be jumping into our fray without really being among our party. That said, I still am damn happy with the turnouts we have been seeing and the very strong ABB sentiments shown in exit polls.

[Ficus]

3. yes true

but (I don't have the link) the Republicans voting in the Rep. primaries aren't even voting Bush at 100% (something like 68%?.) That being said, if there was a large scale effort to freep our elections, I'd expect to see a higher result for the likes of Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton.

If the Republicans try to mess up our elections, they'd choose left-leaning people, because they believe they'd give Bush the easiest election. I just don't buy the RWers are freeping our polls for John Edwards and John Kerry. Who would freep for a Southerner or a Vietnam vet?

[rucky]

4. They've been awfully quiet lately...

too quiet for comfort.

[oasis]

5. We should do what we can to register voters and see that elderly and

shut in voters get absentee ballots. Trust them, they will vote the right way.

[Ramsey]

6. Do we have figures

From each state?

I heard on the local NPR this morning that turnout in Delaware was disappointingly low, something like 15%.

[Ramsey]

7. I am answering my own question

I found some other threads with the to figures:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=262726

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


And:
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)

[Ficus]

8. thanks

most of those numbers look really good to me. I think we'll do well if we carry this momentum.

40% of Americans now think Bush lied about WMD on purpose - not that he was misled. Our numbers will only grow!

[markus]

9. Absolutely!

In North Dakota, we surpassed the turnout for Bush/McCain four years ago. N.D. is a reliably GOP state for President, with a Democratic congressional delegation but a near lock on state government.

One thing I noticed yesterday as a district caucus manager: the significant number of people who didn't know where their usual polling place was. There were a significant number of new or returning voters, possibly as much as 10%. That type of shift in the turn out in November would bode ill for Bush.

[Ficus]

10. exactly

this is why, and I hate to say it, that the South doesn't necessarily matter. It still does, and a national campaign cannot forget Dixie, but a few states like North Dakota may add up.