Wednesday, March 05, 2008

The REAL Story of the Primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island

Okay. First things first. I am one-for-two regarding yesterday's primaries. I was wrong about this, although I still believe I am right about this.

But once again I think the "liberal" media are missing the big story of the day -- and, in fact, I think, of the year -- and that is the raw vote totals in these primaries (something I made note of right after the New Hampshire primary).

In Ohio yesterday, 1,203,924 Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton, and 976,368 for Barack Obama. The total Democratic vote was 2,180,292. On the GOP side, 632,575 Republicans voted for John McCain, 323,074 for Mike Huckabee, and 48,742 voted (for some reason) for Ron Paul. The total GOP vote was 1,004,391, less than half of the Democratic vote. Way less than half.

Now, this is significant because in 2000 (the last year there was a primary without an incumbent running for re-election) the Democratic vote total was 978,512. The Democratic candidates yesterday saw an increase in voters of over 110% from 2000. In 2000, the GOP vote total was 1,397,528. The Republican vote yesterday was down from 2000 by more than 390,000 votes. (Source for all 2000 data: The Federal Election Commission)

Even John McCain's vote total was down: in 2000, he garnered 516,790 votes, roughly 190,000 votes more than he received yesterday.

In Rhode Island yesterday, Clinton received 106,471 votes to Obama's 73,609, with another 1,012 uncommitted, totaling 181,092 Democratic votes. McCain got 17,342 votes, followed by Huckabee with 5,766, Paul with 1,761, and another 565 uncommitted, totaling 25,434 -- about one-seventh the Democratic vote.

In 2000, it was a lot closer. The GOP racked up more votes eight years ago -- 36,149, about 40% more than they received yesterday -- but the Democratic vote in 2000 totaled only 47,085. They increased their vote total yesterday by more than 300%.

And John McCain got about 4,000 fewer votes yesterday than he got in 2000.

In Texas last night, 1,452,776 Democrats voted for Clinton and 1,354,553 for Obama, totaling 2,807,329 Democratic votes, while 707,622 Republicans cast votes for McCain, 521,951 for Huckabee, 69,824 for Paul, and 17,611 went uncommitted, totaling 1,317,008 Republican votes, somewhat short of one-half the Democratic total.

In 2000, 786,890 voted for Democratic candidates, so last night's vote total represented an increase of more than 300% over eight years ago. In 2000, 1,126,757 Republicans voted, so they too saw an increase last night over eight years ago, but only of about 15%.

And finally in Vermont last night Obama won with 86,924 votes to Clinton's 56,456. Together, their vote total was 143,380. On the GOP side, 26,976 voted for McCain (less than a third of Obama's vote), 5,268 for Huckabee, and 2,490 for Paul, for a total of 34,734 (less than a quarter of the Democratic vote).

By the way, the twin headlines this morning from Vermont: "Obama wins with 59% of the vote" and "McCain wins with 72% of the vote." Gee. McCain did a lot better than Obama...

In 2000, by the way, the GOP kicked the Democrats' butts, receiving 81,355 votes (more than twice what they received yesterday) to the Democrats' 49,283.

The message is clear, and it becomes more clear with every primary vote: This election is the Democrats' to lose. The vast majority of the people want change. The Democratic party is energized and, frankly, the GOP is discouraged, disheartened, dis-spirited.

Now, the only question I have is this:



Artie said...

Could this be part of "the plot?"

Dr. Fallon said...

There's no way of knowing for sure, but I doubt it. I suspect "the plot" may be part of "the plot."

People are coming out in droves to vote for Democrats, and staying home in droves to vote for Republicans. This point of view is more consistent with that last twelve month's worth of polls, which shows enormous shifts taking place: in voter registration, in party identification, in confidence, etc.

I wonder if right-wing talkers have that kind of power?

I tend to doubt it. But I'll leave them to their delusions and just say, hey -- Hillary won Ohio. Period.

Anonymous said...

You are absolutely right: this election is the Democrats' to lose, and lose it they will. My prediction: Clinton will win the support of the superdelegates and therefore the nomination. She is such a divisive figure, however, that McCain will win in the general election. This is extremely unfortunate, but even the New York liberals that I know can't work up any real enthusiasm for Hilary. And Obama supporters will be completely demoralized and will probably not turn out to support the woman who did their candidate in.

On a positive note: at least it will be a Republican who inherits an unwinnable war and a tanking economy. When McCain goes down in flames after four years, I for one am hoping that Obama will ready to run again. And at that point he will almost certainly win the presidency.

Am I wrong about all this? I hope I am.

Dr. Fallon said...

Gee, thanks, Eco-blogger, for lifting my spirits. No, no se puede...