Something about the math still doesn't work, based on what Faos posted. If overall turnout stayed the same, and the youth vote increased by 20%, then there's no way their overall share would have only gone from 17% to 18%.
^^^ Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there were aprox 2.2 million more 18 to 29 year old votes this cycle compared to last. Overall vote totals will reach around 130 million, the most in all long time, if not history.
I don't understand the point of debating this. Who cares? Seriously, does anybody actually care at this point?
The turnout level gives you some indication of the effectiveness of the Obama "new campaign" get-out-the-vote method: using the internet, relying on young voters, etc. If the results weren't effective (as with Howard Dean) and he won for other reasons, that's worth knowing. It will be determinative for how the 2012 elections are conducted by both parties.
Seems pretty simple based on your implied logic. The Republicans were unable to get out their voters to the polls in sufficient numbers.
See what happens when I try to post a serious topic? You guys still aren't satisfied. It's not a debate. It's not questioning who won or lost. It's a simple question about voter turnout.
Democrat turnout increased approx 10% from 2004. Repub turnout decreased approx 7% from 2004. There you go.
yeah I think that is pretty common for most cycles though. Population increase and voter registration increase being what it is. The biggest increase was 2004 after the crap went down in 2000.
You posted it in D&D ...so what do you expect? Reports that I heard were that Obama didn't just win the "young" vote, or the "swing state" vote, or the "female" vote or the "black" vote or the "latin" vote. No one voter group was the difference maker in this election. The combination of all those groups (and more) was the difference. It's not so easy to give credit/blame the young voters ...or any other voting block. Obama basically dominated virtually all voting blocks except rural white voters ...which accounts for a lot of people. But seriously, I legitimately don't care. If I were a campaign strategist, then I would. But determining the demographics of a past election is an exercise in futility.
The base is irrelevant now anyway. What are they...20% of the population? They got their choice of VP and it cost them the independent votes.
I guess if I felt Faos was actually interested, then it might be more interesting. But he's just being a sore loser. He's grasping at straws trying to make himself feel better by undercutting one of the big stories behind Obama. If that's what he's trying to do (and I feel he is), then what's the point? Obama DID win the young vote. And the black vote. And the urban vote. And the female vote. And the Latin vote. And the retiree vote. And the union vote. And the Jewish vote. And the Muslim vote. And and and. Obama soundly beat McCain accross the board. If there is a story, that's it. Every election people say that this is the year of the young voters ...and it never is. It's the biggest non-story of election history. Obama did see a measurable surge and that should be commendable. But the 'young' vote wasn't the difference maker. Nothing was the difference maker ...except the final count. Can we move on now?
What's the point? The point is if you really think that, you aren't very bright. I asked a legit question, at no time bashing Obama, got some legit answers and even found a few legit articles and posted them here. Why are some of you so thin skinned? You should be enjoying the victory. It's as if you're going through post-Obama election withdrawals and don't know how to deal with it. This isn't a liberal/democrat/Obama supporter only forum. There are going to be people with differing viewpoints. Yes, not many of us, but we're out here. I've got a suggestion for you, put me on your ignore list if you are going to try to over analyze each and every post of mine because obviously you aren't very good at it. I don't plan on going anywhere. I like it here, so you are going to have to deal with it, like it or not. [This is where some are welcome to reply with the pot/kettle retort again.]
That's the point, huh? The point of this thread is if I feel like you are a sore loser than I'm not too bright. That's the point of this thread? Good come back. Fine, discuss away. I've already put my opinion out there that the young vote wasn't the swing voting block. Others have also rightly said that the electoral system doesn't really lend itself to high voter turnout except in swing states. Everywhere tends to lag behind since if you are in the minority of that state, then your vote doesn't count. Since they publish all the poles in advance, you know in advance how your state will vote. So many people say, why bother? As a democrate, my presidential vote in Texas was tossed out. I voted anyway but in the end my vote was not counted. I think the electoral system is a well thought out system for a semi-stable government. In the current state of America, the electoral system is outdated. Great. I personally don't find the subject too interesting because the answer to low voter turnout seems simple. So I guess that's my problem ...not yours. I also felt the only reason you were asking the question is because of you are on the losing side. If that is not the case, then let me sincerely appologize. I guess I should remove myself from this thread. I'm apparently adding nothing. Go Rockets --beat the crap out of the Lakers tonight!!!
