Will Voter Turnout Alone Swing The 2004 Election?

Great Debates
21

I haven’t got enough knowledge to even guess the first question, but as to the second:

I’d say ‘quite possibly’, putting together these two points:

Although Sam Stone’s comment was rebutting an exaggerated estimate of the total cost, I think that even his estimate is material enough to make your average ‘vote with his wallet’ voter sit up and take notice.

From memory, the Federal Budget is around two trillion dollars, correct? If so, then spending about 7% of that on ‘foreign cleaning duty’ (as perceived by government critics) may be the final straw, come the next election. However, I’d not be confident in saying that the cost of the Iraq war, in isolation, would be enough to galvanise current non-voters into going to the polls. If the economy improves, then all bets are off. If it doesn’t, then the war cost might be another nail in the Bush coffin.

22

No. My prediction is that voter turnout in 2004 will be just as crappy as usual. Yes, we all heard the “one vote DOES make a difference” in Florida in 2000, but people have forgotten. Apathy as usual.

23

Without reading the poster’s name, as soon as I read this I thought: Oh, a December post.

Bob

24

Are you implying that Gore would have won the election if more people had been “paying attention”?

25

I’m not so sure the Democrats can rely upon “mere” voter turnout to win the next election. I believe, but cannot prove for certain, that Republicans are probably a little more conscientious about voting, and probably comprise only a minority of the voting-eligible populace. In 2000, the states which had the highest voter turnout percentages were actually the states which voted for Bush. When I look at the 2000 Election Atlas and compare it to the FEC’s voter election and turnout tables, it’s pretty easy to see this.

The Democrats actually need two things to happen. They need King Apathy to rule the roost throughout rural America, while voter turnout needs to vastly increase among large urban populations. The only hint we’ll need to know for certain months in advance that this election is going to go against Bush is if we see a massive upswing in urban voter registration, because those are the people who are pissed on, pissed off and gunning for Bush.

The war itself isn’t going to do it, but it might help keep Democrats away. One great way to keep those normally apathetic urban voters at home is to find those weapons of mass destruction (which I predict we are a mere 361 days away from finding).

The economy will help a lot more, IMHO. Supply-side economics being what it is, I suspect that a lot of people won’t be experiencing the wonderful economic “recovery” which our experts in Washington are engineering as we speak.

When you’re a Republican, it’s usually not about who is voting, it’s about who you’re keeping away from the polls (show me a few big C conservatives who are in favor of motor-voter laws and I’ll happily retract this statement–here is a big C and a big fan of the will of the American people and Congress who isn’t). Normally this works in their favor, but there are plenty of fence-sitters who may have gone Bush last time who, for any one of a dozen alienating reasons, are too disgusted to vote for him this time and can’t handle a Democrat alternative.

So again, it’s not just who you get to come to the polls, it’s who you get to stay away. It’s going to be just as tough to get disenchanted Republicans to stay away as it will be to get morally challenged urbanites to crawl forth from their dirty holes, but if both things happen it could be very bad for Bush.

You can’t steal an election without some honest votes in your favor.

26

Actually, for the first time in something like forever, there are just as many registered Republicans as Democrats.

And Republican turnout gave them the Senate in 2002.

Turnout is no longer the bogeyman of the Republican Party.

27

Voter turnout forms a nice straight line correlation with latitude, with Hawaii the lowest and Minnesota the highest. But the only factor that can be used to predict the winner of the presidential election is the candidate who sells the most Halloween masks that year.

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/102600/gen_1026006468.shtml

Next Halloween, I will be buying millions of Kucinich halloween masks. And millions of Dean masks too. Not Kerry though–too scary. Looks like the Head less Horse Man

28

No. I’m saying exactly what I said. Anyone who was paying attention knew the election was likely to be a close one. Anyone who was paying attention ought to have discerned enough difference between Bush and Gore to have had a preference. Therefore, if more people had been paying attention to the (at that time) upcoming election, more people would have voted. Or so it seems to me. If one dislikes one candidate more than the other, surely one should be motivated to vote against the more-disliked candidate.

If more people had voted, who would they have voted for? I have no idea. If more people had voted, who would have won? I have no idea.

P.S. Gangster Octopus – love the name!

29

No, I’m saying that the people who didn’t vote because they didn’t think there was any real difference between Bush and Gore must not have been paying sufficient attention.

This is naturally my opinion. I saw the two candidates as being sufficiently different from each other to matter. And surely anyone who was really paying attention would just have to see things as I saw them. :wink:

For the next four years (or eight), either Bush or Gore would be President. The question for potential voters was, does it really matter who wins, or will the actions, decisions, policies, etc of one be pretty much the same as the other?

I think anyone who was really paying attenion could hardly avoid realizing that that a Bush Presidency was likely to be quite different from a Gore Presidency. Therefore, if more people had been paying attention, there would have been a higher voter turnout.

In the US 2000 election in an alternate universe where voter turnout was higher, who would have won? I have no idea. How close would the election have been? I have no idea.

30

Weird. I had no recollection of having posted the earlier reply to Gangster Octopus three weeks ago. Perhaps I’m losing my mind? As if I didn’t have enough to worry about what with Bush looking likely to be re-elected! And my smilie didn’t work. Did I do it backwards or something? I’d delete the 2nd post, if one were allowed to delete one’s posts.

31

Or perhaps the Weekly Reader election poll results:

This article was published before the 2000 election, but the kids were right yet again that year.

32

I dont think voter turnout will make any difference. Bush hasnt got a chance to get re-elected:

  1. No president who lost the popular vote ever got re-elected.

  2. The republican candidates for president have not received more votes than the democrat since 1988.

  3. No president who got us into an endless war ever got re-elected.

  4. No president who lost 3 million jobs ever got re-elected.

  5. Bush has no record to run on, an endless war, a trade deficit, a budget deficit, millions unemployed, weekly lay off announcements, high tech and factory jobs all moving out of the country, falling dollar, terrorism and threats of terrorism since bush got elected,

  6. Democrats are purposely not going to alienate gun owners, blue collars, rural people, and conservatives this time by bringing up gun control.

  7. The only thing bush accomplished was a tax cut for wealthy americans (this doesnt go over very well with the unemployed) .

  8. Bush has alienated nearly every other country in the world with his iraqi war - only one man in britain is still supporting our foreign war in the middle east.

  9. Bush has shown no concern for the environment, and is the first president to do nothing to help the environment since 1896.

  10. Bush’s homeland security bill(the only bill he passed) does not give us any security, but it just intrudes/invades into our privacy while protecting no one.

All any democrat has to do is to just show up, and he/she will win in 2004.

All a democrat has to do is to ask everyone if they think they are better off now after 4 years of bush.

It is hard to beleive that bush is so stupid, all he had to do was to not get involved in iraq, pay attention to the economy, and create a few more national parks, and he would have easily been re-elected.

But Bush is spending all his time fooling around/bogged down in iraq while our american boys over there are being killed, and bush is not spending any time trying to improve the economy, to save our manufacturing base, or to create american jobs.

(P.S. I am not even a democrat, but I call them as I see them)

33

Perhaps you are right, **Susanann
**, but it still would be better to get as many people out to vote as possible.

Bob

34

I never thought I’d say it but **Susanann[/n] is right on every point.

As to the gun control issue in particular. Howard Dean is somewhat of an anomaly in that he is a pro-gun Democrat. That fact, combined with his somewhat conservative fiscal sensibilities could make him less repugnant to some conservatives and independents. Another year of casualities in Iraq and a moribund economy at home should spell doom for Shrub.

35

I think people tend to get more motivated about voting someone out of office than voting to keep them. There are millions of people who can’t wait to vote against GWB in November, '04.

36

…and those are just the now unemployed former republicans!

His continuous stupid grin(while ignoring the declining US economy) is starting to get to me.

At least Lyndon Johnson “wanted” to something more than just be bogged down by vietnam.

“The apple does not fall far from the tree”, I see a repeat of a bush loss from 1992.

37

Doesnt really mean anything, and it does not reveal his true feelings, nor what he will do once he is elected president.

Dean is from Vermont, the most pro-gun state in the union.

He has to “say” or “pretend” to be pro-gun to remain in that state. In Vermont, you dont even need a permit/license to carry a concealed gun in the state. No licensing, no registration of guns in Vermont. Just about any citizen in Vermont can carry a gun.

38

To address some of your points Susanann:

I don’t think this means much since this occurred only three times prior to 2000.

I tend to agree with your analysis of Bush – I have lived nearly 44 years and, of the Presidents in my lifetime, Carter is the only one who rivals Bush for incompetence. However, I am afraid too many Bush supporters like the man for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance. I am especially thinking of the braindead fundamentalists.

It has been my observation that too many of the unemployed don’t vote.

Agreed, but this isn’t going to cause many Bush supporters to change their minds. Look at the hysteria directed against France. People like Ann Coulter and her followers delight in pissing off other countries.

Again, I agree with you, but most of the people who care about the environment are not likely to vote for Bush in the first place.

Agreed again, but it gives the Bush Administration the illusion of doing something.

I remain pessimistic. I think the useless bastard is going to be re-elected.

39

The US economy is showing some signs of life… but anything might give it a heart attack and send it down again. There are some macro economic tricks that might give a small boost thou at the end of the Bush Admin… just enough to boost votes gained.

As for War... all potential candidates will have to "talk of war" and security. Most american voters are still into "winning terrorism" and security. Bush has the lead in that sense.

I am pessimistic about it... my hope is that either the republicans put someone else to run... or the Democrats get their act together... if Bush gets reelected it will be a disaster for International Relations.
40

I think the more and more the low turnout is all the Democrats’ fault, and I’m a registered 'crat.

Come on they are the majority party, yet they are constantly sending up NoDoz candidates. Geez, they need more guys like James Carville running for office than being behind the scenes: liberal guys who are so charming, they even marry conservative women.