Taking a look at yesterday’s results, the Democrats enjoyed a 31% jump in turnout over 2004.
Total primary voters= 524,055
Democratic 286,408 (54.6%)
Republican 237,647 (45.2%)
Here’s the 2004 turnout:
Total Democratic primary voters= 217,965
Kerry 84,229 39%
Dean 57,788 26%
Clark 27,254 13%
Edwards 26,416 12%
Lieberman 18,829 9%
Kucinich 3,104 1%
Sharpton 345 0%
When considering these numbers, remember that in 2004 the Republican side was uncontested. Therefore, we should have expected to see a dropoff this year, because of people deciding to vote in the Republican primary. That obviously didn’t happen.
Obama’s 104,399 votes represent a 24% jump over Kerry’s winning total from 2004. The best news is the 55%-45% Democratic advantage in overall turnout. Compare that to the 2004 general election results.
Total voters= 676,227
Kerry 340,511 50%
Bush 331,237 49%
Nader 4,479 1%
This confirms that New Hampshire is now a solidly (if not quite safely) Democratic state. I haven’t had time to delve too deeply into the exit polls or compare them too much to the 2004 exit polls. A cursory look reveals that woman turned out at a 57% clip (54% in 2004) and voted for Clinton over Obama (46%-29%). I guess they might not want to iron anyone’s shirts. CNN broke out the youth vote differently than was done in Iowa or in 2004, creating two groups (18-24 and 25-29) instead of one (18-29). This makes it hard to compare the two results. Obama got 60% of the 18-24 range, but lost the 25-29 range. He then won the 30-39 range, and lost all the older groupings.
Combined, the two youth groups accounted for 18% of the vote (14% in 2004), compared to 13% for the over 65 group (11% in 2004).
The biggest difference between this year and 2004 is that Democrats turned out in much bigger percentages this time around. In 2004, the electorate was split 44%-44% between Democrats and Independents. This time Democrats outweighed Republicans 54%-44%. That’s probably a feature of the lack of a Republican race in 2004.
Clinton won because of higher female turnout and higher registered Democrat turnout. Independents voted for Obama at a 41%-31% clip. Looking forward to the general election, it does look like Obama has more cross-over appeal, and thus a higher upside.
The key question? What explains this unprecedented turnout?
My brother irons his own shirts because he doesn’t like the way they come back for the dry cleaners, and his spouse if just fine with that. 😉
I think the whole “Iron my shirt” episode was either 1) hatched by an incredibly inane bunch of women haters, 2) a stupid publicity stunt by really crass radio show hosts, or 3) all of the above.
My guess is that the turnout is being driven by 7 years of failed policies that are finally hitting people enough to make them care. People who can’t sell their homes because the housing market bubbled and popped, people who have family living with them now who were bankrupted and evicted due to high medical bills, etc.
As for why Republican turnout is higher too, I think it’s because those people see the same problems, but think the Democratic way of solving them is absolutely wrong. And they’re being driven to the polls because their sense that something is wrong tells them that the Democratic turnout is going to be huge, but they’re a’scared that the Democratic nominee won’t be able to protect them from scary brown people.
So basically, I think both sides see this as an epic electoral battle with the future of the country hanging in the balance.
And I can’t really disagree…
That’s a really good line.
But on your key question about unprecedented turnout should be clear to everyone. We all (even Republicans) see this as an extremely important election year. Perhaps the most important of this generation. Things are REALLY fucked up and we all know that we need to participate and steer the country back into the right direction. We need to reclaim our ownership of the country. You know…
The key question? What explains this unprecedented turnout?
We are all so frickin tired of 7 years of hell.
Boo-
You’ve looked at this stuff. Are you satisfied that the exit polls reasonably match the election returns? No election rigging? That question really isn’t settled for alot of people and I wonder if we need to be calling for hand recounts to validate the technology used.
Thoughts?
the exit polls look good to me.
Very high female and Democratic turnout.
I note that Obama got killed on the Diebold machines, but I suspect those machines were used in the highest density areas where Hillary was expected to poll the best. It’s strange, but the urban areas of New Hampshire are not the liberal areas…the liberal areas are along the coast and on the border with Vermont.
Still, it needs to be looked into.
This confirms my hypothesis.
The exit polls showed Obama coming in behind Clinton by two points, which matches what we see in the vote counts.
I was as suspicious as anyone, but I looked hard at the data and did the match – she appears to have won legitimately.
I think it was a few things.
Clinton got about 5 hours of CSPAN time, some of which may have been aired locally, when she did her really long Q&A session, which was run at least twice on CPSAN. She showed depth and range in her answers, and thoughtfulness.
The “Iron my shirt” incident may have been even more of a motivator for women than Hillary’s emotional moment. The latter made her endearing, but the former had to piss off all women, enough to make them say to hell with this – I’m voting for the woman.
It’s funny – I’ve talked to four people who are voting for Hillary in the last couple of days, all men. Two wanted to vote for her because she WAS a woman, and thought that would be a good change. The other two said her years of experience sealed the deal for them.
I have yet to meet a woman who is voting for Hillary, but then, I’m on the LEFT coast. 😉
Funny, I only know two men that are voting for Hillary and one of them recently changed his mind. But I know A LOT of women intending to vote for her. But then I’m on the right coast.
The % clinton in the exit polls is close the % clinton in the vote. So, the exit polls may conceivably yield interesting information.
here’s what did it for Hillary.
Terry McAuliffe, Hillaryland campaign co-chair in a BBC News WorldUpdate ( aired 5:00AM EST on NPR, JAn.09), he had this response to the question. What did it for her?
“I love BBC. In Saturday’s debate, people saw her experience and “there was the tearful moment”
I kid you not. can’t make this up. I thought Terry was candid, got carried away by the upset of polls win, momentarily forgetting this program airs in the USA.
guess she’ll tear all the way back to the White House, if that’s what it will take. <snark>
I’m pissed that people would buy into “Tears and sympathy.” But then Bush was re-elected.
Hillary, where is socks, the cat?
Can’t discount the roll good weather had, but also realize the amount of money spent this season to attract votes. There has to be some correlation between money spent and turnout.
Nevertheless, I think the greatest factor is people on both sides see this as an important election.
The women going for Hillary and independents for Obama has implications for the general election. My read is if Hillary gets the nod the independents are more likely to go to McCain (assuming he’s the nominee). If Obama gets the nod, the women are IMO more likely to go to Obama than McCain.
The youth vote is still very high here. Female turnout is high. I think Obama and Clinton can take credit, respectively, for those results. I think the closeness of the race and the fact that Edwards is running a strong attractive campaign too, all works in tandem to boost turnout. People get the sense that their vote might actually matter.
Good weather helped.
True. Edwards and Obama are splitting the anti-Hillary vote, which is unfortunate for our party’s future victory in November, I fear.
Disgust with the past 7 years, a hugely competitive election, Obama’s appeal to young people, Ron Paul’s appeal to people who don’t always vote, and the amazing Whoulley (sp?) whose ground game got out the woman vote for Hillary.
It may have been the perfect storm.
I started getting a sinking feeling yesterday morning when NPR was doing a bunch of voter interviews. One after another, we got stuff like “I’m still not decided between Hillary and McCain” or Obama and McCain. Or Edwards and Romney.
I’ll never understand the mind that can hold opposites like that at the same time, but suspect the anomaly was very common yesterday. It suggests that people still aren’t paying attention to real issues. Shallow sympathy trumped any kind of rational or informed deciding.
I had been persuaded that Hillary had a heavy burden as a female candidate because she was (or thought she was) forced to out-tough the men (just as Obama had to not seem “too black”). But that same gender difference issue also has a positive side for Hillary. Playing the victim, being “rescued” by her angry hubby, having a teary episode, seem to have brought in the female vote.
No man could have gotten away with this stuff. Witness Edwards, who has been personally trashed and dismissed far more viciously than Hillary. The haircut and dress, the borderline masculinity, the “hypocrisy” of being rich and claiming to be for the poor (which hasn’t been part of the narrative on the millionaire Clintons). If he’d done a tearful heart-to-heart about how hard it was to campaign, and had Elizabeth scream about how the mean media was not fair to poor Eddie, he’d have been finished without mercy. So the gender thing turns out to work both ways.
Bottom line: Obama had Oprah, Hillary had her Oprah moment. The Oprah Moment won.
I think Obama forgot to bring Oprah to New Hampshire to campaign. No?