Election Day Trends

Arianna Huffington analyzes who voted on election day, positing that "democracy was a big winner," with 11 million more voting in 2008 than voted in 2004 -- the highest turnout rate in 44 years. Among the trends she notes:

  • "Hispanic voters made the difference in Colorado, Florida, and New Mexico. In Colorado, Obama's Hispanic support accounted for 12 percent of the electorate; he won the state by 7 percent. In Florida, Obama's Hispanic support accounted for nearly 8 percent of the electorate; he won the state by 2 percent. In New Mexico, Obama's Hispanic support accounted for 28 percent of the electorate; he won the state by 15 percent."


  • "Obama's appeal to young voters cut across racial lines. Among voters 18-29, he got 54 percent of white voters, 76 percent of Hispanic voters, and 95 percent of African American voters. Around 2.2 million more young people voted on Tuesday than did in 2004, accounting for 18 percent of the electorate -- a slight uptick from 17 percent in 2004. But they overwhelmingly voted for Obama: 66 percent to 32 percent - a 34-point spread. "
  • "Obama won among both women (56/43) and men (49/48). Whites favored McCain (55/43), but blacks gave Obama percent of their vote, and Hispanics went for Obama 66/31."
  • "Over 2 million more African American voters turned out this time around. And they favored Obama over McCain 95 percent to 4 percent - a net 14-point increase from Kerry's 88 to 11 win over Bush."
< How Obama Will Benefit Lawyers | Obama's First News Conference >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not according to CNN (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    Btw, about women voters (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    Obama won among women (56/43)

    That's down 1 percent from what Kerry pulled.  So it will be interesting to see more analysis of the data in terms of women by age, race, etc., too.  If the number of AA women was up a lot, it may mean work for the Dems to do with women not of color -- as Kerry already was losing white women compared to Gore.  Kerry had 44% of white women, Gore had 48%.

    And then the question becomes how to keep the women of color and/or win back the women who are not.


    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    if it is possible to quantify the impact of having a woman on the GOP ticket.  Certainly, that's a factor that wasn't present in 2004.

    The exit polls I saw (none / 0) (#9)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    so far did not include questions about the importance of gender, just race.

    Check out the NY times link (none / 0) (#49)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:06:33 PM EST
    on the left hand side, there is a ruler and you can go back in time to other elections.

    Kerry got 51% of the women's vote, far less than Obama. The last candidate to get 56% was Reagan.


    1% is not worth pontificating about (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    it's insignificant

    I leave the pontificating to you (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    about any voters being insignificant.  Especially women, of course, in The World According to Coigue.

    Ah, the hubris of the New Dems, who don't need the voters that gave them victories before.  All they need is an African American candidate, every time?  Lucky Obama is so young, so the next move can be to abolish the presidential term limits?


    You are making assumptions about me that (none / 0) (#47)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:00:31 PM EST
    come from nowhere but your sad little mind.

    actually, according to (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:51:45 PM EST
    the site linked to by Jeralyn, Kerry got 51% (or 5% LESS than O)

    Cite it? I've looked in every link (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:00:03 PM EST
    up there and don't see it.

    Every site on 2004, including this one until now, used to say Kerry got 57% of women voters.  But I fully expect that there will be confusion between making history and rewriting it for convenience.


    It's the NY times link (none / 0) (#45)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:58:13 PM EST
    If you look to the left there is a ruler that you can move from 08 to other election years.


    It's actually fun to play with


    Nice. (none / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:59:27 PM EST
    But I fully expect that there will be confusion between making history and rewriting it for convenience.

    Really effing nice.

    I cannot believe people around here.


    In fact, using the NYtimes ruler (none / 0) (#48)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:03:18 PM EST
    I had to go back to 1984 to find another election where women went 56% for anyone.

    Wow. What do you think of that Cream City?

    Isn't that interesting?


    Thanks. Re this part, it seems (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    worth watching -- and putting in context:

    According to the report, several Southern states -- North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, and Mississippi -- and the District of Columbia saw the greatest increases in voter turnout.

    Overall turnout was highest in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, South Dakota and North Carolina, according to the report.

    Being from one of those non-Southern high-turnout states, and one who watches these data, I can tell you that the top states on the list always have high turnout.  And we had few cases of long lines.  That is, we're used to high turnout and ready for it, with enough polling places and machines -- and put more in place this time, which meant that where I live, we had a polling place every three blocks!  And no lines, not even at the busiest times of the day.

    So the question for Dems may be how to get high turnout again in those southern or semi-southern states.  Pretty much North Carolina. . . .


    Good on you! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    Glad to hear it.

    What people have to realize about early voting is that there are always going to be just a few polling places, especially compared to the huge amount on Election Day proper.  So naturally there will be long waits - more voters, less polling places.

    If people want to vote early without waits, I recommend absentee ballots where available.


    If that is the case Obama has a serious mandate (none / 0) (#3)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:36:44 PM EST
    I have to believe the numbers went up (unless a huge number of evangelicals just melted away).  However, if they didn't, it means that the electorate from before believes in a Democratic message and we should move forward even more forcefully.

    Side note- I would love to see the Obama people change the word "work across party lines" or post partisan for the phrase, we are going to be a "data run" administration, not an ideological one.  I think it would play well.


    That would speak to me, for sure (none / 0) (#14)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:45:42 PM EST
    but I am one of those eggheads

    Re: Hispanic vote (none / 0) (#6)
    by steviez314 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:27:42 PM EST
    And that was with a Republican candidate who should have been popular with that group.

    The old McCain would have been; this one not so much.  I think the Republicans might have lost this group for a long time to come, unless they nominate George P. Bush (Jeb's son)!

    In the primaries (none / 0) (#15)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    I was really worried about that.

    Seems to me... (none / 0) (#8)
    by DET103 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:33:03 PM EST
    ...there has been a lot of talk about what this represents as hope of opportunity for people of color but so little talk about what this demostrated relative to the power that they had at the ballot box.

    The balance as shown in Jeralyn's numbers clearly demonstrated in so many states they made the difference.

    I know many are well aware of the impact this had for the LGBT community. Do you think that this group will even have crumbs thrown at them going forward? Their number is so small compared to these, I say the days of Democrats even paying lip service to the LBGT community is done.

    GLBTs have friends and family. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    I think the group most likely to identify strongly with GLBT issues are feminists.  (I was going to say women but the CA exit polls didn't show that.)

    Don't forget the Libertarians... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:43:44 PM EST
    who always seem to wind up on the side of anyone seeking equality or liberty.

    Libertarians (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    are Republicans who want to do drugs.

    Don't remember (none / 0) (#17)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:48:11 PM EST
    if Libertarians showed up on exit polls.

    Independents did and in FL their votes leaned conservative.

    Sometimes my Conventional Wisdom proved correct (blacks/whites wrt gays) and sometimes not (women/men wrt gays).  

    But I'll take your word for it, absent any data.


    Please don't.... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:56:32 PM EST
    take my word for it...just a guess:)

    I mean I can't see how any self-respecting libertarian could be against full and equal rights for all.


    I believe (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:40:50 PM EST
    the LBGT community has a level of money and political activism out of proportion to their raw numbers, so they will be fine.

    There is no reason the Democratic Party would consider throwing the LBGT community under the bus just to "please the black community."  Barack Obama is the leader of the party and he has spoken out forcefully about the problem of homophobia in the black community.  It is clear which side he is on, although I suggest that setting this up as an intramural fight between the blacks and the gays is an exercise that benefits no one.


    Out of proportion may not be enough. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:45:34 PM EST
    If the GLBT community was half the size of the Christian communities, then it would be an even match.  But they aren't that big and they aren't that organized.  I hate to frame this as gays versus churches, but that's what the demographics say.  So if the religious groups go after the GLBTs, the GLBTs lose unless they get help.

    Anti-gay measures pass reliably.  


    Searching... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    anti gay legislation
    A chronology of anti-gay legislation beginning in 2004.

    I'm sorry, Steve, but it is (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:48:26 PM EST
    decidedly NOT clear which side Obama is on.  You don't muddle your position on civil rights to marriage by intentionally conflating it with religion, you don't defend the use of high profile anti-gay clergy as formal surrogates for your campaign, etc., etc. and have the right to say that you are clearly on any side, no matter how many press releases, website white papers, and brief shout outs in pre-fab speeches you give.  

    What's amazing about the netroots right now to me as that people are in such denial about Obama's ambivalence toward GLBT rights.  I mean, large numbers of his actual voters understood it; that's why many saw no cognitive dissonance in voting for him and voting for discrimination.  


    Gosh (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:00:56 PM EST
    On the one hand, you have the fact that Obama stood up in front of everyone at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s church in Atlanta and said this:

    For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

    And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.

    but on the other hand, he had a couple surrogates here and there who happened to be anti-gay.  Yeah, I can see why this would be a close call - no, actually, I can't.  A politician can be a supporter of gay rights without having a litmus test for every last person he works with.  It's no different from the wingnuts who say that Obama could be a Jew-hater since he knows that one Palestinian guy.

    The insistence that no politician can possibly be your ally unless he demands total purity from his associates is an approach that will leave you with no allies.


    Again, that has more to do (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:06:05 PM EST
    with your view of Obama than reality.  You, obviously, decide to give great weight to a particular speech he made because, well, you are very into politics and political symbolism and because it was Martin Luther King's church, or because his speechwriters had a particularly lyric turn of phrase for him to read, or whatever.  However, millions of other people may actually give more weight to Donnie McClurkin extended screed on an Obama campaign rally stage saying all kinsd of nasty things about gay people.

    People view things differently, and give things different weight, and Obama I'm sure knows this, and gave something to everyone.  


    Right (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:13:47 PM EST
    I'm sure "millions" of gay-bashers voted for Obama because they took Donnie McClurkin as a hidden sign that Obama has an awesome concealed anti-gay agenda.  When he brought up gay Americans in his victory speech it was just a big fake-out.  It's very plausible to believe he really opposes gay rights, and he went into a major black church on Dr. King's day and called out the black community on homophobia just for the hell of it.

    Again, demanding purity from any politician on a given issue, to the extent that they can't even associate themselves with a handful of people who disagree, is a pointless exercise.  This will be my last post on the subject, because you've clearly got your mind made up.


    As do you. (none / 0) (#36)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    And I'm not trying to convince you (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:45:01 PM EST
    about anything, I'm just pointing out that making a statement that Obama is clear about gay rights as a statement of fact is nonsensical given that there are other statements and parts of his campaign that specifically sent different messages.  It is clear that Obama's campaign sent an ambiguous message about gay rights.  You can't have statements and actions of campaign on both sides of an issue and say it is anything but ambiguous.  

    You've made up your mind on your opinion, and that is certainly your right, but it really doesn't make sense to make factual statements that are so easily disproven.


    Your first sentence is similar (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:03:50 PM EST
    to the language of Scalia's dissent in Evans v Roemer.  Although, I know that you do not have the same meaning.

    Heh (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:11:39 PM EST
    Unless Scalia's intent was to offer words of encouragement, I should think not!

    Thank you, (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:58:47 PM EST
    I needed no assurance as I am a great fan of your thinking and writing. However, the despicable words of Scalia's dissent were seared in my mind after my very first reading.  If Scalia limited  his argument to his interpretation of the constitution, or even, attempted to hide his bias, it would be taken as just a mistaken opinion.  However, the anger he expressed cranked up every stereotype, including the wealth of homosexuals, possessing political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide.  Of course, if your rights are endangered and your opponents would not mind if someone hauled you off in a boxcar, rich and poor alike are more than willing to give up anything and everything.  That decision was is 1996, and, fortunately, we have continued to make progress.  And, importantly, Scalia's view did not prevail.

    I don't think so. (none / 0) (#16)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    But GLBT issues may not be a priority for a while.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#19)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:55:52 PM EST
    if we can convince the Dems that LGBTs issues are considered easy targets by the Right, then we can get some kind of action.

    I think one of our action items should be a commitment to fight anti-gay ballot measures.  I am positive we'll see more of those in two years.  And if we don't help those states, those measures will pass like all the previous ones.  I'd love the experts to crunch the numbers so we can see what we are really up against - the money, the organization and the demographics.


    yeah. good plan. (none / 0) (#21)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    Now how do we get them to listen to it? And who do we go to? Gavin Newsom?

    Donna Brazile? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:34:24 PM EST
    Gavin would be great, but we need to reach out.  And we need people with clout.

    And we need to be looking at states that haven't already had measures passed.  Dem Senators from those states?  Who did they target this time around - didn't they all have Republican governors?

    This isn't random and it isn't grassroots.  It's deliberate.  It's calculated.  California makes that much clear.

    Gawd, I'm such a novice at these things.  I can see the patterns, but I don't know the players.  I'm just looking at the pawns.

    It's great discussing this though.


    I agree. We are all learning. (none / 0) (#39)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    Donna Brazile is a good idea, who else? Who were Axelrod and Plouffe's assistants, and can they be spared?

    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:36:15 PM EST
    was not really on the side of the angels at the DNC on this particular issue, as I recall.  I believe she complained that treating GLBT issues under the umbrella of civil rights was somehow insulting to the history of the Civil Rights Movement.

    sigh. (none / 0) (#44)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:53:16 PM EST
    I am really tired of exclusion in civil rights.

    Really really tired of it.


    It is time to rethink (none / 0) (#52)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:55:15 PM EST
    the regional Dems strategy a little bit I think.  Travis Childers wants to amend the flipping constitution to define marriage.  That should be a complete dealbreaker for Dems no matter what state they are in.

    agree 100% (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    I don't thoink you should (none / 0) (#40)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:09:16 PM EST
    disregard California as a prime place for such an organization to be based. We raised alot of money after we realized the prop was winning, we just did not have the organization yet. But we had some, and they learned lessons....it's a start. And there is energy now for the movement.

    But he still need outside help, I just wanted to be clear that the CA movement would be utilized.


    California is a national treasure (none / 0) (#53)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:35:48 AM EST
    when it comes to GLBT.  New York is the east coast power house.  Even though Ohio already passed its own anti gay ballot measure, their GLBT can and should be tapped.

    We definitely need to stop viewing this a single state's problem.  That way lies defeat.  I was at Daily Kos yesterday and there is a whole lot of finger pointing going on.  The Religious Right is the bogey man!  ...and the Religious Left.  It's not the black community!  ...it's their churches.  The GLBT community didn't do enough!  ...and where were the Democrats?  

    I'm trying to reframe it as a national organization targeting states one by one, but I don't know if it is catching on.  It's hard to break through the outrage cycles there.


    What percent of AA vote did Jesse Jackson get (none / 0) (#27)
    by Saul on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    when he ran for president.  Anybody know.

    I thought it was racist (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jes on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:00:59 PM EST
    to discuss it.

    Jesse (none / 0) (#32)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:02:51 PM EST
    got 77% of the black vote in 1984 and 92% of the black vote in 1988, according to this link.

    So did Obama get the same percentage of the AA (none / 0) (#50)
    by Saul on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:27:18 PM EST
    vote as Jesse did?

    Obama got 95% of the AA vote (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:48:21 PM EST
    Obama's Chief of Staff (none / 0) (#54)
    by Tim3255 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    Rahm Israel Emanuel officially accepted his appointment by Obama as Chief of Staff on November 6 2008. The Israeli press & media were beside themselves with applause and cheers.
    Rahm Emanuel is a former investment banker who made millions on Wall Street. Emanuel's sponsor is the Zionist , Bruce Wasserstein, who is now the head of Lazard Banking.
    Rahm Israel Emanuel is the son of an Israeli physician who was a gun runner for the Irgun, an Israeli terrorist group that murdered Arab civilians in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. Upon his son's appointment as Obama's Chief of Staff, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel ("Auerbach" was his original surname) had some choice slanderous words for the Arabs:

    In an interview with Ma'ariv: "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
    The Ma'ariv article also quoted Dr. Emanuel as saying that his son spends most summers visiting in Tel Aviv, and that he speaks Hebrew, but not fluently

    Emanuel, Clinton & Mossad:


    11M is incorrect (none / 0) (#56)
    by Andy08 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    I don't know where Arianna H. got her numbers...

    Report: '08 turnout same as or only slightly higher than '04

    And in terms of percentage of  voters relative to the population's growth it was a 1% increase:

    A new report from American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that voter turnout in Tuesday's election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago -- or at most has risen by less than 1 percent.