Kentucky By the Numbers

According to the Kentucky Secretary of State, here is the breakdown of registered voters as of May 20, 2008:

  • Total: 2,857,231
    Democrats 1,629,845
    Republicans 1,040,438
    Indpendents 186,948
  • Male 1,344,579
    Female 1,512,503

Absentee ballots were available starting May 2 and have to be received by May 20, the date of the primary. In the 2004 primary (pdf), there were 563, 000 registered voters and a 23% turnout (375,000 voted in the Democratic primary, a 24% turnout.) Women and men voted in roughly equal numbers.

It's a closed primary and party registration changes had to be in by December 31. Registration ended April 22, 2008. Independents cannot vote in the primary.

My earlier post on Kentucky demographics is here.

< Just For Fun: ARG Polls For OR And KY | Kentucky Hosts NRA Convention This Weekend, McCain to Speak >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In the hotly contested 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    Gubernatorial primary in Kentucky, 348,238 ballots were cast. In 2004, John Kerry received 712,733 votes. Turnout will be between those two figures, and probably closer to the latter.  

    your mastery of the numbers is (none / 0) (#3)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:16:57 PM EST
    amazing.  Let's say 500,000 dems vote, what do you think her net vote gain will be in KY?

    Ah, this is basic arithmetic! (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    I'm terrible at math.

    If 500,000 turn out, Hillary should net 175,000 votes.


    and how many will he win back in OR? (none / 0) (#8)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:20:09 PM EST
    I guess I am trying to figure out who will win the night.

    Low turnout favors Obama, (none / 0) (#13)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    according to a commenter on BTD's KY/OR thread, so I hope a lot of people vote!

    Dunno, I could look it up. (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    Hillary should (none / 0) (#27)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    The population of Kentucky is slightly higher (4.1 million as opposed to 3.7 million in OR). The latest poll for Oregon shows Obama 5 points ahead. Hillary is 30+ in Kentucky. She should easily win more popular votes on the night than Obama. Of course, the MSM won't report it that way. No matter what happens, I guarantee you that they will see it as the Obama coronation.

    The issues is not population but number of primary (none / 0) (#34)
    by fuzzyone on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    voters.  Is Oregon open?  If not I would suspect there are more registered dems in Oregon even with Kentucky slightly bigger, but his margin will presumably be quite a bit lower than hers.  Sorry I have no answers, only questions.

    Then You Think It Will Be Higher (none / 0) (#9)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    than a 30-point margin.  Interesting.

    I figure She gets 65% and he gets 30% (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    The other 5% will be scattered--probably to Edwards. I'm going with ARG because ARG feels right on this.

    If They Still Go To Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    that's going to look bad.  After reading NYCweboy's analysis, I think Edwards endorsed in part because his vote tallies in West Virginia were embarrassing for Obama.  If he gets 4 or 5% in KY, it's going to be even more embarrassing for Obama.

    The more I think about it, the less sure I am that Edwards was a good thing for Obama.  I have a feeling he's going to be about as helpful in KY as Ted Kennedy was with all those hispanic Californians.


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    150,000 (none / 0) (#7)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    She's going to beat him by 30%  

    your mastery of the numbers is (none / 0) (#44)
    by Stellina99 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:21:12 AM EST
    I would like to know more about it.Thanks for the information.


    Drug Intervention Kentucky


    Politician estimated (none / 0) (#5)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    I can't remember which poster, said the ?Governor expected about 20% turnout or 320k.  I thought that seemed very low.  Do you know a good site to get % turnout of registered voters? Someone yesterday linked to an article that showed Obama won when turnout was low and Clinton won when turnout was high but it only used 6 states.

    I now want to see if it's true and if turnout is high if it might have some relation to the pt spread.


    Well, that's what Dick Bennett said (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    I'm not sure how many registered Dems there are in KY, but I think Jeralyn has a link in her post.

    In the hotly contested 2007 (none / 0) (#43)
    by Stellina99 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:18:06 AM EST

     Thanks for the information. I would like to know more about it.


    Drug Intervention Kentucky


    National by the Numbers (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Petey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM EST
    Gallup national tracker today:

    Clinton picks up 2 points against Obama in the nomination race.

    In the general election matchups, Clinton does no worse against McCain for every day for the last month.

    Clinton 48 - McCain 45
    McCain 47 - Obama 45

    Once Again (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    Obama is basically writing off a state with more registered democrats than republicans.  But don't worry, he'll carry Virginia!

    I sneaked over to the Obama website (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by chancellor on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    and, of course, it's all about the John Edwards endorsement. However, I did notice that Obama has absolutely no campaign events scheduled in KY. Really insulting.

    This Basically Highlights Obama's Problem (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:40:26 PM EST
    He has no idea how to reach out to voters not already in his base.  As this thing goes on, it's becoming clear he has no second act.

    The Obama base is deep (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    in terms of enthusiasm, but no one seems to realize that it needs to be broadened for the GE.

    As I've Said Before, Obama Is Completely (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    out of his element with small town or rural folks. They are the "other" to him every bit as much as he is to them.

    Easily remedied. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:50:41 PM EST
    Just put him out on a small multi use farm, well water, septic tank, no cable, no dsl, no cell phone service.  Two months, say July and August.

    That should do it.  It's amazing how fast the first thing you think of in the morning is the weather.  How hot it will be, whether it will rain, how much water is in the well, whether you have enough to get some laundry done.  Plus whether fuel prices will eat up most of your profits.


    He's not campaigning there? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by nycstray on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    Even if he thinks it's over, shouldn't he be out there anyway? Or is the Edwards endorsement all he thinks he needs to unite the party and move on? How many freakin' states does he plan on blowing off in/for the GE?

    This state could and should go Dem (none / 0) (#11)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    if HRC is the nominee.

    Otherwise, Obama will be left clutching a few reliable blue states, Oregon and Iowa. Meanwhile, McCain will have 40 states within his grasp.


    It's a Fight (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    Even with Clinton, but it would be in play.  Kentucky isn't nearly as red as the deeper southern states and the Republican party is still trying to get over the Fletcher scandals.

    Hicks and Chicks (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM EST
    I know, I know....but I thought it was funny.  

    clever n/t (none / 0) (#26)
    by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    KY Has Had Plenty Of Time To Get Fired Up (none / 0) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    and I think those who are informed and were planning on voting edwards, will not.  Personally I am thinking Hillary may get as much as a 38 point lead.  

    Anybody canvassing in KY (none / 0) (#17)
    by tnjen on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    I'm thinking of going to E KY but I've never canvassed. Can someone give me crash course?

    Canvassing Is Easy and Fun (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:47:33 PM EST
    The campaign gives you a list of addresses in a neighborhood or area.  In NH, they sent us out in pairs.  You knock on the door, it helps to wear a Hillary shirt so they know why some stranger is knocking on their door, introduce yourself and make your pitch for Hillary.  Don't argue with them, be polite, and don't hang around longer than you're welcome.  


    "Hi, I'm SoNso, I'm with the Hillary campaign.  Are you planning on voting Tuesday?  Hillary would sure appreciate your vote."

    If they're already Hillary supporters, you're pretty much done except asking if they need a ride to the polls.

    If they are Obama supporters, make your pitch if they're open to it. If not, thank them for voting democratic.

    If they are undecided or not sure they're going to bother voting, make your pitch.  The campaign will give you talking points, but I found it was better if you just said why you were there working for Clinton. Mine went something like, "I'm for Hillary because I believe all Americans should have health insurance.   Not only is Hillary the only candidate with a plan to insure all Americans, she's the only candidate running - democrat or republican - who has actually gotten Americans health insurance.  There are _ children in [Kentucky] that have health insurance because of Hillary."


    If You're From Out of State (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    some folks found it effective to say, "I've come all the way from California (or wherever) to ask you to vote for Hillary.  That's how important I think this election is."  In Eastern Kentucky, you're going to get a lot of people who have never been asked for their vote by any presidential candidate.  So just showing up and knocking is going to be huge.

    What went wrong (none / 0) (#29)
    by Politalkix on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    400 New Obama bloggers hired (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    ews is spreading that the Obama campaign has hired 400 faithful friends to "throw elbows" at Hillary supporting blogs. My original thought was that this was an Obama-inspired rumor (like the one last week that Obama's already got a Paid Transition Team) designed to make us tremble and go home. But I got a message in my personal email last night that makes me wonder:

    Huh? You should know that (none / 0) (#32)
    by Politalkix on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    Michelle Cottle has been a senior editor at The New Republic since February 1999, i.e. long before HRC and Obama entered national level politics.

    you appeared here (none / 0) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:06:02 PM EST
    trying to change our minds...

    400 new bloggers...

    (c'mon how much they pay, better than Starbucks?  no benefits)


    I will not trade personal insults (none / 0) (#36)
    by Politalkix on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    but will only tell you that you are very wrong about your assumptions. Whether you believe it or not is ofcourse your prerogative. Bye.

    Your point is? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:27:29 PM EST
    At least tell us who you think we SHOULD vote for - so I can tell you what I think that candidate SHOULD do to prove themselves worthy of my vote.

    We'll be ever so glad to share our suggestions with you.


    My only point (IMHO) is that (none / 0) (#40)
    by Politalkix on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    Obama is in the position where he is in the nomimination process simply because he ran a far superior campaign than HRC and not because he was unfairly helped by the media (did not happen IMHO) or because of racist trickery (did not happen IMHO) or because sexism runs deeps in our national psyche as many of you in this blog fervently seem to believe. The TNR article reiterated my opinion regarding the Dem nomination contest, that is why I posted it.
    Who you vote for depends on the issues that are most important to you and the way you view each candidate. Obama seems to be the best change enabler for the issues that I care about most deeply, that is why I am hoping that America will vote for him. You and others obviously have your own preferences and opinions, probably very different from mine. I will however be interested in hearing what each candidate will have to do to be worthy of your vote.

    "change enabler"? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:38:20 PM EST

    I'm am not planning on "coming to Obama" anytime soon.

    Perhaps if he groveled on his knees and begged forgiveness from the women who are tired of being insulted for being female, I might consider it.

    But we've done clueless for seven years and I really don't need another four years of it.


    did you see this video (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lisa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    Chris Matthews trashes the voters of West Virginia.  Pat Buchanan defends them.

    Answering yes to the exit poll question, was race a factor? could very well mean voters thought Obama was racist against whites, after his "bitter" and "typical white people" remarks, and those of his mentor/pastor of nearly two decades. Yet Matthews blames whites.  

    And refuses to be consistent in his flawed interpretation of the poll with the results of the voting patterns of other racial groups in the other states.