Florida Turnout down 250,000

[Conservative]

Here's an NYT link about the turnout being down, for those who didn't like the first link I had.

Romney Wins, but Turnout Lags - NYTimes.com

that link contradicts your OP statement...

Consider that. Except for SC (where Newt won) turnout in GOP primaries have been down in every state.

In the first three early-voting states, Republican turnout was up from 2008 — just slightly in Iowa and New Hampshire, but significantly in South Carolina, where it jumped by 35 percent.

Your link also explains the difference...

Part of the reason for the difference may be that a ballot measure, the Florida Save Our Homes Amendment, was on the primary ballot in 2008 and could have encouraged turnout even among voters who were not interested in presidential politics. In addition, the Republican race in Florida was closer in 2008 than in 2012, which usually improves turnout at the margins.

 

[Truthmatters]

If the republican controled state of Florida doesnt keep black voters from voting this time arround Obama will win the state.

Well, I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse...

well Im sure your party will cheat like always.

Its how they win elections

 

[zzzz]

New Hampshire had 220,000 less voters in the primaries this year folks!!!

New Hampshire voters turned out in record numbers in Tuesday’s Republican presidential primary.

According to the secretary of state’s office, there were 247,223 ballots cast in the GOP primary – beating the previous high of 241,039 Republican ballots cast in 2008. The turnout represented 45.4 percent of total registered Republican and undeclared voters, as of Dec. 14.

On the Democratic side, where President Obama was uncontested by any well-known opponent, 60,996 people turned out to vote, or 11.3 percent of Democratic and undeclared voters. The all-time turnout record was set by Democrats in 2008, when 288,672 voters turned out.

New Hampshire sets state record for turnout in GOP primary - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com

Flordia's Republican primary

Four years ago a spirited contest featuring Romney as well as U.S. Sen. John McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani attracted more than 1.94 million Republicans across the state. With more than 95 percent of the precincts reporting, the turnout stood at a little more than 1.6 million voters.

http://www.news-press.com/article/2...orida-turnout-less-than-2008?odyssey=nav|head

And that does not even include the decline of democratic voters.

Voter apathy will be a major factor this year.

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, those number barely account for increases in population... it was less than 1% in Iowa and about 2% in NH.

Again, given that-

1) No Democratic contest
2) All the young people brought in by the Ron Paul movement

and these non-increases are actually a decrease in participation...

And you are still working off a link that says Romney won Iowa... Where have you been. Santorum did.

You said turnout was down in the other contests. It's demonstrably not. Your spin is amusing.

no, what's amusing is that people are treating GOP primaries with a "let's get this over with" mentality.

Which is not how you achieve change.

Remember 2008, when you had hoardes of people voting in the Democratic Primaries and lo and behold, Obama got 10 million more votes than Kerry did four years earlier. Remember that?

Yeah... you see, that's what "people actually caring about the outcome" looks like.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's an NYT link about the turnout being down, for those who didn't like the first link I had.

Romney Wins, but Turnout Lags - NYTimes.com

that link contradicts your OP statement...

Consider that. Except for SC (where Newt won) turnout in GOP primaries have been down in every state.

In the first three early-voting states, Republican turnout was up from 2008 — just slightly in Iowa and New Hampshire, but significantly in South Carolina, where it jumped by 35 percent.

Your link also explains the difference...

Part of the reason for the difference may be that a ballot measure, the Florida Save Our Homes Amendment, was on the primary ballot in 2008 and could have encouraged turnout even among voters who were not interested in presidential politics. In addition, the Republican race in Florida was closer in 2008 than in 2012, which usually improves turnout at the margins.

No, it really doesn't.

Here's the thing- the only one where you had any real improvement is in SC, where Republicans could actually vote for a Conservative, and not just eat the RINO shit the establishment was serving.

 

[Conservative]

Here's an NYT link about the turnout being down, for those who didn't like the first link I had.

Romney Wins, but Turnout Lags - NYTimes.com

that link contradicts your OP statement...




Your link also explains the difference...

Part of the reason for the difference may be that a ballot measure, the Florida Save Our Homes Amendment, was on the primary ballot in 2008 and could have encouraged turnout even among voters who were not interested in presidential politics. In addition, the Republican race in Florida was closer in 2008 than in 2012, which usually improves turnout at the margins.

No, it really doesn't.

Here's the thing- the only one where you had any real improvement is in SC, where Republicans could actually vote for a Conservative, and not just eat the RINO shit the establishment was serving.

so... your link says it explains part of the difference (see the quote above from your link), yet you insist it doesn't explain part of the difference.

your link is contradicting you.

 

[JoeB131]

so... your link says it explains part of the difference (see the quote above from your link), yet you insist it doesn't explain part of the difference.

your link is contradicting you.

No, guy, it isn't.

The Republican Party is quickly becoming the Whigs. No one is even bothering to show up anymore. You can make all the excuses all day, but the fact is, less people are showing up now than did in 2008, when it was already assumed the GOP was going to get voted out of office.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Guy, those number barely account for increases in population... it was less than 1% in Iowa and about 2% in NH.

Again, given that-

1) No Democratic contest
2) All the young people brought in by the Ron Paul movement

and these non-increases are actually a decrease in participation...

And you are still working off a link that says Romney won Iowa... Where have you been. Santorum did.

You said turnout was down in the other contests. It's demonstrably not. Your spin is amusing.

no, what's amusing is that people are treating GOP primaries with a "let's get this over with" mentality.

Which is not how you achieve change.

Remember 2008, when you had hoardes of people voting in the Democratic Primaries and lo and behold, Obama got 10 million more votes than Kerry did four years earlier. Remember that?

Yeah... you see, that's what "people actually caring about the outcome" looks like.

Pure deflection. You said GOP turnout was down. It's not. End of story.

 

[JoeB131]

You said turnout was down in the other contests. It's demonstrably not. Your spin is amusing.

no, what's amusing is that people are treating GOP primaries with a "let's get this over with" mentality.

Which is not how you achieve change.

Remember 2008, when you had hoardes of people voting in the Democratic Primaries and lo and behold, Obama got 10 million more votes than Kerry did four years earlier. Remember that?

Yeah... you see, that's what "people actually caring about the outcome" looks like.

Pure deflection. You said GOP turnout was down. It's not. End of story.

No, actually, it is. Sorry. Less people are voting in these four states than voted last time, in total. Iowa and NH were flat, SC was up, FL was down... but less people total, and the numbers will be even lower than that in the following states now that Romney is "inevitable".

 

[Conservative]

no, what's amusing is that people are treating GOP primaries with a "let's get this over with" mentality.

Which is not how you achieve change.

Remember 2008, when you had hoardes of people voting in the Democratic Primaries and lo and behold, Obama got 10 million more votes than Kerry did four years earlier. Remember that?

Yeah... you see, that's what "people actually caring about the outcome" looks like.

Pure deflection. You said GOP turnout was down. It's not. End of story.

No, actually, it is. Sorry. Less people are voting in these four states than voted last time, in total. Iowa and NH were flat, SC was up, FL was down... but less people total, and the numbers will be even lower than that in the following states now that Romney is "inevitable".

I think his point might be that you did not say that in your OP... you said...

Consider that. Except for SC (where Newt won) turnout in GOP primaries have been down in every state.

Had you added, 'when taken as a whole' to your OP statement, he might not be arguing so strenuously.

 

[RadiomanATL]

no, what's amusing is that people are treating GOP primaries with a "let's get this over with" mentality.

Which is not how you achieve change.

Remember 2008, when you had hoardes of people voting in the Democratic Primaries and lo and behold, Obama got 10 million more votes than Kerry did four years earlier. Remember that?

Yeah... you see, that's what "people actually caring about the outcome" looks like.

Pure deflection. You said GOP turnout was down. It's not. End of story.

No, actually, it is. Sorry. Less people are voting in these four states than voted last time, in total. Iowa and NH were flat, SC was up, FL was down... but less people total, and the numbers will be even lower than that in the following states now that Romney is "inevitable".

Changing your position again? You said less people are voting in the GOP primaries. You are wrong and have been shown such.

And comparing 2008 total turnout to 2012 turnout is dishonest. In 2008 the nominees for both the GOP and the DNC were up for grabs. This time its just the GOP.

Your continued spin, deflection and lies proves that your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

 

[JoeB131]

Changing your position again? You said less people are voting in the GOP primaries. You are wrong and have been shown such.

And comparing 2008 total turnout to 2012 turnout is dishonest. In 2008 the nominees for both the GOP and the DNC were up for grabs. This time its just the GOP.

Your continued spin, deflection and lies proves that your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

But that's EXACTLY the point. There should be a LOT more people voting GOP this time. if the GOP thing is the only game in town, and there are supposedly a bunch of people who just can't wait to broom Obama out the door, who realized Obama was one big mistake, then there should be a lot of people crossing over.

But there aren't, are there. In fact, they can't get a lot of the people who showed up last time for the GOP contests to show up. Because no one cares.

Now, Romney might get 90% of the people who voted for McCain last time to show up for him. I've seen no sign that people who voted for Obama last time will vote for Romney this time.

 

[California Girl]

Emergency straw delivery for JoeyBoy. Sign here please.

 

[JimH52]

Romney is as dry as toast. If he keeps up the 'I am rich and I don't worry about the poor' routine, he will lose like HW.

 

[JoeB131]

Emergency straw delivery for JoeyBoy. Sign here please.

]

I realize the point went right over your head, but honestly, I don't think I can dumb it down any further for you.

GOP Turnout- down = no one really wants to see Romney replace Obama but the people who never wanted Obama to start with.

And they weren't enough in 2008.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney is as dry as toast. If he keeps up the 'I am rich and I don't worry about the poor' routine, he will lose like HW.

The thing is, I don't think he can help himself.

I mean, Jesus, he's had 5 years to learn to pretend to care about other non-millionaires, if he couldn't learn the skill in that time, he never will.

He'll just keep doing Obama's job for him by saying this dumb stuff.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Changing your position again? You said less people are voting in the GOP primaries. You are wrong and have been shown such.

And comparing 2008 total turnout to 2012 turnout is dishonest. In 2008 the nominees for both the GOP and the DNC were up for grabs. This time its just the GOP.

Your continued spin, deflection and lies proves that your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

But that's EXACTLY the point. There should be a LOT more people voting GOP this time.

I guess you forgot about the record numbers showing up in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Or it could just be your intellectual dishonesty again

Got any other deflections, spin or lies you wish to throw out there?

 

[JoeB131]

Changing your position again? You said less people are voting in the GOP primaries. You are wrong and have been shown such.

And comparing 2008 total turnout to 2012 turnout is dishonest. In 2008 the nominees for both the GOP and the DNC were up for grabs. This time its just the GOP.

Your continued spin, deflection and lies proves that your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

But that's EXACTLY the point. There should be a LOT more people voting GOP this time.

I guess you forgot about the record numbers showing up in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Or it could just be your intellectual dishonesty again

Got any other deflections, spin or lies you wish to throw out there?

Except for SC, they weren't "record numbers". There were MINIMAL increases in IA and SC, most of which can be attributed to the Ron Paul movement, which will NOT translate into votes for Romney. In short, if Romney gets actually LESS votes in Iowa than he got in 2008, but Paul increases from 6% to 20%, well, sweet evil Jay-a-zus, guess what, Clem. It means that there were a lot less real Republicans voting. Same in NH. Paul got 24% of the vote. Romney got a little more than he did before, but not much.

Sorry, Republicans should be crapping their pants at the absolute apathy there is towards this race out there. They'll nominate Romney because they've been told to "fall in line" instead of "fall in love". That didn't work in 2008, and it won't work now.

At least McCain was a war hero and a guy who had won a bunch of elections. There was something there you could pretend to get excited about.

 

[RadiomanATL]

But that's EXACTLY the point. There should be a LOT more people voting GOP this time.

I guess you forgot about the record numbers showing up in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Or it could just be your intellectual dishonesty again

Got any other deflections, spin or lies you wish to throw out there?

Except for SC, they weren't "record numbers".

Iowa caucus results: Record turnout

Iowa caucus results give both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney big wins by Andrew Malcolm - Investors.com

New Hampshire sets state record for turnout in GOP primary

New Hampshire sets state record for turnout in GOP primary - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com

Any other deflections, lies or spin?

 

[Conservative]

no, what's amusing is that people are treating GOP primaries with a "let's get this over with" mentality.

Which is not how you achieve change.

Remember 2008, when you had hoardes of people voting in the Democratic Primaries and lo and behold, Obama got 10 million more votes than Kerry did four years earlier. Remember that?

Yeah... you see, that's what "people actually caring about the outcome" looks like.

Pure deflection. You said GOP turnout was down. It's not. End of story.

No, actually, it is. Sorry. Less people are voting in these four states than voted last time, in total. Iowa and NH were flat, SC was up, FL was down... but less people total, and the numbers will be even lower than that in the following states now that Romney is "inevitable".

bump...


I think his point might be that you did not say that in your OP... you said...

Consider that. Except for SC (where Newt won) turnout in GOP primaries have been down in every state.

Had you added, 'when taken as a whole' to your OP statement, he might not be arguing so strenuously.