Tara Emory
10-30-2008, 03:51 AM
I've looked at some numbers, the sorts of numbers apparently no one is looking at when trying to figure out who might win the election.
I'm talking about the heavy voter turnout and actual numbers of the first and second place winners of the primaries, which for some reason no one ever seems to compare the Democratic numbers with the Republican numbers. So I did this, as I first noticed that North Carolina isn't even a battleground state.. If the same people who voted in the primaries voted in the election, it would solidly be Obama territory.
So let's look at NC
Obama wins at 887,391 Hillary Clinton is second at 657,669
McCain wins at 383,085 Huckabee is second at 63,018
That's amazing- THE PERSON IN SECOND PLACE of the Dems got about twice as much as the WINNER of the GOP.
I mean, screw those polls where they poll 1000 random people and they say, "well, it's kinda close".. We've already had a pretty large sampling of the population say that the person we like 2nd on the Dems is still twice as good as the person we like the most in the GOP.
Let's try another 2 Battleground states. And forgive me if I'm not exact with the numbers- I averaged a bit.
Pennsylvania -
McCain, 594,061 Ron Paul - 129,246
Clinton 1,273,000 Obama 1,059,000
Ohio:
McCain 656,000 Huckabee 335,000
Clinton 1,259,000 Obama 1,055,000
As you can see, Obama in SECOND place, had about twice the amounts of votes as McCain in FIRST. Now, if only McCain could snare in those Hillary voters then he'd have something.. Still think he picked Palin for any other reason?
We see similar numbers in another so called "battleground state" New Hampshire
Clinton 112,404 Obama 104,815
McCain 88,571 Romney 75,546
Now lets look at a real shocker - TEXAS, probably the reddest of the red states:
McCain 697,000 Huckabee (or Romney, I didn't write it down) 518,000
Clinton 1,462,000 Obama 1,362,000
By even this definition, Texas is a total shoe-in for Obama (or Clinton if she was the nominee).
I'm not sure what to say in conclusion, but there is one thing I did consider- In 2000, I myself registered as a Republican so I could vote for McCain against Bush in the Massachusetts primaries.. I admit that it was a tactic, and something I was suggested I do, since Bush was gaining momentum and the Democrats were really unhappy with him..
Now you can look at these numbers and say, well, maybe a lot of these people were really Republicans and they were voting for someone they didn't like, becuase they wanted them to be up against the GOP nominee becuase "they're so bad, they would lose".. Doesn't make any sense since in most cases, the 2nd place Dem person won way more than the first place GOP winner. If there was some sort of pattern here, I can't find it.
And another thing about primaries. People don't really bother to rig primaries. They don't have voter fraud in primaries. I mean, who would bother? The stakes aren't nearly as high as a general election.
-Tara
I'm talking about the heavy voter turnout and actual numbers of the first and second place winners of the primaries, which for some reason no one ever seems to compare the Democratic numbers with the Republican numbers. So I did this, as I first noticed that North Carolina isn't even a battleground state.. If the same people who voted in the primaries voted in the election, it would solidly be Obama territory.
So let's look at NC
Obama wins at 887,391 Hillary Clinton is second at 657,669
McCain wins at 383,085 Huckabee is second at 63,018
That's amazing- THE PERSON IN SECOND PLACE of the Dems got about twice as much as the WINNER of the GOP.
I mean, screw those polls where they poll 1000 random people and they say, "well, it's kinda close".. We've already had a pretty large sampling of the population say that the person we like 2nd on the Dems is still twice as good as the person we like the most in the GOP.
Let's try another 2 Battleground states. And forgive me if I'm not exact with the numbers- I averaged a bit.
Pennsylvania -
McCain, 594,061 Ron Paul - 129,246
Clinton 1,273,000 Obama 1,059,000
Ohio:
McCain 656,000 Huckabee 335,000
Clinton 1,259,000 Obama 1,055,000
As you can see, Obama in SECOND place, had about twice the amounts of votes as McCain in FIRST. Now, if only McCain could snare in those Hillary voters then he'd have something.. Still think he picked Palin for any other reason?
We see similar numbers in another so called "battleground state" New Hampshire
Clinton 112,404 Obama 104,815
McCain 88,571 Romney 75,546
Now lets look at a real shocker - TEXAS, probably the reddest of the red states:
McCain 697,000 Huckabee (or Romney, I didn't write it down) 518,000
Clinton 1,462,000 Obama 1,362,000
By even this definition, Texas is a total shoe-in for Obama (or Clinton if she was the nominee).
I'm not sure what to say in conclusion, but there is one thing I did consider- In 2000, I myself registered as a Republican so I could vote for McCain against Bush in the Massachusetts primaries.. I admit that it was a tactic, and something I was suggested I do, since Bush was gaining momentum and the Democrats were really unhappy with him..
Now you can look at these numbers and say, well, maybe a lot of these people were really Republicans and they were voting for someone they didn't like, becuase they wanted them to be up against the GOP nominee becuase "they're so bad, they would lose".. Doesn't make any sense since in most cases, the 2nd place Dem person won way more than the first place GOP winner. If there was some sort of pattern here, I can't find it.
And another thing about primaries. People don't really bother to rig primaries. They don't have voter fraud in primaries. I mean, who would bother? The stakes aren't nearly as high as a general election.
-Tara