Photo by Roy Adkins.
Let me apologize for the brief departure from our normal fare, but the changes that our state underwent last night are dramatic. The numbers from last night are nothing but amazing in terms of the regeneration of the state Democratic Party.
Sen. Obama won the night, with 61% of the vote—roughly 253,441 of the total 417,428 votes cast in the Democratic primary were for him.
First off, a baseline: there were only 458,094 votes cast total for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in the general election in 2004. There were almost that many primary voters last night.
Let’s step back in time four years. In the 2004 Democratic primary for president, John Kerry won at 78.4%, gaining 59,815 of the 76,298 votes cast. Better candidates, better ideas, and competition in 2008 combined to create a 447% increase in Democratic presidential primary voters over 2004.
Let’s go back to 2000. Al Gore got 89.62%, with only 79,408 votes of the total 114,979 cast. The 2008 primary turnout is a 263% increase over 2000.
The “loser” of last night’s contest, Senator Clinton, alone got almost as many votes last night (154,852) then were cast total for Democrats in the 2004 or 2008 primaries combined (155,706). Note the way 2000 and 2004 track each other (2000-79k, 2004-76k). The Democrats have “found” 300,000 new voters in the primary.
Let’s look back just one year in statewide politics. In the 2007 general gubernatorial election, Haley Barbour beat John Arthur Eaves, 430,807 to 313,232, with a total vote cast of 744,039. There were almost as many Democratic primary votes cast last night as it took to win a governorship for a strong Republican candidate with a multi-million dollar war chest.
WAIT, you say, isn’t this just Republicans crossing the line to screwup our primary?
No. This is not from crossover voting, this is a resurgence of the Democrats, and people that have never voted before, and I’ll prove it.
In the 2000 presidential primary—the last time there was one for Republicans, as Pres. Bush ran uncontested in 2004—the surging popularity of the former Texas governor brought him 101,042 votes, 87.88% of the total 114,979 votes cast.
Contrast that last night with Sen. John McCain, who won 111,953 votes last night, 79% of the 141,814 cast. This is an increase over those folks claiming to be Republican and voting for then-Gov. Bush. This is a 23% increase. Even with these (comparably modest) gains, the Republicans are performing to their historical scale.
Total votes cast last night in both presidential primaries: 559,242
Total votes cast in 2000 in both presidential primaries: 203, 581
A 175% increase.
This people came from somewhere . . . they’ve never voted before . . . and they voted Democratic.
This is exciting. I wasn’t quite prepared to see numbers this overwhelming. Wow. Let’s hope these folks stick around for the gen’l and make things interesting.
As someone who lived in Mississippi for 7 years, it’s been sad to see the traditional “what a bunch of racist hicks they all are” image come out again, focusing on the white/black vote divide as if there hadn’t been similar spreads in many other states. The turnout does bode well for November if Obama’s the man, though…
I’m not sure if I agree with your logic there at the end.
I don’t think that the 2000 republican primaries are a good indicator of overall republican vote turnout. I mean, bush was al;ready the presumptive nominee. the votes for keyes and mccain were protest votes if anything. You think there are 300,000 mississippi voters who favor haley for gov and a democrat in the white house? pshaw.
I say still say it was republicans voting for hillary. at least that would explain why obama got 90% of the black vote and 30% of the white vote (or something); I bet the proportion is actually closer to 50-50 if you just look at the votes of registered democrats.
Remember, we’re comparing Pink Ladies with Grannies Smith, here—we’re just talking primary analysis. While Gov. Bush was the presumptive nominee in 2000, McCain IS the nominee this year. I’d say those situations track each other, and again, I note that the Republicans posted a modest 23% increase in their people voting this year.
That 23% increase, I argue, obviates or reduces the chance of “crossover” voting, i.e., a person electing to vote in a Democratic primary instead of a Republican primary. Listen, I know of at least 2 people myself that did that—Republicans that voted for Hillary. However, even a +/- 5% bump on the Democratic side cannot explain the +447% increase in people turning out to vote. But again, the decent Republican turnout, coupled with an intense race for congress in the white/Republican Third District, lower the possibility of heavy crossover.
I should have said it simpler, but in 2000 there were 70k that came out, and in 2004 roughly the same. Literally the same people—statistically there’s only a -4% difference between it. I have to tell you, I was HOPING there would be 150,000 people that voted, which I figured was radically unrealistic.
Also—I’m not saying there’s some bizarre new 300,000 Obama/Haley folks. I said the Democrats found 300,000 new people. These are people who didn’t want to vote for another stuffy white guy who had never been to Mississippi—they wanted to vote for a change (and Sen. Clinton has neglected to push how much she herself represents a radical change).
I’ve been saying for years that the Republican numbers have been relatively capped, that their radical growth in the 80’s and 90’s is consolidated by smart politics and is over. And it’s not so much that they’re gaining, it’s that Democrats have quit voting. That’s for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the moribund state party and the utter neglect of the national party.
As to the last bit of what you say, again, there is a finite number of people that vote in primaries. The standard track of 2000 & 2004 for Dems and the close numbers between 2000 & 2008 for ‘Pubs shows this. There’s no way that several hundred thousand new folks showed up to “fake” vote, especially when many of those Republican strongholds are in the 3rd District, who had a critical race being run for congress.
Once the county numbers start trickling in we’ll see where the new folks came from. I tell you, it’s going to be Hinds, Warren, LeFlore, Washington, Oktibbeha, and other predominantly African-American and younger-population centers.
This is gonna be fun.
I can personally attest to the number in Oktibbeha County. I know of people that have NEVER VOTED IN THEIR LIFE that went out to vote for Obama. We also had more people vote than we did in the election of our mayor. Also, it was overwhelmingly DEMOCRATIC. 4,471 for Obama to the 1, 844 for McCain. Starkville Daily News has a great breakdown of the numbers on the front page.
All I can say is wooooooooooo!
SOmeone needs to report on the Obama bootleg t-shirt industry. There were tons of guys selling shirts outside the rally Monday, and more on the streets downtown yesterday. When was the last time the bootleg shirt industry got pulled into a presidential race?
Exit Flagger! I have been talking about this in e-mails all week . . . I told Lula we were going to break up because she didn’t get me the one that had Obama, MLK, and JFK on it at the Rally!
I saw TONS more at the victory party. They’re not considered “bad.” They’re a celebration.
The Republican increase can be attributed to the competitive congressional races in the 1st and 3rd districts.
As far as the Democratic race, it’s not new voters. In last year’s Democratic primary, over 470,000 people voted in the insurance commissioner race. I’m thinking instead the high turnout is due to a competitve contest and compelling candidates.
Nope, it’s flat-out new folks and also people who haven’t felt the need to vote in years. It’s my understanding that the JFP is looking into the new voter rolls . . . and that there are over 7,000 new voters here in Hinds County! And I suspect they voted for Sen. Obama!
Total Hinds County registered voters August 20, 2007 = 136,071
Total Hinds County registered voters March 11, 2008 = 139,958
The idea that Mississippi picked up 300,000 new voters is delusional.
Frankie, I’d love to see your source—again, I’d heard that anecdotally, and don’t know for sure yet.
However, again—I’ve not said there are 300,000 new voters alone. I said it was people who haven’t voted in years combined with new voters. If they’ve been voting . . . where have they been?? Even Republican Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann is out in front of this now, admitting that nearly 600,000 voted, the highest in 20 years. (Source: Sun-Herald).
Don’t getcher feelings hurt—again, the numbers show the Republicans had record turnout, too. It’s just not as much as Democrats because the entire county is sick of the President (which is going to kill any Sen. McCain efforts), and for the first time in decades, Democrats campaigned in Mississippi . . . and had good candidates!
Congratulations Mississippi! And it is going to be a fun election no matter what the outcome on the Dem side.
Frankie,
One thing that your numbers don’t tell is whether the party registration has changed, and I’m not talking about Republicans switching over, but voters who for the first time feel the need to register with a party.
The Oregon Democratic primary is coming soon, and I’m thinking about switching from Independent to Democratic so I can be involved in this race.
thank you, guy