Combined South Carolina vote total

[Meeker]

Obama:      30%  (295,091)
McCain:      15%  (147,283)
Clinton:      15%  (141,128)
Huckabee:  14%  (132,440)
Edwards:    10%  (93,552)
Thompson: 7%    (69,467)
Romney:    7%    (67,132)
Paul:          2%    (16,054)
Giuliani:     1%    (9,494)


Overall party vote

Democratic: 54% (529,771)
Republican: 46% (442,918)

In South Carolina, a state the Democrats haven't won in more than 30 years.

[Jake]

I hope you don't think this means something...

[MarkWarner08]

Typical DUer: DEMMIECRTZ R GOING TO WIN IN NOVMBR OMGZ LOLZ!!!!

[© tweed]

reminds me of the Republicans talking about how Schwarzenegger and McClintock combined for 70% of the vote or whatever and how this signified California's competitiveness in 2004.

[Sam Spade]

I hope you don't think this means something...

It wouldn't be posted otherwise, bro.

[Smash255]

I hope you don't think this means something...

I don't think he is suggesting the Dems will win in S.C, but I do think its a telling sign of how much trouble the GOP is in when Dem turnout out paces GOP turnout in a state that is as Republican as South Carolina when its a competitive race (well was suppose to be anyway) on both sides.   

[Sam Spade]

I hope you don't think this means something...

I don't think he is suggesting the Dems will win in S.C, but I do think its a telling sign of how much trouble the GOP is in when Dem turnout out paces GOP turnout in a state that is as Republican as South Carolina when its a competitive race (well was suppose to be anyway) on both sides.   

cough... cough... hack... cough... cough... cough...

[Eraserhead]

Giuliani's fall is truly amazing.

[Meeker]

I never said anywhere that this meant we were going to win South Carolina or even be competitive. The only reason I posted this was that I though it was a fairly interesting factoid that in a state as heavily Republican as South Carolina there were 90,000 or so more voters in the Democratic primary.

Geez, chill out people

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Total number of votes in 2008 SC Primaries:
972689

Total number cast in 2004 election, where result was foregone conclusion
1617730

Dem and Rep Primary numbers compared to 2004 results.

DEM 2004 - 661,699 DEM PRIM 2008 - 529,771 - 80.1%

REP 2004 - 937,974  REP PRIM 2008 - 442,918 - 47.2%

The Reps have another 500,000 votes floating around, most of whom will come out for anyone with an R next to their name.

I don't think he's saying the Dems will win SC - but the Dem turnout in general has been higher, because the race is playing hard to core Dem constituencies.

[Eraserhead]

I hope you don't think this means something...

I don't think he is suggesting the Dems will win in S.C, but I do think its a telling sign of how much trouble the GOP is in when Dem turnout out paces GOP turnout in a state that is as Republican as South Carolina when its a competitive race (well was suppose to be anyway) on both sides.   

cough... cough... hack... cough... cough... cough...

Will you please get over yourself?

[CultureKing]

Total number of votes in 2008 SC Primaries:
972689

Total number cast in 2004 election, where result was foregone conclusion
1617730

Dem and Rep Primary numbers compared to 2004 results.

DEM 2004 - 661,699 DEM PRIM 2008 - 529,771 - 80.1%

REP 2004 - 937,974  REP PRIM 2008 - 442,918 - 47.2%

The Reps have another 500,000 votes floating around, most of whom will come out for anyone with an R next to their name.

I don't think he's saying the Dems will win SC - but the Dem turnout in general has been higher, because the race is playing hard to core Dem constituencies.

where did you get those numbers for the 2004 race? Wasn't the 2008 turnout WAY over the 2004 turnout at least for the Dems?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My numbers are GE numbers not primary votes.

[Sam Spade]

I hope you don't think this means something...

I don't think he is suggesting the Dems will win in S.C, but I do think its a telling sign of how much trouble the GOP is in when Dem turnout out paces GOP turnout in a state that is as Republican as South Carolina when its a competitive race (well was suppose to be anyway) on both sides.   

cough... cough... hack... cough... cough... cough...

Will you please get over yourself?

Now I know how Al feels... 

[Stranger in a strange land]

wow. that's sad. I mean the reps will still win SC in the fall, but still...

[MarkWarner08]

Obama won today among college-educated whites and whites under the age of 30. That could augur well for Democrats in the future. A similar effect seems to be at work in MS. (Harry, please don't take this as false hope.)

[Padfoot]

I hope you don't think this means something...

I don't think he is suggesting the Dems will win in S.C, but I do think its a telling sign of how much trouble the GOP is in when Dem turnout out paces GOP turnout in a state that is as Republican as South Carolina when its a competitive race (well was suppose to be anyway) on both sides.   

cough... cough... hack... cough... cough... cough...

Seriously Sam?  How do you get hack out of that?  I think its a completely valid point.  Democratic turnout has been hitting record highs whereas Republican turnout has been pretty poor.  I'd definitely say that's a sign the Democrats are doing better than Republicans.

look at the stats Polnut gave us

Dem and Rep Primary numbers compared to 2004 results.

DEM 2004 - 661,699 DEM PRIM 2008 - 529,771 - 80.1%

REP 2004 - 937,974  REP PRIM 2008 - 442,918 - 47.2%

I'd say that's a pretty telling comparison which completely validates the point Smash was making.

[Democratic Hawk]

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had the Democratic and Republican primaries both been held on Jan 19

BTW, according to exit polls, more Independents cast ballots in the Democratic primary (23%) then they did in the Republican (18%)

McCain defeated Huckabee by 42% to 25% among Independents; while Obama defeated Edwards by 42% to 32%, with 26% for Clinton

Would simultaneous primaries have impacted the final results or not?

Dave

[Adlai Stevenson]

I hope you don't think this means something...

I don't think he is suggesting the Dems will win in S.C, but I do think its a telling sign of how much trouble the GOP is in when Dem turnout out paces GOP turnout in a state that is as Republican as South Carolina when its a competitive race (well was suppose to be anyway) on both sides.   

cough... cough... hack... cough... cough... cough...

Seriously Sam?  How do you get hack out of that?  I think its a completely valid point.  Democratic turnout has been hitting record highs whereas Republican turnout has been pretty poor.  I'd definitely say that's a sign the Democrats are doing better than Republicans.

look at the stats Polnut gave us

Dem and Rep Primary numbers compared to 2004 results.

DEM 2004 - 661,699 DEM PRIM 2008 - 529,771 - 80.1%

REP 2004 - 937,974  REP PRIM 2008 - 442,918 - 47.2%

I'd say that's a pretty telling comparison which completely validates the point Smash was making.

I think it is an interesting point.  I could imagine Obama getting up to 45% of the vote in South Carolina.  I also think its interesting to speculate what the result would have been if both the Democratic and Republican Primaries were held on the same day. 

I think Edwards would have done worse, because according to FOX News some GOP voters who couldn't vote due to last Saturday's bad weather came out to vote for him because they wanted to be anti-Clinton.  I know this begs the question why didn't they vote Obama, but I suppose in another form Edwards could pickup Republicans being a White Southern Democrat. 

[Democratic Hawk]

One more thing, I doubt any one is disputing the fact that SC will vote anything other than Republican in November, but I see no reason why Democrats should not take heart in the fact that they secured a higher turnout in their primary than the Republicans did

In 1992, the Democratic primary attracted 114,191 voters; while 148,130 votes were cast in the GOP primary

I know 1992 isn't exactly the best comparison with 2008 given that an incumbent was seeking the GOP nomination, but that year, it would seem only in NH, SC, KS, NE and ID did GOP turnout surpass that of the Democrats. Among primaries that is

Dave

[Nym90]

Whether it is meaningful or not remains to be seen. The Democratic turnout in every state is way up from 2004, and Republican turnout is down from 2000. Those are facts, make of them what you will.

Now obviously in 2000 there was more incentive for Dems to vote in the GOP primary than there is now, but in 2004 there was more incentive for Repubs to vote in the Dem primary than there is now. So I'd say those factors balance out.

The only reason it's not at least somewhat meaningful is if there is any evidence to suggest that those who don't vote in primaries at all are going to vote Republican in the general, or that those who are voting in the Democratic primary are more likely than those voting in the Republican primary to ultimately not vote in the general (I highly doubt there are very many people who vote in the primary but not in the general).

I don't see many of the voters who are voting for the candidates who ultimately lose the nomination in either party's primaries crossing over and voting for the opposite party candidate in the general, especially not those voting in the Democratic primaries.

[Joe Republic]

No, I had nothing better to do: