Sixty-million votes - how many were Democrats ?

[kentuck]

I haven't heard this discussed. And I have not seen any polls to say one way or another. But, my gut tells me that several million of Mr Bush's votes came from the traditional Democratic voters.

Perhaps it is only denial, but I cannot believe that Mr Bush has created that many "Republicans" with his policies. Obviously, we did not appeal to the majority, if we are to believe at all any of the polls. Sixty million?

My guess, and it's only a guess, would be that Mr Bush got about 10-15% of the Democratic vote. On the other side, perhaps 5-10% of Repubs voted for Kerry. Mr Bush came out ahead in the party -swapping by 5-10%, by my conservative estimate. Ten percent of 60 million would be 6 million votes that could have gone to the Democrat. If those Democrats had been reversed, Kerry would have won by a healthy majority, in my opinion.

This is just a theory and as of yet, I have seen no proof to back it up. However, if Bush has 60 million voters in the permanent corner of the Republican Party, we have a long hard road ahead.

[jdj]

1. not with his approval rating so low

wasn't it the lowest for any incumbent president, or lowest to win?

For me 2 plus 2 sometimes will come out 5 so I can't do the number crunching, but I'll cheerlead for anyone who will.

[JI7]

2. Dixiecrats

most of them are people who have stopped voting Democratic, especially at the Presidential level for years. most of their local or state democrats are zell miller types so they mostly stay registered democrat to vote for them.

and the 60 million is a result of nationwide campaigning they have worked on since 2000.

Kerry would have easily cut bush's lead or even exceeded it if he had spend some money in states that were solid red or solid blue.

[kentuck]

3. And "Dixiecrats" are not just south of the Mason/Dixon line..

They are rural voters from NJ to ND to CA...Rural voters nationwide identify with southern rural voters.

[TwilightZone]

6. You haven't spent a lot of time in ND, have you?

ND Democrats - and most of the upper Midwest, for that matter - do NOT identify with Southern voters. The difference couldn't be more obvious to anyone who has ever lived there.

Don't buy into the media's claim that they do. It's just not true. North Dakotans most certainly are not "Dixiecrats".

[kentuck]

7. They voted for Bush....

and I would bet for many of the same reasons...

But, you are right, I have not lived in ND....but what do you think are the differences? They both seem to want the same result????

[TwilightZone]

8. Wanting the same result doesn't make them Dixiecrats.

I'm sure Democratic rural voters in Vermont or California who voted for Bush certainly wouldn't consider themselves Dixiecrats, even if they did vote for Bush for similar reasons as voters in the South.

I fear that this is one of the problems we have as a party. We tend to think that voters are homogeneous when they are anything but.

Edit: typo

[MrUnderhill]

4. Both candidates drew a lot of NEW voters.

FAR more people voted than have voted in the past.

Bush didn't necessarily take any significant number a votes AWAY from Democrats (like the "Reagan Democrats"), he influenced a larger number of previously non-political individuals to show up and vote.

Kerry did a VERY credible job of this as well (and I'd bet he DID pick up some former Republicans)... just not AS well. But any way you slice it, 57 MILLION votes is pretty impressive. (I know, I know, "he still lost").

[kentuck]

5. But add 6 million votes to the 57 million.....

and subtract 6 million from Bush and I think you may have the "potential" Democratic vote... Just thinking positively.