Would anyone care to predict the turnout? What percentage?

[terrya]

This is the most tenuous prediction of all, I know.

I'm going to say 66%. Seriously.

[Mr_Spock]

1. 68%

What do we win?

[terrya]

3. I think you win Kerry in the White House.

My thinking is that a huge turnout will benefit us.

[Mr_Spock]

8. I guess the WH is a good prize for me!

I'll take that - it's the best gift I could recieve this week! Year! Lifetime!

[freetobegay]

2. We are pretty close.

I would say 65%

[Oddman]

4. 57%

I'm hoping for more!

[Cocoa]

5. 75%

seriously.

[KharmaTrain]

6. I Won't Say Percentages, I Will Say At Least 125 Million

110 million voted in 2000...that's a serious jump and why we'll win. Kerry will win 65 million of them! Not sure the %. All I care is 271 Electoral Votes!

Turn out! Let's demoralize them with shear numbers.

[louis c]

15. I believe the turnout

was between 104 and 105 million in 2000.

My prediction is 121 million this time. If it's 125, all the better

[KharmaTrain]

28. Well We Can Say There Were Those Who Voted...

...and those whose votes counted in that election.

This time is different.

Yes, anything over 120 million means we're gonna pop champagne corks.

I can just sense a big change comin'

[RoyGBiv]

7. Something like that ...

I would say 60%-65%

Given good weather and an effective GOTV campaign, it may near 70% in certain, highly contested states.

Other states that are solidly red, not counting Texas, will have lower turnouts as usual, bringing the overall average down a bit.

Even 60% would be better than any election in a long time.

[kentuck]

9. 56%

???

[Ilsa]

10. Depends. I think in some states

where it is a "given", turnout will be only slightly higher than usual. My dad is talking about "saving his gas money" and not voting for the first time ever because he is in Texas.

[RoyGBiv]

17. The problem with polls ...

This is the problem with polls and the reason political parties try to keep them skewed in their favor.

If the race is seen as unwinnable, which Texas appears to be for Dems all the way from President on down due to redistricting, the Dems don't bother to turn out. We've had the same problem in Oklahoma for years. We think it doesn't matter, so we don't bother to put the work into it.

No offense intended. Especially with the price of gas, I completely understand where he's coming from.

[JusticeForAll]

19. But couldn't the argument be made...

When polls show an unwinnable race, the winning side is less apt to vote?

I wish I knew which of these has a stronger psychological disincentive.

[RoyGBiv]

27. Of course ...

Which simply means the conventional wisdom of the poll is ripe for being proved wrong, all the more reason for the "underdog" side to put on the pressure. It takes longer for the complacency of those currently in power to be overcome than it does to motivate an underdog who feels s/he has a chance.

In reality, what tends to happen in these situations is that the majority of voters who cast their ballots anyway come in two classes: those who do it habitually to exercise their rights and those who are motivated by some other race, often a state question. The latter is taking place in Oklahoma with a state lottery question and a heavily contested Senate race. Turnout will probably be a bit higher than normal because of these things, and the effects are hard to predict.

But, I think if we look at the circumstances of the Kentucky Senate race and CD1 House race in Oklahoma, we can shed a little light on what can happen when the "underdog" decides to fight. I don't know if the Dems will win those races, but they both have a very good chance of doing so *if* voter turnout, which tends to favor challengers, is high enough. Had those candidates and those supporting those candidates either not decided to run or not put any effort into their candidacies because the race was un-winnable, they wouldn't be in the position they are today. The polls told them not to bother, but they did anyway.

[Ilsa]

11. Dupe. Sorry. Slow server causing problems.

[ZombieNixon]

12. 65%

n/t

[louis c]

13. 121 Million Voters

Whatever that percentage is.

104 million was 4 years ago. Kerry and Bush will split the first additional 6 million evenly. We have a tie up to 110 million.

Kerry will get 2 out of every 3 voters above 110 million.

Kerry by just over 3% by my calculations.

[Zynx]

14. I think 59%.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. 60-65%

Are there betting books, with point spreads for Popular Vote percentatge and EV's?

I thought London always had a brisk bookmaking business on this kind of thing...

[catbert836]

18. I 'm thinking around 64%.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

20. I don't know about percentages

but I heard (and I could be wrong on this number) that 105 million Americans voted in 2000. I am going to say at least 150 million vote this year.

A HUGE increase.

[DemocracyInaction]

21. I think the 'experts" are predicting that it was like 51-52% before and

this time it will be 58 to 60%. I think the rise, also, was predicted to be among these newly registered voters. Heard Greenfield say today that reporters will ride by polls and yell "massive turnout", but when the numbers election night start to come in they will have a sense of whether there is a massive voter surge or not. Right now it's "up in the air".

[gcomeau]

22. I called it at 61-63% months ago...

...and I'm sticking to it.

-Grant

[saccheradi]

23. any proof to accompany predictions???

[Hamlette]

24. does anyone know what percentage of Americans are registered?

I know 50% voted and an additional 15 million voters registered this go around. But I don't know how many are registered.

[nookiemonster]

25. Common sense tells me

that a HUGE voter turnout just solidifies disappointment with this administration.

I believe that Americans would stay home if they just wanted the status quo and would remain apathetic.

[terrya]

26. That's on the mark.

Good point.