Our primary turnout has been much higher than the GOP's. (So what?)

[Librado]

Let's not get comfortable and believe that because our primary turnout has been humongous compared to the Republicans, it follows that we will kick their asses in November.

In the 1980 primaries, many more Democrats (18.7 million) voted, compared to (12.7 million) Republicans. That's right: 60% of primary voters were Democrats. Did Jimmy Carter receive 60% of the vote in the General Elections later that year?

No.

He didn't even win.
In 1988, the difference was even more striking: 23.0 million Democrats and 12.7 million Republican voted. As you may already know, George Bush was elected president anyway, despite Democrats having almost DOUBLED Republican turnout earlier in the primaries, like I said.
In 2004 the difference was even more pronounced: Democrats doubled Republican turnout (16 million vs. 8 million) in the primaries. Who won the elections? Not our candidate.

You might say: "this time is different, because soooo many more Democrats voted now compared to '04. Yeah, and many more Republicans voted in '08 compared to '04 as well.

My point is, let's not get comfortable and believe a Democratic victory in 2008 is inevitable. It would be counterproductive.

Source of my data:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2008011701

[lligrd]

1. We Can Never Be Comfortable With Rove And Like

*s statement about knowing the Repugs would win, I take as a warning. What cheats do they have up their sleeve this year?

[katsy]

2. Guilty.

I'm guilty of this.

This is sobering.

Thanks and welcome to DU :hi:

[GreenTea]

3. Just look at the total registered voters from each state (link) only a small percentage from each...

state has actually voted or will vote in in this years primaries, (and this link is from 2004)....And there will be many more registered voters in each state by November 2008. (Perhaps as many as 10% more voters will be registered in November 2008 than in 2004) And the turnout will be much higher for the general election....Check out this link....

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_200_tot_reg_vot-2004-election-total-registered-voters

[AX10]

4. kick for all to see.

[LaPera]

5. Kick!

:kick:

[MagsDem]

6. Rethugs don't need to turn out -- McCain has had it in the bag

But good luck trying to turn out dems after this primary. People are pissed. And if Obama gets the nod I don't think he has a chance in hell of taking FL or Oh, and in that case we lose.

[GreenTea]

7. I do believe you are absolutely correct.

And the republicans electronic voting machines are in place, ready to manipulate the needed precincts around the country just in case.

[Recursion]

8. When was the last election that didn't have "record turnout"?

It seems to just be a function of the increasing population

[blogslut]

9. I understand what you're saying

However, I think this coming general election is different. Don't get me wrong, I totally believe that a portion of Democratic primary turnout is due to the competitiveness of the race. What I am not so willing to believe is a possible lack of enthusiastic turnout for the GE, come November.

We have to flood the polls for the GE more than we are for the primaries. This is true.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. We had much better candidates

Seriously, look at their choices at the height of the contest: it was like a lineup of Dick Tracy villains.

We had a bunch of people with true star quality. They were compelling by sheer personality as well as policy.

Yes, the reactionaries are on the ropes, but they're resilient as hell and well-sustained with money, vengeance, fear, media skewing, money and much more money. Many of us have cautioned about a hubris of inevitability, and that's because it's a real danger. Just because our turnout was much greater doesn't mean they're going to sit on their hands and let the unwashed bolshevik atheists storm the parapets come November.