The Morning After ... Statistical Reality

Obama supporters are delirious about yesterday's SC win, and to be honest I share some of their enthusiasm.   If this time next year we are inaugurating President Barack Obama, I will be as deliriously happy as any Obama supporter is today.

But I'm not there yet, and we all need to keep our eyes on the NOVEMBER prize.    Below are several numbers meant to sober you up on the morning after ...

In the 2004 general election in South Carolina (from CNN):  

Bush:  947, 974
Kerry:  661,699
Nader:  5,520

Even though 2004 wasn't much of a contest (they had an incumbent), the Republicans were able to mobilize 950,000 votes in South Carolina!  

Yesterday Obama got 295,000 in the primary.    Add to that Hillary's 141,000 and Edwards' 93,000, and you get a grand total of, ta-da!,

529,000 votes!

So assuming that ALL Democrats vote for Obama (which based on postings here and elsewhere, is not the case), where are the extra 430,000 votes to carry SC in the general going to come from?

The Democratic base -- especially Obama supporters -- were highly energize by this primary.   Folks, it ain't gonna happen in South Carolina in November.   Can Obama attract 430,000 cross-over Republicans?   I don't think so.  

So ... what does South Carolina tell us about "President" Obama?     Most likely, nothing.  But if it tells us anything, it's not something that makes ME deliriously happy.

•  Wouldn't it make more sense

  to compare primary to primary rather than primary to general?

  by prodigal on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:38:25 AM PDT

  •  Yes it would ... but ...

    the Demcratic primary has attracted huge attention in the media, and the voting took place on a Saturday (a factor that traditionally suppresses voting is the fact folks have to work).  

    So, total Dem turnout yesterday was 530,000 which 80% of the Dem vote in 2004.  

    Fact is, SC just has a lot more Republicans than it has Democrats.  So without significant Republican cross-over, Dems aren't going to win in SC.

    by mrogers2007 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:45:28 AM PDT

  •  No need for that word "more" up there

    This diary makes no sense.

    In the first place, SC is one of the last states anyone would expect to go Democratic in the Novemeber election.  Democratic victory in every projection already assumes SC will vote GOP.

    In the second place, despite all of the in the first place stuff, yesterday more voters participated in the Democratic primary than did in theGOP primary eight days ago.  So even in SC, this year there seems to be more interest in voting Democratic than GOP.

    by Quicklund on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:46:58 AM PDT

•  where are the other 400,000 votes coming from?

  well, aren't you assuming that there is only going to be the same number of dem voters in a primary as there are in the general election?

  That isn't going to be the case.

  I don't think SC can actually be won, but you are talking about a scenario where there is no difference between primary and general election numbers.

  But just in 2004, there were 293,000 dem primary voters and 661,000 dem general voters.

  If we get a 2-1 ratio this time, the dems could get a million votes hypothetically.

  by duha on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:41:05 AM PDT

  •  I agree with your 2nd point

    There aren't enough democrats in SC to win the general election, no  matter what race, color, creed, religion, gender, or planetary system they belong to.

    So ... my point was there's not much to be delirious about in SC.  We need to all wake up to this fact and start thinking about the rest of the country!

    by mrogers2007 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:50:34 AM PDT

  •  2-1 ratio is impossible

    How can you expect a 2-1 ratio if there simply aren't that many democrats in the whole state?  What, you're going to IMPORT some?

    This election energized democrats, I said that in my post.   80% of 2004's total democratic vote came out yesterday.   Run the numbers.

    by mrogers2007 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:43:49 AM PDT

•  That doesn't bother me

  We can have an electoral landslide without even touching the South.  AZ, NV, NM, CO, MO, OH, and IA -- just to name a few -- are much more ripe for the picking than SC.  VA and NC would fall to us long before SC, and I'm not even sure either of those are within reach this year.  But again, we simply don't need them.

  by cardinal on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:41:43 AM PDT

  •  Correct!

    THAT is what people need to be focussing on, not SC where Dems get virtually 100% of the african-american vote every election and we still don't carry the state.

    by mrogers2007 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:47:00 AM PDT

  •  I disagree

    Virginia will be in play this election.  I think NC will be as well.  

    The 50 state strategy works.  Make Republicans play defense in "their" territory.  Make them defend their policies in the places where they have done the most damage, namely in Southern states with high military populations, loads of lost jobs and high foreclosure rates.  

    Democrats can win on message in the South.  They just have to be up front about it, show no fear and not back down to the smear machine when it cranks up.  

    by Guy Fawkes on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:37:50 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the reality check...

  some here really needed it! lol.

  by Clint2 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:00:16 AM PDT

•  NEWS FLASH!

  We probably won't win Utah either.

  by DC Pol Sci on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:05:55 AM PDT

•  "What can 50 do?"

  "50 men coming out of the Nefud are 50 men that others might join"
  My apologies to Peter O'Toole
  paraphrasing Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

  by Elvis meets Nixon on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM PDT

•  I am delirious because of what it could mean.....

  ..beyond South Carolina. Yes, the chances are slim to none that the Dems take SC in November. The results still portend very well for the Democrats in the general election because it is a reflection of voter sentiment. There have been exceptionally large turnouts of Democrats so far compared to Republicans. If general elections are largely won on turnout, then we are looking good. That's why I think the SC results could portend a sweep in November.  

  by Don Enrique on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:09:12 AM PDT

•  Thank you Thank you Thank you

  I didn't know the stats. Concentrate on the West.

  by ellend818 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:30:48 AM PDT

•  Comparing the number of primary votes with

  the number of general election votes is stupid.
    Nuff said.

  by jimG on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:33:47 AM PDT

  •  jimG - blind unsupported assertions ...

    are not going to help us beat the republicans in November.

    by mrogers2007 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM PDT

•  This diary is comparing apples to oranges.

  It doesn't matter if the number of primary voters last night were more, less or equal to the number of general voters of the year before.  What needs to be examined is the trends in South Carolina in terms of what percentage of general election voters also voted in the primary.  By this same logic, we could argue that since almost 950,000 voted R in the general last time, and only about 430,000 voted in the R primary that half the Republicans in the state will not vote in the general.  There is no way to draw this conclusion from those facts.  

  I grant you that the election will be difficult, and probably will not break for Obama, should he be the Democratic nominee, but to justify these conclusions you need to compare similar events from the same year.  There are too many variables, otherwise.

  by SDChelle on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM PDT

•  EVERYONE - Look at some numbers

  The last time a Democrat won SC in a general presidential election was 1976, with Jimmy Carter.

  Clinton didn't take the state and you can bet your booties no northern liberal will ever take it.    Therefore, it doesn't matter one iota how Obama did in SC.   Quite a few people have been throwing around numbers on KOS this morning, trying to make everyone believe that the Obama win in SC means something.   It means nothing.  

  Here are the numbers:
  2004 Bush (R) 58.0% Kerry (D) 40.9%
  2000 Bush (R) 56.8% Gore (D) 40.9%
  1996 Dole (R) 49.8% Clinton (D) 44.0%
  1992 Bush (R) 48.0% Clinton (D) 39.9%
  1988 Bush (R) 61.5% Dukakis (D) 37.6%
  1984 Reagan (R) 63.6% Mondale (D) 35.6%
  1980 Reagan (R) 49.4% Carter (D) 48.1%
  1976 Carter (D) 56.2% Ford (R) 43.1%

  by mrogers2007 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:53:17 AM PDT

•  "Statistical Nonsense" is more like it

  Whether the Democrats actually win SC in November is largely irrelevant.

  But,  even if it were,  your assumption that the Democrats would have to come up with 400k additional votes to overcome the 2004 number of Republican votes is absurd.  While the chance of 200k Republican voters switching is about 0,  other mixes of increased/decreased turnout and switching could make the SC vote much closer.

  If you actually wanted to inject some "statistical reality",  you would have looked at how this primary differed from past primaries,  and what that might portend for the upcoming primaries and for overall trends in the general.

  E.g.,  SC is an open primary state.  Are there any signs of crossover that might portend an R->D shift in SC or the country as a whole?

  Do the D and R turnout numbers suggest increases or decreases in the enthusiasm of their members?

  How did Hillary fare in comparison to Bill in 1992 and 1996?

  Those are the sorts of questions that might have revealed some "reality".

  by Ran Talbott on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:32:03 PM PDT

  •  FYI my diary was in response to ...

    a number of breathless diaries coming out this morning claiming that since the Democratic turn-out in SC primary was higher than the Republican primary turn-out, that Democrats could take SC.

    That is a ridiculous claim and anyone understands the demographics of electoral results in this country  will know that.    I think maybe my diary should have made it more clear that I was responding to those claims, not attempting to provide a comprehensive statistical analysis of the electorate in SC.  

    To answer YOUR questions:

    * Yes there were signs of cross-over and Edwards dominates in that demographic.

    * The D and R turn-out numbers in the primaries are not predictive, because the Republicans are good at getting out the vote when it counts -- when they're threatened by losing to a Democrat.   That is well known.  They WILL turn out the vote in November.  

    * Hillary now and Bill 1992/1996?    Not sure what that would tell us, even if we could assume that the situations were comparable.

    by mrogers2007 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:29:30 PM PDT