Skip to main content

This is an update to my prior post that made it to the front page. (I'm still a bit in shock over that, and want to thank kos again for putting it up.)

Here are the latest totals I have:

<div class="indent">Total votes cast: 131,044,532

Obama: 69,003,839
McCain: 59,752,660
Margin: 9,251,179</div>

You'll notice the totals for Obama and McCain have not changed much since the update at 130.6 million. The reason is that I've gone back and started including "total ballots cast" to the totals, which include a lot of write in candidates or under / over votes. Some states and counties are better than others in identifying all write in votes, so there are instances where these "other" votes are valid write-in votes, but the county just didn't identify them as write-in. Regardless, I would consider an under or over votes a part of the total turnout, even if the voter didn't want to vote in the Presidential election.

Also, the margin may continue to change up or down as additional counties report, although the ultimate margin will be more than the 9.25 million since the biggest counties remaining (as far as I can tell) are in Obama friendly areas, specifically New York City.

More after the jump.

Ultimately, we should see about a 9 million increase in turnout (from about 123 million in 2004 to 132 million in 2008), although the 2004 may be a bit understated depending on how many under / over votes there were. The two major candidates combined for a little more than 121 million, and third party candidates combined for ~1 million. (I don't have a good number for the third party candidates in 2004).

In 2008, the major party candidates have combined for 128.75 million votes, but this should increase over 129 million when the final totals are available, or an 8 million increase for the two major party candidates from 2004 to 2008. For third party candidates and "write-in" candidates, the total is about 2 million, which may mean my 2004 number is low for third party and write-in candidates, which may also mean total turnout in 2004 was closer to 124 million than 123 million if we included all third party, write-in, and over/under counts.

Some interesting, random statistics:

The only states currently with fewer votes cast in 2008 than 2004 are:

<div class="indent">

ME (although not sure if certified)
NY (although should end up positive when all the votes are counted)
OH (although should end up positive when all the votes are counted)
WV (at negative 4%, anyone know what happened here?)</div>

Note that these are NOT the same as whether turnout was up or down, since the eligible voter base increased in most states, so just because a state had more voters, doesn't mean turnout was up.

The 5 states with the largest percentage increases in votes cast were:

<div class="indent">

NC - 23.13% increase
SC - 19.87% increase
GA - 19.26% increase
DC - 17.52% increase
NV - 16.88% increase</div>

Obama got a smaller percent of the votes in only 6 states:

<div class="indent">

AR - 6.02% decrease (this along with WV are the biggest ?s in my mind in terms of "what happened"?)
LA - 2.28% decrease
TN - 0.81% decrease
WV - 0.75% decrease
MA - 0.68% decrease
OK - 0.08% decrease</div>

If you want to know some other statistics, post in the comments, and I'll see if I can dig it out.

Originally posted to CB8421 on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:28 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Awesome work-- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, Judge Moonbox

      Do you think you could post the state by state totals for Obama & McCain again?

      The latest on the 2008 race at Ablative Absolute

      by sea2008 on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:57:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama totals (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, JVolvo, sea2008

        AK -   122,485
        AL -   813,479
        AR -   422,310
        AZ - 1,034,707
        CA - 8,244,078
        CO - 1,285,287
        CT - 1,000,994
        DC -   245,800
        DE -   255,459
        FL - 4,282,074
        GA - 1,844,137
        HI -   325,871
        IA -   828,940
        ID -   236,440
        IL - 3,398,545
        IN - 1,374,011
        KS -   512,605
        KY -   751,985
        LA -   782,989
        MA - 1,891,971
        MD - 1,628,995
        ME -   421,481
        MI - 2,872,579
        MN - 1,573,354
        MO - 1,441,910
        MS -   554,659
        MT -   232,159
        NC - 2,142,651
        ND -   141,278
        NE -   332,542
        NH -   384,826
        NJ - 2,195,619
        NM -   472,422
        NV -   533,736
        NY - 4,486,029
        OH - 2,884,035
        OK -   502,496
        OR - 1,037,151
        PA - 3,250,789
        RI -   296,571
        SC -   862,449
        SD -   170,924
        TN - 1,086,743
        TX - 3,528,633
        UT -   325,099
        VA - 1,959,532
        VT -   219,262
        WA - 1,750,848
        WI - 1,673,985
        WV -   304,096
        WY -    82,868

      •  McCain totals (0+ / 0-)

        AK -   192,631
        AL - 1,266,546
        AR -   638,018
        AZ - 1,230,111
        CA - 4,997,044
        CO - 1,070,810
        CT -   628,873
        DC -    17,367
        DE -   152,374
        FL - 4,045,622
        GA - 2,048,744
        HI -   120,566
        IA -   682,379
        ID -   403,012
        IL - 2,025,925
        IN - 1,345,636
        KS -   695,658
        KY - 1,048,462
        LA - 1,148,275
        MA - 1,104,478
        MD -   959,694
        ME -   296,192
        MI - 2,048,639
        MN - 1,275,409
        MO - 1,445,812
        MS -   724,599
        MT -   243,882
        NC - 2,128,474
        ND -   168,601
        NE -   451,851
        NH -   316,534
        NJ - 1,605,980
        NM -   346,832
        NV -   412,827
        NY - 2,649,403
        OH - 2,643,988
        OK -   960,165
        OR -   738,337
        PA - 2,646,959
        RI -   165,392
        SC - 1,034,896
        SD -   203,054
        TN - 1,477,841
        TX - 4,479,328
        UT -   589,742
        VA - 1,725,005
        VT -    98,974
        WA - 1,229,216
        WI - 1,259,739
        WV -   397,802
        WY -   164,958

  •  That's what I call a mandate! (5+ / 0-)

    As opposed to... well, you know.

    Oh, Arkansas.

  •  Now Let's Go Make the Mandate Bigger on Dec 2 (14+ / 0-)

    Let's get everybody off and on to the phones to make sure turnout is as big as possible!!!!

    ACTION ALERT: Jim Martin for Senate - Georgia
    Runoff Election Day is Tuesday, December 2.

    Phone bank from home now....until 9 p.m. EST

    Click on the right side "Make Phone Calls" [links to website]

    Click at the bottom of the page to "Contribute"


    Democrat Jim Martin for Senate - Georgia

    Runoff Election Day is Tuesday, December 2.

    Phone bank from home now....until 9 p.m. EST

    Click on the right side "Make Phone Calls" [links to website]

    Click at the bottom of the page to "Contribute"

    Bush said he needs Republican Saxby Chambliss in the Senate:

    More videos:

    Daily Kos Mission = To Get Progressives Elected.

    GO DO IT!! Please.

    Media Reform Action Link

    by LNK on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:37:04 PM PST

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    My initial reaction tot he WV and AR "What happened?" question is easy.


    It is the best answer to fit the conditions.

    I don't have "issues". I have a full subscription!

    by GayIthacan on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:37:34 PM PST

    •  But why only in those 2 states? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Judge Moonbox

      MS voters increased by almost 12%.

      Although looking at county results is interesting as well. Could there just be a decrease in population in very rural areas?

      •  Um.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo, mertmh

        But look at the percentage of black voters in MS - as opposed to WV and AR.

        I just think a lot of white Democrats in those 2 states stayed home - or voted for McCain or Barr.

        But there was enough increased turnout of black voters in MS to counter the loss of votes to whites due to bigotry.

        Would love to see the full tabs for all 3 states.

        I don't have "issues". I have a full subscription!

        by GayIthacan on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:48:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  that's also easy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, Seneca Doane

        WV and AR have comparatively had larger percentages of whites voting Democratic in recent elections. Whites in Mississippi haven't been doing that for president in a while. Any slight decrease in white support for Democrats in Mississippi was offset by an increase in African-American turnout.

      •  Several factors (4+ / 0-)

        #1--Rural White southerners (and Appalachia) just didn't vote for Obama at all.  It's evident in N. Georgia, East Texas, Red River Texas and Oklahoma, Acadiana (S. Louisiana) East Kentucky and Tennessee, even N. Florida too.

        There were no yellow dog democrats in the Presidential vote this year.

        #2--Big increase in A-A voting.  Southern states with large A-A populations had a big increase in turnout.  A-A turnout traditionally lags white turnout by about 10%.  This year it probably matched white turnout.

        Southern states with increased urbanization had a big turnout.  States with both urbanization and large A-A population had the biggest increase.  States without large A-A population and low urbanization (W.Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky--Tennessee is little more borderline) had weak turnouts.

        #3--Love 'em or hate 'em the Clintons were Arkansas.  Disappointment in not having Hillary on the ticket certainly was a drag.

        #4--Disaffected voters impacted both the Democratic vote and the Republican vote.  Blue Collar Dems not just in W.VA, but Eastern Kentucky, Western PA and Eastern OH and some other isolated pockets just didn't have much enthusiasm for the ticket this year.  Some traditionally rural Republican counties in the Midwest seemed to show a similar fate.

        #5--Population shift.  Actually can go hand in hand with #4.  Areas with disaffected voters are generally areas with poor economic prospects and population losses.

    •  WV did have new voting machines (3+ / 0-)

      Or did we forget that so soon?  Remember there were a few instances of vote flipping (recorded on CNN) and reports that the poll workers didn't know how to calibrate the machines properly.

      "...the fundamentals of our economy are strong"- John Sidney McCain 09/15/08

      by Shhs on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:04:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  WV has (7+ / 0-)

      a lot of voters dying.  Like my stepmother, who died there this year.  The demographics there (except for the eastern panhandle and Morgantown) are showing the economic damage from the 1970s having never let up.  My entire family (7 kids) left to find jobs.  And none of us ever returned.  Who's left behind are a lot of retirees and a few of the people who don't leave.  Consider this:  we're trying to sell mom's house (not like she's been using it for the last six months).  4 BR, 2 BA, 1/2 acre, 4 houses from a 18-hole golf course, $125k.  Where else can you get that deal?  Nowhere that has a viable economy.  Anywhere else, that house, built in 1958, would go for between $250k and $400k.  

      Why no voter increase?  No voters to increase.  There are other reasons, too, but consider demographics...

  •  Why include undervotes and overvotes? (0+ / 0-)

    I think the MN recount shows us that most undervotes are real abstentions and most overvotes are truly spoiled ballots (like somebody voting for Franken and Barkley because they just don't seem to understand that you can only choose one).

    For purposes of calculating presidential turnout and candidate percentages, I would not count the "total ballots cast."

    •  I'm including them for "total turnout" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, Nova Land

      I understand for presidential turnout, an under vote could represent a person who didn't want to vote for President, or you could interpret it as a "none of the above" vote. I'm trying to measure actual people who voted in the election, so including under votes would measure that. In addition, in a number of counties, they don't provide any information on write-in totals, so including total ballots cast would capture those.

      It may inflate the totals slightly, but I think it represents actual people who went to the polls better than just a count of people who voted for President.

      •  They did vote in the election (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, Nova Land, codairem

        As a measure of the number of people who participated in the election as a whole, your method is best.

        And now that I think about it, your method is the best way to test the accuracy of pollsters.  Let's say the final results are 52.5 O, 45.4 M, 1.35 other, .75 no reported vote.  I'd say a pollster who called the election 52-45 did better than one who predicted 53-46.

  •  I'm glad Obama's margin is increasing... (3+ / 0-)

    but I still can't get over the fact that only 131 million people voted. What the hell is wrong with us? In one of the most important elections in history, we can't even get anywhere near half of our population to vote?

    •  We got more than half (4+ / 0-)

      Of the voting age population to vote.  I think the newest estimation is that about 230-240M people could legally vote in the US, 131M is not bad at all thinking that way...

      "Polls are like crack, political activists know they're bad for them but they read them anyways."-Unknown

      by skywaker9 on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:52:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right, I was just thinking (3+ / 0-)

        after I wrote that I didn't factor in voting ages. But it's still depressing that 100 million people didn't vote.

        •  This site estimates voting eligible population (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckhorn okie, Drew J Jones, Shhs

          Estimate is 213 million, or turnout at 61.6% of eligible voters, but I think we end up a tad higher than that.

          •  Do they adjust for immigrants? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buckhorn okie

            There should be an estimate for 2 groups of ineligible voters: aliens (or at least those who haven't had a green card for long enough to become citizens) and convicted felons who haven't met their state's terms for reinstatement.

            I think that once those groups are accounted for, the turnout percentage will be higher--although still not the best we can do.

            Proud Citizen of Barackopolis.

            by Judge Moonbox on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 06:21:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think a lot of ppl in the traditional blue (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          N in Seattle, Delevie, buckhorn okie

          states of Cali and NY don't vote.  I was reading on on blog that only 50 percent of eligible gay voters voted in CA this yr.

          A lot of ppl fell that if their state is going blue there is no need to vote.  I have seen that sentiment expressed on this website.  B4 the election I informed ppl on this site to vote just so we could run up the pop. vote number.

          Getting some dems to vote is like hearding cats.

          "...the fundamentals of our economy are strong"- John Sidney McCain 09/15/08

          by Shhs on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  how does one determine gay turnout? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buckhorn okie
          •  New York and California (0+ / 0-)

            The most urban areas definitely have lower turnout than elsewhere.  Part of it is that they have a higher proportion of non-citizen residents -- remember that the Census counts residents, not citizens -- but I don't think the number of ineligible adults in those Districts can explain differences this large.

            I have a spreadsheet of House D and R vote totals by Congressional District for 2002, 2004, and 2006 (I'll add 2008 in a while).  

            Looking at the previous presidential year, we find that there were three CA Districts over 300,000 votes (CA-04/Doolittle, CA-06/Woolsey, and CA-30/Waxman).  OTOH, the votes totaled less than 150,000 in seven Districts (CA-20/Costa, CA-32/Solis, CA-34/Roybal-Allard, CA-35/Waters, CA-38/Napolitano, CA-43/Baca, and CA-47/Loretta Sanchez).  Several of those Districts barely exceeded 100,000 votes.

            It wasn't quite so extreme in New York.  No CD topped 300,000 votes, though four got over 275,000 (NY-01/Bishop, NY-20/Sweeney, NY-26/Reynolds, and NY-27/Higgins).  At the other extreme were the six Districts below 150,000 votes (NY-06/Meeks, NY-07/Crowley, NY-10/Towns, NY-11/Owens, NY-12/Velazquez, NY-16/Serrano).

            Granted, several of those races were unopposed.  But in both states, the lowest totals came in CDs where both parties ran candidates.

            Compare this to, say, Ohio, where every District had between 222,000 and 321,000 House votes.

            The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

            by N in Seattle on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:27:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here are average votes statewide by CD (0+ / 0-)

              Note that NY will increase when final is released. CA is still at the low end, but may be better than what you thought.

              AK -   325,054
              AL -   300,126
              AR -   272,188
              AZ -   290,106
              CA -   257,926
              CO -   345,011
              CT -   329,918
              DC -   266,871
              DE -   412,412
              FL -   338,252
              GA -   302,615
              HI -   226,784
              IA -   308,732
              ID -   327,516
              IL -   291,823
              IN -   305,749
              KS -   308,204
              KY -   304,402
              LA -   280,106
              MA -   305,068
              MD -   328,851
              ME -   365,655
              MI -   335,939
              MN -   363,796
              MO -   325,019
              MS -   322,466
              MT -   491,767
              NC -   331,599
              ND -   317,175
              NE -   266,197
              NH -   353,806
              NJ -   298,446
              NM -   276,719
              NV -   322,616
              NY -   249,003
              OH -   312,476
              OK -   292,532
              OR -   365,448
              PA -   314,396
              RI -   234,769
              SC -   323,207
              SD -   381,975
              TN -   288,776
              TX -   252,806
              UT -   316,998
              VA -   339,109
              VT -   325,046
              WA -   341,287
              WI -   371,585
              WV -   238,025
              WY -   254,636

  •  what was the national turnout rate (0+ / 0-)

    and how did it compare to past elections?

  •  Another fun fact -- increase in Dem vote (8+ / 0-)

    The total number of raw votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate has increased in every year since 1984.  Not so for the Republicans, where the pattern is much more erratic.

    Yr   D Vote         Change   R Vote         Change
    80 35,480,115                43,903,230
    84 37,577,352 2,097,237 54,455,472  10,552,242
    88 41,809,476 4,232,124 48,886,597  -5,568,875
    92 44,909,806 3,100,330 39,104,550  -9,782,047
    96 47,400,125 2,490,319 39,198,755     94,205
    00 51,003,926 3,603,801 50,460,110  11,261,355
    04 59,028,439 8,024,513 62,040,610  11,580,500
    08 69,003,839 9,975,400 59,752,660  -2,287,950

    Sources - - Our brother CB and  
    Dave Leip's Atlas

    As others have noted, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections.  But even more striking to me is the steady rise in the Democratic vote.  This is not a party in decline -- this is a party on the rise.  The Democratic tortise counterposed to the Republican hare.  

    Which is the true national party -- the party that steadily increases its vote by presenting a consistent  message or the party that manages to achieve short term gains through character assassination and election year gimmicks?    

  •  Tooting my own horn! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie

    Looks like I predicted McCain's vote total within a few hundred thousand.

  •  The Arkansas Vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie

    As an Arkansan, I am embarassed that the state of Clinton voted so strongly for McCain. I think there are several factors at play, which include: (1) no ground operation by Obama that would have gotten out the black vote;(2) because Hillary was first lady here for many years, there is doubtlessly some residual resentment against Obama shoving her aside; (3) probably a dollop of racism, which would have beens somewhat negated if Obama had put more effort into Arkansas and thus better acquainted the voters here with him and thereby overcome to some degree the negative McCain advertising; (4) and then there is the famous NY Times county-by-county map of the vote which shows that McCain was relatively stronger in a geographic area running southwest from WV to AR and OK.

  •  Third-party votes in 2004 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, Judge Moonbox

    "(I don't have a good number for the third party candidates in 2004)."

    According to the data provided in the Wikipedia
    (extracted and summed), the total number of
    third-party and write-in votes in 2004 that I
    obtain was


  •  IL has official numbers now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Illinois is now final (0+ / 0-)

    Obama 3419673
    McCain 2031527

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site