Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fun Election Facts for the Kids
- The biggest Libertarian vote total in the nation, and the biggest ever, was given to John Monds, a candidate for the Public Service Commission in Georgia. At the moment he's won 1,056,225 votes, which, unfortunately, means he loses 67-33 percent.
- Barack Obama's historic summit with Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher happened in Lucas County, Ohio. Obama carried the county 65-34 over John McCain.
- There are three states where John McCain outperformed George W. Bush: Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee. The rest either matched their 2004 margins or broke for Obama.
- About one in nine Montana voters who decided their votes in the last week went for Ron Paul.
- Alan Keyes Party candidate Alan Keyes got around 30,000 votes in California, just ahead of Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, who lives in California.
- If you subtract the other candidates and read California like a rematch between Obama and Keyes (the two Illinois U.S. Senate candidates in 2004), Obama wins 99.5 percent to 0.5 percent.
- Cindy Sheehan got 17 percent of the vote in her race against Nancy Pelosi.
- States where Bob Barr came in third place: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas. States where the Barr vote total is bigger than the gap between Obama and McCain: Indiana and North Carolina. [Corrected: Did the math wrong earlier.]
- Hillary Clinton won 21 states in the primaries if you count the contested Florida and Michigan contests. Obama beat McCain in 13 of these states. (I bring this up because I remember being on Clinton campaign conferences calls where it was argued that only Clinton could take these states.)
- As Matthew Yglesias notes, almost all of the areas where McCain dramatically outperformed Bush were in Appalachia. Arkansas and Oklahoma are just as striking.
|11.6.08 @ 8:39AM|#
John Monds, a candidate for the Public Service Commission in
Georgia. At the moment he's won 1,056,225 votes
Anyone else a little mortified that Barr got less than half this
total nationally?
BDB|11.6.08 @ 8:51AM|#
"- States where Bob Barr came in third place: Arizona, Georgia,
Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas. States where the
Barr vote total is bigger than the gap between Obama and McCain:
Just North Carolina."
Wow, Obama actually won Indiana on his own then.
Mr. Chartreuse|11.6.08 @ 9:04AM|#
The latest for Indiana is:
Obiden: 1,367,264
McPalin: 1,341,101
Barr: 29,186
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/election_night_2008/election_map_premium/index.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS
So Barr's total was larger than the gap between the Obiden and
McPalin in Indiana as well.
|11.6.08 @ 9:05AM|#
That's funny, I would have thought McCain would outperform Bush
in Massachusetts, because of Kerry's hometown status and McCain's
popularity up here.
He really lost the shine on his brand over the course of this
election.
BDB|11.6.08 @ 9:11AM|#
Joe, didn't you see that NYT map of which counties voted more
Democrat, and which voted more Republican?
The only areas that McCain outdid Bush in: Arizona, Alaska,
Appalachia.
|11.6.08 @ 9:20AM|#
BDB,
I did.
Add some areas in the Gulf coast to that list - Louisiana and
eastern Texas.
When a political realignment happens, the party on the short end of
the stick usually picks up something - just not as much as it
loses. The western part of Dixie, and Appalacia, in this case, are
turning even redder.
|11.6.08 @ 9:26AM|#
My 10th Grade Son said that they spent election day in school
having organized debates and that it was quite interesting.
JIff
http://www.internet-anonymity.net.tc
robc|11.6.08 @ 9:29AM|#
I was hoping Barr would bridge the gap in enough states to "make a difference". In quotes because, of course, libertarian voters wouldnt necessarily vote GOP or vote at all if not on the ballot.
JL|11.6.08 @ 9:31AM|#
"About one in nine Montana voters who decided their votes in the
last week went for Ron Paul."
oh really? I thought 2.2% was more like one in 45...?
libertarian democrat|11.6.08 @ 9:43AM|#
If he got 2.2% of the vote (I have no idea) then the post might be referring to polling of people who were undecided until right before the election.
Jesse Walker|11.6.08 @ 9:44AM|#
As implied by the phrase "who decided their votes in the last week."
cunnivore|11.6.08 @ 9:48AM|#
When a political realignment happens, the party on the short
end of the stick usually picks up something - just not as much as
it loses.
However, the converse is not always true. And it seems that the
converse is what you're drooling over.
|11.6.08 @ 9:54AM|#
Does anyone know how many Democratic congressmen are representing majority GOP registration districts? This number may be a key indicator in how effective the GOP can be in reining in Democratic excess (assuming the GOP wants to return to smaller government, yada yada principles.)
libertarian democrat|11.6.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Well, I thought what you wrote was pretty clear Jesse, but since I hadn't read the numbers for myself, I didn't want to put myself out their and be (deservedly) rude if I was wrong. If I was slightly less lazy I guess I could have checked it out to verify what seemed clear.
|11.6.08 @ 9:55AM|#
The only areas that McCain outdid Bush in: Arizona, Alaska,
Appalachia.
McPalin beat Bush in their home states, and in the states Obama
really pissed off with his support for bankrupting the coal
industry. I wonder if the Repubs will see this as illustrating the
folly of running a "bipartisan" Dem Lite campaign.
JL|11.6.08 @ 9:56AM|#
"As implied by the phrase "who decided their votes in the last
week."
that's an awful sentence, and i still fail to understand the
meaning behind it.
|11.6.08 @ 9:58AM|#
Does anyone know how many Democratic congressmen are
representing majority GOP registration districts? This number may
be a key indicator in how effective the GOP can be in reining in
Democratic excess (assuming the GOP wants to return to smaller
government, yada yada principles.)
Good question. This is getting at the fond, if faint, hope, that
the "yellow dog Democrat"
will re-emerge as a check on the more outlandish tendencies of our
New Democratic Masters.
I'm not holding out too much hope - the yellow dogs were the last
Southern Dems, elected largely by party line balloting, and I don't
think there's anything like a solid bloc of Dems who have run as
conservatives and represent hard-core conservative districts.
libertarian democrat|11.6.08 @ 10:00AM|#
"As implied by the phrase "who decided their votes in the
last week."
that's an awful sentence, and i still fail to understand the
meaning behind it.
Your failure to understand is not the fault of the sentence or the
writer, in this case.
Jesse Walker|11.6.08 @ 10:01AM|#
First of all: It's a fragment, not a sentence. It only makes
sense in conjunction with the comment right before it. If you want
a self-contained version, here you go:
I haven't seen Dave's numbers, but I assume that the reason he said
"one in nine" rather than "one in 45" is because he was describing
"Montana voters who decided their votes in the last week," not "all
Montana voters."
|11.6.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Uh, yeah. The coal industry. That's why Obama underperformed against McCain in the very same areas where he underperformed against Hillary. Because of the coal industry.
JL|11.6.08 @ 10:09AM|#
"First of all: It's a fragment, not a sentence. It only
makes sense in conjunction with the comment right before it. If you
want a self-contained version, here you go:"
i was not referring to your sentence. Your sentence fragment made
complete sense, and was greatly appreciated.
I haven't seen Dave's numbers, but I assume that the reason he
said "one in nine" rather than "one in 45" is because he was
describing "Montana voters who decided their votes in the last
week," not "all Montana voters."
thanks for the clarification. a comma or two would have been
helpful.
Guy Montag|11.6.08 @ 10:12AM|#
The "early" reports I have been hearing for the past two days is
that fewer people voted this time than 4 years ago, despite all of
the hysterical media comments about record turnouts.
Wondering again just what exactly the media definition of "record
turnout" really is.
libertarian democrat|11.6.08 @ 10:12AM|#
And by you, I meant the staff at reason, not Jesse. Sorry to put you and Dave together.
|11.6.08 @ 10:29AM|#
"The "early" reports I have been hearing for the past two days
is that fewer people voted this time than 4 years ago, despite all
of the hysterical media comments about record turnouts.
Wondering again just what exactly the media definition of "record
turnout" really is."
There were far more votes cast this election (probably 130-135
million when everything's counted) than in 2004, or any other
presidential election for that matter. So if by record turnout they
mean a record number of people, this was clearly a record turnout
(any idiot could see that it was going to be, and I'm not sure
what's "hysterical" about pointing that out, especially since it's
very relevant to long lines and other voting problems).
There was also a substantially higher turnout by percent - probably
62-63% this year, compared to 55% in 2004. It will end up being the
highest turnout by % since at least 1964, possibly 1960, and
doubtfully even earlier than that (but almost certainly not the
record of 66%, set some time in the early 20th century).
|11.6.08 @ 10:29AM|#
The "early" reports I have been hearing for the past two
days is that fewer people voted this time than 4 years ago, despite
all of the hysterical media comments about record
turnouts.
All the votes are not yet in. There are still Western, provisional
and absentee ballots to be counted. It's estimated to be about
133M.
|11.6.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Sparky,
I heard estimates of 64.1%, which wouldn't be a record, but would
pass 1960's 63.5% and be the most since 1908 (65.7%). No one ever
said a record, they usually said, most in 40 years or some such or
most in the modern era.
Guy Montag|11.6.08 @ 10:52AM|#
No, Sparky, the "early reports" I have been hearing are 120 million this time vs. over 212 million from last time. Seems we are hearing different things. "any idiot could see that" as a possiblilty.
Syd|11.6.08 @ 10:53AM|#
I don't think the 1908 turnout is a record. If I remember, it was set in the 19th century, maybe in 1880.
|11.6.08 @ 11:00AM|#
The day after elections, my boss (limousine,learjet liberal)grilled me on my voting selections, I told her I went libertarian much of the way, and she lectured me on "throwing away my vote". While I was trying to figure out how to exit the room, uh, with my job intact, she commenced to toss me Cosmo type quiz questions about campaign issues, as if it were Prior to the election, what was my stance on this and that, like abortion, etc. She pronounced me an honorary Obama supporter, and I told her I didn't like either of the major party candidates, felt they were almost the same. Then she blithely continued with "What's your take on Healthcare?" I answered, "Glad you asked! Being as how you are my employer, Yes, Please, I'd like some." (crickets chirping) Then she tried to continue, and I tossed the Health care thing at her again, and she desisted. She jets her teenage daughter to a Florida clinic for TMJ due to too much sugarless gum for lunch, (just like Mummy),rents a house for a week during surgery, and I owe the local hospital for 3 years for my portion of a stress test. ouch. Boo Hoo boho!
|11.6.08 @ 11:19AM|#
"No, Sparky, the "early reports" I have been hearing are 120
million this time vs. over [121] million from last time."
I don't know where those early reports of yours came from, but they
bear absolutely no resemblance to any reports I read from a wide
range of sources. They also bear no resemble to basic common sense,
given the record numbers of new registrations, primary votes, and
absentee/early votes, as well as the exceptionally long lines
reported all over the country on election day itself. The
overwhelming consensus before the election and on election day was
that the total number of votes cast would be in the ballpark of 130
million, if not higher. And it turns out that's exactly where the
estimates since Tuesday night are as well. You may want to
reconsider your source(s) for early reports, because they aren't
too reliable.
|11.6.08 @ 11:28AM|#
I have noticed that statewide or US Senatorial Libertarian
candidates here in California tend to get huge vote totals that
shame the POTUS candidates, as well. For instance, in 2006 the
Libertarian candidate for INSURANCE COMMISSIONER got over 300K
votes (3.7%). Libertarian candidates for "top-of-the-ticket"
Statewide offices (EXCEPT Governor!) can often command 200K votes
or more.
I think that people simply believe that the POTUS race (like the
Governor's race) is too important (and, after 2000, potentially too
close) to use it for "protest" purposes, as many will often do with
lesser races.
The LP is beating itself up now, in the biennial flagellation fest
that comes after top-of-ticket candidates "stumble" at the polls.
In truth, Bob Barr has already become the 2nd-best vote getter in
LP POTUS candidate history, in an era when every POTUS election is
characterized as "the most important of our lives" (in an effort to
shoo the herd back into the GOP and Demo tents). The plain facts
are that only the most truly exceptional third-party and
independent candidates can shake out more than a million votes for
POTUS or Governor, and even then, what they get isn't usually
enough to win (or even, in the POTUS race, to gain a single
electoral vote, as Ross Perot learned).
The GOP and Demo candidates are assumed to be qualified, due to the
size and vetting process of their respective major parties
(although the Democrat Party's was called into question over Obama
and the GOP's over Palin). Third party and independent candidates
for Governor or POTUS have to work extra hard to prove themselves
worthy of a voter's "investment." The bar is set pretty high, which
is what makes the achievments of Ed Clark in 1980 for POTUS and,
for example, Ed Thompson in 2002 for Wisconsin governor (10% of the
vote) all the more remarkable.
|11.6.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Creech @ 9:54
I think alot of that happened in '94. A good example in Ohio is
Kucinich's district had a long-time Rep Mary Rose Okar. She was one
of the posterchildren for the "Congress check bouncing scandal"
(remember that one). The R (can't remember his name) won that seat
but it was pretty obvious that he was going to be one-term and
done. He lost in 98 to Kucinich who now wins that district in the
80-20 range.
Speaking for myself in '08, my district, Ohio16, had Regula (R)
representing it since 1972. He typical won in the 65-35 range
although his last couple elections were getting a little closer
(like 57-43 or so). Schuring was his hand picked lackey so I voted
for the Dem figuring he would be 1-term and done and we can get
some new representation in this district. I would think Ohio16
would be very high on the list of '10 flips.
MAX HATS|11.6.08 @ 12:47PM|#
- The biggest Libertarian vote total in the nation, and the biggest ever, was given to John Monds, a candidate for the Public Service Commission in Georgia. At the moment he's won 1,056,225 votes, which, unfortunately, means he loses 67-33 percent.
I don't know anything about the guy, but I'd guess he's a competent
guy running for a position he is qualified for - the kind of guy
who would have won if he had run under the banner of a major party.
He's also the kind of guy places like Reason doesn't talk about.
Instead the hype all goes to froofy haired wild eyed freakshows
with 0 chance of winning, and who would have no capability of doing
their jobs if they did by some miracle or legality win.
Geotpf|11.6.08 @ 12:57PM|#
BDB | November 6, 2008, 9:11am | #
Joe, didn't you see that NYT map of which counties voted more
Democrat, and which voted more Republican?
The only areas that McCain outdid Bush in: Arizona, Alaska,
Appalachia.
So, home states of the candidates and the most racist area in the
US. Makes sense. It also shows that McCain, personally, brought
absolutely nothing to the table, other than the state he was from
and his skin color.
Geotpf|11.6.08 @ 12:59PM|#
MAX HATS | November 6, 2008, 12:47pm | #
- The biggest Libertarian vote total in the nation, and the biggest
ever, was given to John Monds, a candidate for the Public Service
Commission in Georgia. At the moment he's won 1,056,225 votes,
which, unfortunately, means he loses 67-33 percent.
I don't know anything about the guy, but I'd guess he's a competent
guy running for a position he is qualified for - the kind of guy
who would have won if he had run under the banner of a major party.
He's also the kind of guy places like Reason doesn't talk about.
Instead the hype all goes to froofy haired wild eyed freakshows
with 0 chance of winning, and who would have no capability of doing
their jobs if they did by some miracle or legality win.
Well, he only did that well because nobody for that job had a D by
their name. Looks like a third of the population simply refuses to
vote for any Republican for any job.
Guy Montag|11.6.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Precinct 68, Knox County, TN
Barr/Root got my mail-in ballot, along with three other like-minded
folk. 6 early voters and 3 more on 4 Nov. 08, for a total of 13,
smashing the total of 9 for Nader.
McCain/Palin got 61.34% (1,864) total for the precinct.
John|11.6.08 @ 1:54PM|#
9085 votes were cast in my home ward, 16 went to Bob Barr.
Meaning my vote raised his ward percentage from .1651% to
.1761%.
And who says their vote doesn't count?
|11.6.08 @ 1:56PM|#
In other San Francisco election news, we voted down "public
power" again (i.e. taking over PG&E), renaming a sewage plant
after Bush, and millions for "affordable housing," while voting for
keeping JROTC in the schools. (Not that the last is binding on the
lefty board of education.)
We also voted in as a judge the bonehead ex-supervisor Gerardo
Sandoval, who in a Hannity & Colmes interview claimed that the
United States did not need a military. Even Colmes was
flabbergasted.
|11.6.08 @ 3:42PM|#
We also voted in as a judge the bonehead ex-supervisor
Gerardo Sandoval, who in a Hannity & Colmes interview claimed
that the United States did not need a military. Even Colmes was
flabbergasted.
Didn't George Washington feel the same way about standing
armies?
|11.6.08 @ 4:31PM|#
John Inks made it into the Mountain View city council. Only 14% of the vote, but enough to give him one of the four open slots in a nine-way race.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245