• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

No Preference wins 20% of the vote

bojanglefunk

bojanglefunk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
451
Location
Raleigh
Obama defeated No Preference last night in a landslide 79.2% to 20.8%. It was a hard fought campaign, but the POTUS prevailed.
 
Last edited:
No Preference took the Libertarian vote by a large margin, so he'll still be working.
 
Still pretty surprising that 20% of Democrats who voted yesterday in North Carolina went for "no preference" over Obama.
 
Would no preference include the people who didn't cast a vote at all, or only the people who affirmatively casted a vote for no preference.

Because I imagine alot of people skipped forward to Amendment one, voted, and left.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Would no preference include the people who didn't cast a vote at all, or only the people who affirmatively casted a vote for no preference.

Because I imagine alot of people skipped forward to Amendment one, voted, and left.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would--they only count the votes that are actually cast for one choice or the other.

The State Board of Elections has a total of 958,950 votes cast in the Democrat presidental primary, with 759,523 going to Obama and 199,427 voting No Preference.

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80750/en/vts.html?cid=101000000
 
How is that interesting? Most Obama supporters probably aren't going to show up and vote for him, only his detractors. And he's not going to win Kentucky anyway.
 
How come when Romney is only capturing 60-70% of the vote against candidates who are out of the race there is no story while when the same thing happens to Obama it's a major story from the perspective of conservatives?
 
DeacLaw05 said:
So Democrats aren't considered Obama supporters?
Click to expand...

Not if 40% of them are voting for "no preference" or convicts. Again though, it doesn't matter. Same thing is happening to Romney.
 
In 2004, the lowest percentage Bush received was 79.55% in New Hampshire where there were 9 other candidates most of whom dropped out soon afterwards. In most other states he was above 90% although he did dip below that in Rhode Island and Idaho.

In 1992 Bush received 72.84% of the vote running primarily against Pat Buchanan. Ross Perot was also in that race but only attracted 0.44% of the popular vote in the primary. H.W. Bush's worst showing was in NH with about 53%.

In 1980 Carter won the Democratic primary with 51.13% of the popular vote. His main opponents were Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown. Carter lost in 13 states.

Obama is nowhere near Carter territory with his approval rating and there doesn't seem to be a threatening third party candidate lying in the weeds. On the other hand, at least H.W. Bush and Carter were running against legitimate candidates to cause their low primary percentages. As for a comparison against W. Bush, Obama has dipped below 60% in four states so far, with most of his wins being in the 90s. So he has more bad performances than W did and his worst tallies are worse than W's.

Attitudedeac, I think the answer to your question is that it is not uncommon for primary supporters to hang onto their defeated candidate while a sitting President performing this poorly in a primary is more atypical. In 2000 Bush continued to hover around 80% after McCain dropped out, sometimes dipping below 70%. Really though, Romney's numbers mostly resemble Bob Dole's and John Kerry's, which does not bode well for Republicans.

Bottom line, Obama's primary numbers are a cause for concern but not panic. I'm sure the majority of his party will back him in November as long as they don't 1) hate him (Carter) or 2) have someone else to vote for (Bush the elder).
 
"Obama is nowhere near Carter territory with his approval rating and there doesn't seem to be a threatening third party candidate lying in the weeds. On the other hand, at least H.W. Bush and Carter were running against legitimate candidates to cause their low primary percentages. As for a comparison against W. Bush, Obama has dipped below 60% in four states so far, with most of his wins being in the 90s. So he has more bad performances than W did and his worst tallies are worse than W's."

Inane and useless comparison.
 
There's really not much cause for concern for Obama yet. Obama's running even -- with a guy who's been in the spotlight for the last six months straight -- without having launched much of a campaign. When his billion-dollar war-chest hits the marketplace, things are likely to change.
 
By the way, AR has an open primary. Many of those votes could be Republicans.
 
demondeacfreak said:
In 2004, the lowest percentage Bush received was 79.55% in New Hampshire where there were 9 other candidates most of whom dropped out soon afterwards. In most other states he was above 90% although he did dip below that in Rhode Island and Idaho.

In 1992 Bush received 72.84% of the vote running primarily against Pat Buchanan. Ross Perot was also in that race but only attracted 0.44% of the popular vote in the primary. H.W. Bush's worst showing was in NH with about 53%.

In 1980 Carter won the Democratic primary with 51.13% of the popular vote. His main opponents were Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown. Carter lost in 13 states.

Obama is nowhere near Carter territory with his approval rating and there doesn't seem to be a threatening third party candidate lying in the weeds. On the other hand, at least H.W. Bush and Carter were running against legitimate candidates to cause their low primary percentages. As for a comparison against W. Bush, Obama has dipped below 60% in four states so far, with most of his wins being in the 90s. So he has more bad performances than W did and his worst tallies are worse than W's.

Attitudedeac, I think the answer to your question is that it is not uncommon for primary supporters to hang onto their defeated candidate while a sitting President performing this poorly in a primary is more atypical. In 2000 Bush continued to hover around 80% after McCain dropped out, sometimes dipping below 70%. Really though, Romney's numbers mostly resemble Bob Dole's and John Kerry's, which does not bode well for Republicans.

Bottom line, Obama's primary numbers are a cause for concern but not panic. I'm sure the majority of his party will back him in November as long as they don't 1) hate him (Carter) or 2) have someone else to vote for (Bush the elder).
Click to expand...

Good analysis. I think it's safe to say that neither party is rallying behind their candidate, but there is nowhere near the discontent with Obama that there was with Carter in 1980. I don't think the "bad" performances by Obama are relevant anyway, since the states where he is drawing 60% are states that are solidly in Romney's corner, and provide very few electoral votes.

This election is going to be won in PA, OH, and FL and if Romney continues down the path of an economic platform built around tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the rich, increasing deficits, and cutting social security/medicare/unemployment, Obama is going to destroy him in the debates and will likely win over voters in this state. If Romney wants to play well in those states he has to come up with a more actionable economic plan that benefits the voters than "we'll cut taxes, cut regulations, allow businesses to be more profitable and then the wealth will trickle down to you someday." We are nearly 10 years into the Bush tax cuts and these voters are still waiting for the wealth to trickle down, so running on a platform of more of the same does not seem like a winning strategy.
 
bobknightfan said:
You could take a billion dollar ad campaign and convince 40% of the people that pigs can fly. (The Swift Boaters did it with far less than that.) Laying total waste to Romney will be a walk in the park. I'm looking forward to it. The Republicans deserve to get a taste of their own medicine.....after the bastards gave us four more years of Bush/Cheney. Many of the problems we are still trying to correct today could have been prevented if the voters had kicked them out in 2004, like they should have done.
Click to expand...

bobknightfan:2004 :: Walter Sobchak:Vietnam

The Dude: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
Walter Sobchak: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.

8TiiT.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top