• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Uncommitted" takes 42% of Democrat Vote in Ky

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,555
Reaction score
39,857
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the same sound you are hearing out of Wisconsin, West Virginia, and North Carolina. It is the sound of a depressed Democrat base.

...With 99.8 percent reporting, Barack Obama has 119,245 votes, while 'Uncommitted' has 86,789 votes. That is, Obama has 57.9 percent of the vote, while 'Uncommitted' has 42.1 percent.)
The Republican primary isn't nearly as close. Presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, leads his closest rival, Ron Paul, by over 55 percentage points so far. The current tally: Romney has 107,362 votes (or 66.85 percent of the vote), Paul with 20,117 votes (12.53 percent), Rick Santorum with 14,230 (8.86 percent), Newt Gingrich with 9,459 votes (5.89 percent), and 'Uncommitted' with 9,428 (5.87 percent of the vote)....

Romney is doing better against real candidates than Obama is doing against imaginary ones. Anyone who thinks that the Democrat base is going to turn out in 2012 like they came out in 2008 is fooling themselves.
 
Uhh its Kentucky. Obama doesnt have a chance.
 
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the same sound you are hearing out of Wisconsin, West Virginia, and North Carolina. It is the sound of a depressed Democrat base.



Romney is doing better against real candidates than Obama is doing against imaginary ones. Anyone who thinks that the Democrat base is going to turn out in 2012 like they came out in 2008 is fooling themselves.

I'm supposed to be surprised that "Uncommitted" is doing better than Ron Paul? Dude, it's ****in Ron Paul.

And WV, NC, and KY are all Repub strongholds anyway, so I fail to see why this is a revelation, or why it even matters.
 
Last edited:
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the same sound you are hearing out of Wisconsin, West Virginia, and North Carolina. It is the sound of a depressed Democrat base.



Romney is doing better against real candidates than Obama is doing against imaginary ones. Anyone who thinks that the Democrat base is going to turn out in 2012 like they came out in 2008 is fooling themselves.

Well I feel obligated to point out that Obama doesn't have real candidates running against him so its hardly fair to fault him for not doing well against them. That being said it does show Obama isn't getting the same outpouring of support and "fervor" he got in 2008.

I'm curious in primary "contests" where the incumbent is the obvious nominee like Obama is, are supporters and "casual" party members more likely to not vote because they see no reason to since its obvious Obama will be the nominee? Likewise how much energy is the Obama campaign putting into turnout for primary elections when they don't matter? Also NC and WI hold open primaries, I wonder how many of those votes are from Republicans? I don't know but it seems reasonable enough to say more questions need answers and therefore the Democratic primaries can't to use as a kind of litmus for the general election.
 
I'm supposed to be surprised that "Uncommitted" is doing better than Ron Paul? Dude, it's ****in Ron Paul.

And WV, NC, and KY are all Repub strongholds anyway, so I fail to see why this is a revelation, or why it even matters.

In 2008 Obama won NC by .33% of the vote, obviously extremely close and I do believe it'll be difficult for him to carry it it again in 2012. Some Republican strategists or supporters may use that as a sign that they are rolling back Obama victories in the last election and therefore they are on the path to win in 2012. However I believe thats an over optimistic view, its one thing to role back strongholds lost for a single election so far, its an entirely different thing to move into Democratic strongholds in 2012 the way Obama moved into Republican strongholds in 2008 and so far there's not much indication of that happening.
 
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the same sound you are hearing out of Wisconsin, West Virginia, and North Carolina. It is the sound of a depressed Democrat base.



Romney is doing better against real candidates than Obama is doing against imaginary ones. Anyone who thinks that the Democrat base is going to turn out in 2012 like they came out in 2008 is fooling themselves.

It's a red state, so, what's the point of this thread?
 
So I did some research on Kentucky primaries, in 2008 when it was Obama vs Hillary 701,768 people voted in that primary with Obama taking 209K. So he actually got less votes when he was running unopposed than when he did when he was running against someone else. However the turn out in the 2012 primary was far far far less, if we assume it was Obama or uncommitted as the only two choices, when we add those two numbers we get 206,034, which is not even a third of those who voted in 08'

AND based on the number of registered Dems in 2008 in Kentucky, 206,034 is hardly 10% of registered Dems in Kentucky.

So I believe I confirmed my earlier thought which was that "In a primary with only one candidate, turnout is far less." And since about 90% of people didn't even vote who could vote in this primary, the data is so incomplete you can hardly draw any conclusion from it, either about Kentucky in 2012 or the nation in 2012. Of course I don't doubt that Kentucky will be Red in 2012, but that comes from other sources of information, looking solely at these primary numbers tells you nothing.

Kentucky Democratic primary, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the same sound you are hearing out of Wisconsin, West Virginia, and North Carolina. It is the sound of a depressed Democrat base.



Romney is doing better against real candidates than Obama is doing against imaginary ones. Anyone who thinks that the Democrat base is going to turn out in 2012 like they came out in 2008 is fooling themselves.

This doesn't surprise me. Kentucky is one of those states, like West Virginia for instance, in which the Democrats outnumber the Republicans and usually win statewide elections. Like Governor Beshear's landslide victory last year. In presidential elections the state is very red, so it doesn't surprise me that a large percent of the Democrats don't support Obama.
 
In 2008 Obama won NC by .33% of the vote, obviously extremely close and I do believe it'll be difficult for him to carry it it again in 2012. Some Republican strategists or supporters may use that as a sign that they are rolling back Obama victories in the last election and therefore they are on the path to win in 2012. However I believe thats an over optimistic view, its one thing to role back strongholds lost for a single election so far, its an entirely different thing to move into Democratic strongholds in 2012 the way Obama moved into Republican strongholds in 2008 and so far there's not much indication of that happening.

The way I see it, Obama overachieved in 2008 due to the fact that it was pretty much a wave election and folks were just upset with Bush's tenure. I don't think any intelligent person reasonably expects Obama to repeat what happened in 2008, especially in states that are traditionally red like NC, KY, and WV. Keep in mind that in many of those states, Obama carried the state only slightly when it came to the popular vote.

So I totally agree. If something like this happened in a traditionally blue state, then maybe it would actually mean something.
 
If the States were still our primary political identites, then you would be correct. As politics have been nationalized, however, this is indicative.
 
If the States were still our primary political identites, then you would be correct. As politics have been nationalized, however, this is indicative.

But the way the Democratic party operates in Kentucky is profoundly different than most states.
 
If the States were still our primary political identites, then you would be correct. As politics have been nationalized, however, this is indicative.

Obama has pulled a head of romny in PA by a full 8% points and he was slightly behind a few weeks ago...i think you will find its a give and take thing right now...and in the end...people will make a decision. Right now its a tossup
 
Obama has pulled a head of romny in PA by a full 8% points and he was slightly behind a few weeks ago...i think you will find its a give and take thing right now...and in the end...people will make a decision. Right now its a tossup

I think this comes down to broken-glass voters; which makes polls even more problematic than usual. Harder to filter for die-hard v registered voters.
 
I think this comes down to broken-glass voters; which makes polls even more problematic than usual. Harder to filter for die-hard v registered voters.

Obama is ahead in fla and virginia and now in PA...we know he will win california...let me go peek at ohio ok...obama is consistently polling ahead of romney in ohio..so by electoral votes TODAY obama is doing well with those big number states...all this is subject to change by Nove we all know that....but I dont think obama is in the bleak spot you paint...hes not where a sitting prez should be thats for sure

The Reaction: Obama consistently polling ahead of Romney in Ohio
 
Back
Top Bottom