A little math regarding North Carolina

[politicman]

As someone said in an earlier forum, the raw numbers in NC are as follows:

Registered Democrats - 2,800,000
Registered Republicans - 2,000,000
Registered Unafilliated - 1,700,000


So according to these numbers, the minimum Obama would need to get is 85% of Democrats and 40% of unafilliated to win.

While Romney would need 100% of Republicans and 60% of unafilliated to even come close.


SO I ask, why do the polls show a completely different story from these numbers.


Does anyone think that Obama cannot get a minimum of 85% Democrats to actually vote and 40% of unafillated?
Because if he does that then he wins, its as simple as that.

[bigdarryl]

1. Because the media wants a HORSE RACE so they can get there ad dollars

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

3. Seriously...

If I were a tv station manager in NC, I'd swear that they were neck-and-neck to Mittens would throw more advertising dollars at me.

[tridim]

4. I'm convinced that it's the media's fault that our country is always divided 50/50.

That's exactly the way they want it.

[Estevan]

5. Bingo!

My entire household is convinced of this.

[OhioworkingDem]

2. Question: What % of Dems will vote for Romney and what % of Rethugs will vote for Obama?

Your assumption does not appear to take that into account.

[politicman]

7. check this out

Latest PPP poll more conservatives will vote for Obama than actual Democrats who will vote for Romney.

[gcomeau]

6. Ahem...

"Does anyone think that Obama cannot get a minimum of 85% Democrats to actually vote "

EVERYONE think that Obama cannot get 85% of Democrats to vote. Voter turnout in this country hasn't broken 85% in recorded history.

I think you meant get 85% of Democrats who DO vote, to vote for him. But that's not the same question because it assumes exactly equal proportions of registered Democrats and Republicans will show up to vote, which isn't ever the case like it or not.

The math just isn't as simplistic as you are laying it out here.

[politicman]

12. registered voters

No the question is:

Does anyone think that Obama cannot get 85% of REGISTERED Dems to vote for him.


Keep in mind that the historical norm is for 85-90% of registered voters for either party end up voting.

And this number has been going up every presidential election cycle.


So if there are that many registered democrats then you would expect him to at least get 85% percent of those registered to the actual polls.

[OhioworkingDem]

16. I think a high turn out for a presidential year is 60%.

What was NC turnout in 2008?

[politicman]

18. again registered voters

Ok, but the 60% you sight is in regards to the overall voting population.

The numbers I sight are in regards to actual registered voters, which fall into the 60% that you sight.

[gcomeau]

19. Ok.. then,

EVERYONE thinks that. 85% of registered Dems have NEVER shown up to vote for a president in the history of the United States.

Yeah, it's been "going up" the last couple election cycles. Last cycle, one of the most high profile high excitement historical events in history, got it all the way up to 63%.

[LisaL]

8. Because pollsters assume republicans are more likely voters than democrats.

But we do have the number in NC, if we can GOTV.

[geek tragedy]

9. Because a lot of Democrats don't vote, and unaffiliated is heavily Republican leaning there.

There were more Republicans than Democrats in 2004.

There were more Democrats in 2008, but we lost unaffiliated 60-39.

[kansasobama]

10. Dems in NC

With due respects to NC Dems, there are so many Dems in NC who have fallen to Republican hype "we are disappointed with Obama." Hello! Repugs have been blocking everything.

Why would NC Dems want to stuff their man because the enemy blocked him. Don't you want to support him so that Obama can be bolder in a second term. It is so critical for us to not sit during off-elections and get our man into a second term.

I think your GOTV is doing some good work. "I don't know" Dems needs to get off their seats and go and vote.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Those are only registered voters.

In 2008, the turnout was 63% of the voting age population or 4,310,789.

2010 population 9,535,483
Likely vap 7,151,612

Likely not more than 4.5 million will vote this time around. Might be under 4. The numbers above in the op total 6.5 million.

The key. Turnout!

[LisaL]

13. How do you think less will vote in 2012, when the numbers of people who already voted are

ahead of 2008?

[politicman]

14. YES BUT

Yes, but if there are 800,000 more registered DEMS, then that means those people have already signed up to vote and if you get a mimimum of 85% of those voters to the polling booth ALONG with 40% unafilliated, Obama WINS.

[politicman]

17. yes but

OK, do you think that there will be more than 3 million less voters now than there were in 2010.

Seriously, do you think that more people vote in congressional elections THAN do in presidential elections?

[LonePirate]

15. Aren't 100000s of Ds in NC actually Rs who never changed their registration and vote a full R ticket

In the South, a registered Democrat is commonly a Republican voter. The same is true for unaffiliated voters. That us why so many state, local and Congressional offices in the South are held by Republicans.

[politicman]

20. could be true

Ok, that could be TRUE.

Although I don't know why someone would not change their registration to Republican if they always end up voting republican?

Just seems a little strange to me

[dsc]

22. because if they don't they can't vote in local democratic primaries

though this is becoming much less of an issue as the local GOP has become a real party.

[barbtries]

21. no.

not where i live, which is the triangle. democrats are democrats. some of us are very liberal democrats and most of us would never consider voting for romney. i think you're thinking back a couple generations.

[LonePirate]

24. If no, then why is the state so close despite Obama's superior ground game?

Reality does not match the simplistic comparison of registration numbers. Either D turnout is horrible or large numbers of Ds or Is/Us are actually Rs.

[barbtries]

26. i don't believe it is close.

the polls are full of shit.

the rural west is pretty red however.

[SweetieD]

23. I think there may be some left over dixiecrats on the registered rolls.

[juajen]

27. The opposite is also true.

I have a friend who is a registered republican, but votes straight democratic ticket. He likes knowing what the republicans are up to. He gets their flyers, phone calls, and emails.

[onenote]

25. A closer look, based on 2008 data.

In 2008, there were approximately 2.867 million registered Democrats, 2 million registered repubs, and 1.4 million unaffiliated. President Obama eaked out a narrow victory over McCain with around 2.143 million votes compared to 2.128 million votes.

http://www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/webapps/voter_stats/results.aspx?date=11-04-2008


That suggests that the situation this year isn't appreciably improved over four years ago and that we will have to work extremely hard to hold North Carolina.

[LonePirate]

29. Thanks. This proves a lot of what I have been saying.

Either Dem turnout is atrocious or significant numbers of Dem and unaffiliated voters actually vote for the R candidate. That is the only way to explain an 800K registration advantage and a squeaker of an election.

[Maximumnegro]

28. There is a Dkos daily diary on NC

showing that it is in fact very close and we appear to be running a little behind 2008. Remember Obama only won by 14,000 votes in 2008...