Final - Dean wins decisively in DC - Turnout much higher than 2002

[Hoppin_Mad]

"Howard Dean won the first vote of the 2004 presidential campaign season on Tuesday, although it was more of a voting rights rally than a chance to express a preference for a candidate.

The former Vermont governor got 43 percent of the votes, followed by Al Sharpton with 34 percent, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun with 12 percent and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, with 8 percent.

The other five major Democratic candidates for the party's presidential nomination were not on the ballot. No delegates were selected; that comes later in caucuses on Feb. 12.

Turnout was higher than in previous presidential primaries with 12 percent of registered voters casting ballots compared to 8.4 percent in 2002. "

Congrats to all !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3622399,00.html

[slinkerwink]

1. thanks! First DC, then Iowa, and then New Hampshire, and beyond!

you guys can't stop the Dean train!

[shance]

2. Why were the other candidates not on the ballot?

n/t

[slinkerwink]

3. because they didn't want to acknowledge DC's voting disenfranchisement

oh, and they were afraid of the media coverage if Dean won big over them in the FIRST primary.

[JVS]

9. They didn't care enough

[anti-bush]

10. The REAL reason

is that the Democratic party had agreed that the first caucus would be in Iowa, and that the first primary would be in New Hampshire. Iowa's caucus would come first.

DC decided to go against the party, and declared that they would hold their primary before the others. The candidates, in a show of solidarity with the party's wishes, took their names off the ballot.

This is very similar to the issue with Florida trying to have a straw poll to be "first in the nation", which was finally cancelled in a trade that had the 9 major democratic candidates show up at the Florida state convention.

[stickdog]

17. In a show of anti-lose-to-Dean solidarity.

Wesley Clark & Joe Lieberman even extended this solidarity to include Iowa!

[REP]

4. Is This the Second Non-Binding Caucus/Primary/Whatever?

Wasn't there a Santa Cruz, CA one as well which Dean also won? Yeah, they're non-binding but I'm really liking the trend!

[RevolutionStartsNow]

5. Yep, we had one in Santa Cruz

Dean won with 42% of the vote, DK was 2nd with 28% and Clark 3rd with 25%. This was a big victory for Dean and for Santa Cruz Democrats who packed the Vets Hall and generally had a positive and energizing time.

[slinkerwink]

12. it's definitely a very encouraging trend for us dean supporters

and a bit demoralizing to others, I suppose.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

6. Go Dean!

D.C. is clearly not to important (12% show up at Voting Rights Rally?), however what may be important is that turnout was up. If Dean can attract disenfranchised voters around the country they will make the difference. Dean CAN win. I will support any Dem. but I'm still with Dean so far. A victory is a victory I guess. :)

[FarLeftRage]

7. A sign of the times?

Perhaps... Who knows...

[FrenchieCat]

8. Gore won that one by 95%

in 2000. Maybe the reason that there was a bigger voter turnout was because there were 2 black people on the ballot. Remember that Sharpton actively campaigned in DC. Maybe it's the work that he did that turned out the vote, since that's what he's known to do, especially in the black communities. Has anyone thought of that? Or does Howard Dean get all of the credit?

Since the white guy frontrunner of the entire Democratic race only won by 8 points...I am not quite sure what the rejoicing is about.....really.

Apart from that, congratulation Howard Dean in winning against Sharpton, Mosley-Braun and Kucinich. You are on your way!

[slinkerwink]

11. because Dean didn't campaign that much in DC, and the real

credit goes to his grassroots supporters who turned out for him.

[FrenchieCat]

14. That's not what I heard....

In fact, I heard that the Dean DC supporters were pissed at the campaign for using the excuse that "Dean didn't campaign there" was why. These supporters said that they had worked very hard...and yet, have been denied any credit for the "win" because the margin came under expectation. Sooooooooo, I think that maybe that excuse is not a great excuse. Let's not forget that Dean has Millions, while Sharpton has thousands (if that)....Plus considering that Dean has had 24/7 coverage over all other dems for quite sometime now....in DC too....illustrates that the "official excuse" doesn't wash, not only with me, but also with the poor supporters that were "used" and now are not even being recognized for their hard efforts.......But they've got the power...so I don't feel any real pity them.

But what is most ironic is that spin was determined to be required even though this ended up a win...no matter how miniscule.
Go figure.

Guess Dean will be touting the extra percentage in vote turnout....giving HIMSELF the credit...not taking into account Al Sharpton or Mosley-Braun's presence's on the ticket.....and that will be that. The dumb Washington politicians will lap it up...and line up to endorse Dean...thinking that he can help them raise money on the Internet (like the example guy that he used just for this purpose)and get new voters to vote for them, since that's the snake oil that Dean is selling. It's smoking mirrors and illusions. Those poor cockroaches are so intimidated, scared and desperate that they truly want to believe that Dean's snake oil gimmick will work. Sad part is that it won't. But they won't realize it until too late....and by then the 2004 will be a great big loss.

[Printer70]

13. Clark backed out of DC, backed out of Iowa

What primary is he going to win that will put him over the top? Not New Hampshire. Not South Carolina. After that, the momentum will drift away from his camp.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Was this a Clark thread?

I addressed the issue of the DC Primary....which is what the thread was about.

Clark is not mentioned in my statements..........

[Printer70]

19. Clark's absence is relevant

His abscene on the voting results is very much an issue. It was a strategic mistake and one that may cost him early momentum. I don't see an early primary that he can win. By then, the undecideds will have shifted in Dean's favor.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Pretty sad, since Dean didn't take the time to debate in D.C.

Sharpton, CMB, and Kucinich showed up for the debate. Dean was supposed to be there, but didn't show, so he was represented by an empty chair. The others had said they wouldn't participate.

[slinkerwink]

18. that's because harkin endorsed him

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. The Demcratic voters of DC already knew what Dean was all about

And apperently they liked it.

[Karmadillo]

23. Well, the 43% of the 12% of the registered voters who voted liked it.

Not sure about the others.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. He got more votes than anybody else

That's a win in my book. :party:

[markburgess]

21. this is a victory for all of us

it shows that voters will turn out to support our candidate.

[robbedvoter]

22. 1000 more votes than Sharpton! All that money and power...Woohoo?

[Larkspur]

25. It's more votes than Clark got.

Wasn't he suppose to be the one who took AFrican American votes away from Dean? Didn't seem to work. Oh, that's right, he wasn't on this ballot.

[LuminousX]

24. D.C. Endorses Dean

This truly can be seen as a test of Dean's appeal to minority voters. After Sharpton's recent attacks against Dean for the lack of diversity in Dean's cabinet in Vermont, the hubbub over the confederate flag, and the whisper campaign that minorities just don't find Dean to be in touch with their issues, the mainly African-American population chose Dean over Sharpton. This is significant. Especially in a non-binding vote. These voters had every reason to vote for the person they truly wanted, not the person who they felt could be elected.

I guess the best way this result could be spun is D.C. endorses Dean for President.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. With 8% turnout

how do you know that it was the African-American voters who supported him?

According to Google searches, the population of DC is about 70% African-American, which leaves 30% "other," including whites, Latinos, and Asians.

Are there any figures on whether the 8% turnout was proportional to the population at large (8% of black voters and 8% of other voters, so that 70% of votes were cast by African-Americans) or whether either black or white voters were overrepresented in this tiny sample. Was the percentage of turnout higher among black voters, in which case Dean has indeed shown some measure of appeal to black voters, or was the percentage of turnout higher among white voters, in which case this has merely confirmed Dean's appeal to white yuppies?

For example, if half the people who voted in this election were white, then Dean's victory is not at all surprising, given that most of the whites who live within the district tend to be affluent, precisely the demographic that Dean appeals to most strongly. In a sample this small, a GOTV effort by Dean supporters could swing this non-binding election in his favor.

Dean's "victory" is significant only if white turnout was insignificant.

[LuminousX]

28. Spin it how you wish

Voter turnout was 12%, more than in 2002.

You are right, we don't know the makeup of the voters. So let's assume the worse, that no blacks voted for Dean and he got all the white vote.

I guess we will have to wait until South Carolina to see his true status with minority voters. I'm willing to bank on the opinion that he got a plurality of the minority votes in D.C.

Either way, D.C. still endorses Dean.