OT: San Diego County turns blue this week

User Forum Topic
Submitted by svelte on October 30, 2008 - 5:02pm

From today's Union-Trib:


By the time you read this, San Diego County could be blue territory.
The ranks of Democrats countywide have swelled by nearly 104,000 registered voters since December, all but eliminating the 24-year advantage held by Republicans.

Republicans held a razor-thin 379-voter edge over Democrats yesterday after the county Registrar of Voters Office released the latest registration figures.

But with 15,000 to 20,000 more registrations to be processed for the Nov. 4 election – and Democrats leading in new registrations – the balance will almost certainly tip.

The surge in Democrats comes at a time of renewed interest in politics, both locally and nationally. More than 250,000 county voters have already cast their ballots for the Nov. 4 elections through early voting or mail ballots.

Democrats cited their get-out-the-vote efforts on college campuses and a lengthy primary season in the presidential race for their success. Republicans questioned the figures because of a nonprofit group's registration efforts within the county.

The final numbers probably won't be available until Saturday, as the registrar hurriedly inputs information from the remaining voter applications. Since Dec. 7, Democrats have increased their ranks at a rate of 2-to-1 over Republicans.

The latest numbers show Democrats account for 539,560, or 36.26 percent of registered voters. Republicans have 539,939, or 36.28 percent.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/polit...

‹ OT: Let's see Penn and Teller's take on Obama OT: Satellite vs. Cable ›
That's interesting, but not
Submitted by kitty-kat on October 30, 2008 - 9:45pm.

That's interesting, but not surprising. I wonder though about those who, like me, are registered as Independent but who vote conservatively...

I'm not surprised on this one
Submitted by nostradamus on October 30, 2008 - 10:45pm.

I'm not surprised on this one either. Many places even more conservative than SD have turned blue lately.

I was surprised, since SD
Submitted by svelte on October 31, 2008 - 7:17am.

I was surprised, since SD county has been red for as long as I've lived here. I was also surprised to see it had been blue as recently as 1984.

I would betcha that north county is still red.

Somebody commented on the article on the UT website and noted that the blue line isn't trending up much long term, except in 2008 probably due to Obama.

The bigger story is how the red line has been steadily marching downward at a pretty good clip for years. That must mean other parties, and probably mostly Independents, have been making the biggest gains.

svelte wrote: That must mean
Submitted by cr on October 31, 2008 - 10:18am.

svelte wrote:

That must mean other parties, and probably mostly Independents, have been making the biggest gains.

Yeah, too bad there aren't any other parties.

Oh, wait...that's right, there are, MSM just pretends they don't exist.

cooprider wrote:svelte
Submitted by urbanrealtor on October 31, 2008 - 10:56am.

cooprider wrote:
svelte wrote:

That must mean other parties, and probably mostly Independents, have been making the biggest gains.

Yeah, too bad there aren't any other parties.

Oh, wait...that's right, there are, MSM just pretends they don't exist.

As well as the voting public.

You can bitch about the messenger if you like but the message is still that as of this election, there is not a strong 3rd party candidate. But please, be my guest and split the right. It would make me very happy.

urbanrealtor wrote: As well
Submitted by AN on October 31, 2008 - 11:06am.

urbanrealtor wrote:

As well as the voting public.

You can bitch about the messenger if you like but the message is still that as of this election, there is not a strong 3rd party candidate. But please, be my guest and split the right. It would make me very happy.


How about splitting the left? I was a registered Democrat until this year. It's a chicken and egg question. You can't have a viable 3rd party unless they have press time and more people know about them. But they won't have press time until they become viable. So average Joe will never hear about them. Luckily, there is such thing as YouTube and the Internet. We no longer need to depend on the MSM to get info. As long as we're willing to look.

Yeah cuz the internet is not
Submitted by urbanrealtor on October 31, 2008 - 11:43am.

Yeah cuz the internet is not mainstream.

If they were that big on the net, they would be picked up by the scary MSM.

The news is a lens, not an agent.

Thats why piggington was mentioned in the NY times.

I have noticed a lot of what
Submitted by svelte on October 31, 2008 - 12:02pm.

I have noticed a lot of what seems to be the MSM putting out a story that has been on the blogs for weeks.

It appears to me that, since media staffs have continually been cut lately, they look for the easy story by searching the net. They find something good on the blogs, use the idea as the seed for their story, change it so it can't be attributed to any specific blog, and blam! instant story!

I guess there is nothing wrong with that, since they can get the opinions of many, many more people in shorter time with that method than going out in the real world and talking to people. Except that it doesn't cover those that aren't net-savy.