home

Turnout in Puerto Rico May Be Low

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:38 AM EST
Tags: Puerto Rico '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Geraldo Rivera is in Puerto Rico. He interviewed Hillary Clinton but it hasn't aired yet.

From his live report:

  • Turnout has been low to moderate.
  • She needs 160,000 votes for popular vote lead
  • She will win majority of delegates and superdelegates.

Fox News has a chiron at the bottom of their screen saying turnout may only be 20%. Major Garrett says turnout will be 300 - 400,000 votes. He also said she needs 96% of the uncommitted pledged delegates.

CNN will have exit polling.

< Puerto Rico Open Thread | Sunday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Turnout in Puerto Rico May Be Low | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Geraldo (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Lahdee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:05:44 PM EST
    Shame that he didn't find anything in that vault. Wonder what ridiculous question he'll come up with for Senator Clinton.

    Compared to What? (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    I'd be suspect of any estimates of turnout at this point. I'd guess there are a lot of church goers who would vote later in the afternoon.

    There is a high Catholic (none / 0) (#22)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:20:59 PM EST
    population in PR I think.

    That's a good point.

    Parent

    But polls close at 3PM ! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:51:46 PM EST
    3PM is ridiculously early for PR !!

    Parent
    Well, that's not going to happen. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:29:18 PM EST


    Once in a lifetime primary yet turnout is low? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Saul on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    I don't understand.  For once there is a chance for Puerto Rico to have some importance in who will be the nominee and now they want to stay home.  

    What was all the hype all about then.  They went out of their way to get a primary and for what.

    If ever there was a time that there would be voting record turnout it would be in this one.  What gives?

    Well, 20% is not nearly enough (none / 0) (#1)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    to satisfy those who give Obama MI undecideds.  Damn it.

    Those people (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:19:51 PM EST
    will only be satisfied with an Obama nomination.

    An Obamanation! ;-)

    Parent

    and Clinton supporters will (none / 0) (#42)
    by coigue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:43:16 PM EST
    only be satisfied with a Clinton nomination?

    What is your point?

    Parent

    The poster (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    was referring to the DNC people who gave Obama the MI uncommitteds, specifically.

    Obviously if that was their solution, those people are pushing for Obama's nomination.

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#78)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:06:08 AM EST
    sorry 'bout that.

    Parent
    Didn't CNN (none / 0) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    just report 50%??

    50% would be (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:08:43 PM EST
    more than a million and they would be reporting heavy turnout then.

    Parent
    50% of normal expected turnout is what they said. (none / 0) (#13)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:14:29 PM EST


    Parent
    May be they (none / 0) (#44)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    are referring to 50% not of RV but of what it usually is ( 70%-80%).

    Parent
    Any idea why turnout so low? Doesn't PR have a (none / 0) (#4)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    history of high voter turnout?
    yes but there are no (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    important local issues on the ballot.

    Parent
    No local issues and (none / 0) (#53)
    by s5 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    Nothing really at stake for PR in the choice between Hillary and Obama. Neither have really promised much beyond the status quo.

    Parent
    there has been (none / 0) (#47)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    a huge campaign to declare the race over for a while now and what happened yesterday with MI was terrible for HRC. It put Obama within easy reach of 2118.
    All of this has contributed to the low turn out. It is hard to movilize people to vote when they tell you over and over and over it is over.
    I also think Obama has the Rep. machine there working on his side.

    Parent
    Cut in Polling places in Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#74)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:01:51 PM EST
     The other day I found a  report that Puerto Rico's Democratic Party has asked the Commonwealth Elections Commission to cut the number of polling places by 1,000, apparently due to a failure to find poll workers.

    http://www.observer.com/2008/puerto-rico-primary-looms-smaller

    Of course if people have to walk farther, and queue longer to vote on a question that does not directly concern the Island....More DIRTY TRICKS by the Democratic Party...

    Parent

    It looks like CNN (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:10:47 PM EST
    will also be reporting by district. So we should know the delegate totals right away too.

    Not the news I was hoping for. I guess (none / 0) (#8)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:11:12 PM EST
    now I am hoping she wins it by more than 2 to 1.

    Thanks again for a very long day yesterday Jeralyn.

    20% of 2.4 million (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    is about 500,000 voters. That is what I expected and predicted.

    If Clinton wins 60-40, she wins by about 100,000 votes. If she wins 67-33, she wins by 230,000 votes.

    The margin now is the issue.    

    What, if anything, are we looking for (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:14:04 PM EST
    in the exit poll? Income? Gender distribution? PR party distribution?

    I will have very little idea how to read this one, but I don't think we really have to take much from it.

    Parent

    Age (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    but Kos has a great source keeping him up to date. Frankly, he is the goto guy right now. check out Kos's coverage on this.

    My people are not returning my calls.

    Parent

    His contact says now voting is getting heavy (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    after 12. The part about taking the registered voter lists and counting them as having voted...is that true. Are we going to be hearing about fraud now? Of course, we now have a stamp of approval for vote stealing and voter intent. I'm sure all those not voting intended to vote for Hillary.

    Parent
    Oh yeah (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    They invented that in Chicago.

    Parent
    Done in recent memory (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    in every major city in America. In Philly, the stories of committeemen voting the entire division are legion.

    Parent
    What does that mean? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    Taking the voter list and counting them as having voted?

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:29:39 PM EST
    That can only happen of course in a one party precinct.

    Parent
    I still don't know what it means. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    Can you explain?

    Parent
    I don't know what it means either (none / 0) (#60)
    by derridog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    and would appreciate someone clearly explaining it. Thanks.

    Parent
    Fake signatures? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    In CA you submit you signed voter lists or your signature is on the outside of your mail-in for them to verify and check off the voter registration rolls.

    It would seem they would need actual ballots to stuff?  I don't know, I'm just not that corrupt.

    Parent

    Question is, how do you know (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    which ballots to toss? You don't.

    Parent
    Wouldn't you just (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    dump the ones from the areas you know are heavy for one candidate?  Could have predicted here in CA which districts went for which candidate. Then, you know, just lose them?  In CA they are locked ballot holders (is PR?) and a team transports the ballots (does PR?)  Maybe I am corrupt.

    Parent
    Sure, lost ballots (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    that's happened before.

    But what I'm saying is, suppose you know that a certain number of "voters" didn't really vote? What do you do about that? Well, there's nothing you can do except accept the results or annul the election. You can't guess which votes were fraudulent and just throw those out.

    Parent

    Kos PR source - "list emptying" - uh-oh (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    >>>Humacao (district 7) should be interesting to watch because there have been serious reports of "list emptying"  -- a dynamic that occurs in Puerto Rico, when electoral representatives from one side are not present.  This practice consists in taking the whole list of voters who did NOT come in but were registered there, and signing them up as if they voted.   In the general election, this happens, but with an 81-85% turnout... the impact is significant but may be minimal.  However, on a primary where the maximum expected turnout is 30-34%, one or two of these may be significant enough to swing a district one way or the other.

    Parent
    Oh crap. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:35:20 PM EST
    I don't put anything past BO supporters.  I was sort of expecting something like that after Gary.

    Parent
    Umm (4.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    It might be Hillary people doing it. Politics is politics folks.

    Parent
    No politics like Lake County politics... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    Well, except Cook County politics.  LOL.

    I don't think Hill would allow people to do that.  I do think Obama would.

    Parent

    I hope so. :) (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    I wouldn't have felt that way until Texas and other caucuses, but after yesterday now I don't care.

    Parent
    Jajajaaj (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    Just read your profile. Armando, is that you?

    I think you and I used to debate, where was it, at Kos? Or maybe at Tacitus. I was under the name GT then. As I recall I used to be closer to your positions back then.

    I should have guessed who it was.

    :)

    Well, hopefully this all will be over soon and we can all focus on the real enemy.

    Parent

    Yep. Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by derridog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:37:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    I was referring to the guy that would continue the Iraq war for another 100 years and replace Stevens with an Scalia look-alike.

    Parent
    that fearmongering doesn't work here (none / 0) (#76)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:15:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Fearmongering? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:34:25 PM EST
    It's simple reality.

    What, you think McCain will nominate a liberal for the SC? Or that he will bring back our troops from Iraq?

    Parent

    OMG... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:36:41 PM EST
    this Democratic primary is sure exposing a lot of election fraud!

    We've gotta be able to do better than this. Ridiculous.

    Parent

    Never! (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:48:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Take this with a grain of salt (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Amiss on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    but on FOX, Geraldo interviewed the Governor(an Obama supporter) and he said he expected 60/40 split for Clinton. I kinda channel surf during an election to check the different views.

    Parent
    BTD - (none / 0) (#20)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    I thought it would be 1 million tops, but thought it would be much lower.

    Also, I didn't expect Clinton to have the numbers people here were hoping for as there were no local issues and it's a Sunday, a "non-working" day in Puerto Rico.

    But you did predict around 500K, so well done.  

    My Prediction is about 55-45 based on nothing other than speaking to relatives there. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was 52-48 or 58-42 either.

    Parent

    Low estimate is based on a report from (none / 0) (#10)
    by coigue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    only one polling place.

    Is this CNN making news out of every little thing or have there been updates with more substantial evidence?

    Could it be that the FL / MI resolution (none / 0) (#12)
    by barryluda on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    is keeping the PR Clinton voters at home?

    Voters don't count is d message keeping them @home (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    sadly.

    Parent
    If so, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by coigue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    it is unfortunate, but would be the converse of what happened in FLA/MI for some voters.

    DNC must fix this so it doesn't happen again. We look like buffoons.

    Parent

    FL/MI resolution (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by bobbski on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    "We look like buffoons."

    We?

    Parent

    "We" meaning democrats. (none / 0) (#79)
    by coigue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:42:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes I think (none / 0) (#49)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    it is influencing greatly.

    Parent
    Not surprised (none / 0) (#52)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    A few days ago I found this article in the NY Observer
    http://www.observer.com/2008/puerto-rico-primary-looms-smaller
    the reason its author predicted a lower turnout was that to quote

    " the one million figure is based on the astronomical turnout that marks some Puerto Rican elections that deal with the fraught issue of that island's status, and as Alvarez-Rivera told me, that sort of intensity probably won't spill over to a presidential primary. He suggested the real number would be around 600,000.

    Yesterday he wrote back with news that reinforces his forecast: a report that Puerto Rico's Democratic Party has asked the Commonwealth Elections Commission to cut the number of polling places by 1,000, apparently due to a failure to find poll workers.

    Alvarez-Rivera's analysis:

    Now, I can tell you that the only time in recent memory there have been problems recruiting election workers was for the 2005 referendum [on statehood whether to switch to a unicameral legislature], and those problems were widely perceived as being symptomatic of voters' lack of interest in the event - which turned out to be the case, as less than 600,000 voters took part in the referendum. With that in mind, the fact that an article like this has been published at all is in my view indicative that the Commission fears the primary could turn into a huge fiasco, and they're engaging in a PR exercise to shift blame away from them: in fact, the article essentially blames the Democratic Party and specifically its commissioner for the chaos."

    No relevance (none / 0) (#55)
    by Oceandweller on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    As long as PR is not a state; it certainly does not induce voters to participate, one of these days we shall have to really get an answer ; are they american or do they want their freedom; fine by me both choices but PR cant have it both ways.
    SO between not voting in the GE; which as such should decide wheter or not hold a primary in PR from the beginning, the fact that yesterday nilly willy Denver should not be a problem (better not be as we thanks to the DNC are stuck in the middle of nowhere) ; PR may feel like no one really care about the way PR votes. PR, MT, SD in fact dont count much as pollsters for GE will discount PR.
    It is not impossible that BHO may still do the right thing regarding HRC: as long as he feels he is not denied winning, he mau turn a generous winner. I know loads of Hillary fans believe they have been browbeaten, but BHO fans feel the same. BTD and J dont believe it, but you see things from your own points of view just like the opposite camp in fact ; you may as individuals feel you never wilfully abuse or antagonized BHO voters ; I am a BHO voter and I fear that just like I may have been unfair to Glintonians, well I fear the otherway around is true also and carrying on grieving does not get us anywhere.
    What we knoa is that Clinton voters up to 72% say in CNN they dont want Obama and Obama cant win without them, but then 59% of Obama voters are going to visit Venice , China or whatever when Hillary will need them and she cant be elected without them. Which leaves me in the same camp as BTD ; we need obama and hillary on the same ticket.

    blatantly fabricated, pre-planned post. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Lysis on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    No relevance at all to the thread, composed in advance by someone posing as a Clinton supporter.

    Hillary R. Clinton?  Seriously?

    I repect your opinions (none / 0) (#69)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:51:27 PM EST
    And I thank you for taking the time to read this post.

    I have thought about this post long and hard and it was not easy for me.

    Yours truly a Democrat who want to talk about the issues with you.

    Parent

    unity-posted too late (none / 0) (#67)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    Has anyone noticed the new take of the Obama camp on McCaine? Personally I find it very distasteful-almost as bad as the media's blatant sexism.

    The line is that McCaine is an OLD FART,repeated continuously, and goes on to assert that McCaine was STUPID to go to Vietnam in the first place and even STUPIDER to get himself TORTURED.

    These kind of gang attacks are something that I find totally unacceptable. As an older woman I feel it would be impossible to vote for this kind of candidate. I am even beginning to find McCaine quite charming! His remarks on non-nuclear proliferation convince me more, while Obama's lack of preparation on HANFORD convince me ever

    That started some time ago (none / 0) (#75)
    by befuddled on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:25:48 PM EST
    You're only seeing more and noticing it. The preemptive trolling had the same lines when I was watching CNN posts.

    Parent
    I think Clinton supporters will vote (none / 0) (#68)
    by jfung79 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    but Obama supporters will stay home because they think their vote is not needed because he's won already.  

    So even the low turnout might not be bad news, it might just mean a landslide for Hillary and still a huge popular vote margin.  How will it look if Obama yet again loses in a blowout?

    Only Hillary will fight for the issue I care about (none / 0) (#70)
    by jfung79 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    Only Hillary of the two Democrats will fight for the issue I care about -- universal health care.  

    So I am supporting her for an issue, not as my favorite "sports team", and I will likely also be voting for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney if Hillary is not on the Democratic ticket because of an issue not because of a "sports team."  Before Hillary, I was a Dennis Kucinich supporter -- my voting is very issue-based, not based on winning or losing.

    Thank you Jfung79 for standing for democarats (none / 0) (#73)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:59:37 PM EST
    I don't begrudge you and I support your decision to support which ever candidate you think best represents your causes.

    I know next to Sen. Clinton, Mr. Obama is my next choice, now that all over viable democratic candidates have been eliminated.

    Thank you again for sharing your thoughts.

    Kingly share with me Ralph Nader's positions and how they are inline with Sen. Clintons. I don't want to over look a candidate.

    Parent

    The Turnout (none / 0) (#71)
    by facta non verba on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    is low by Puerto Rican standards. I spoke with a friend who lives in San Juan this AM. He did note that the atmosphere was all Hillary. The turnout will be still be over 25%.

    Turnout in Puerto Rico May Be Low | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment