Even I...rabid, liberal, politically-aware feminist that I am...fell for the "frame."
BlogHer Political Director Morra Aarons-Mele has a post on the Huffington Post that truly took me aback. In it she dismantles the myth that unmarried women disproportionately don't vote.
You know the whole meme about how many single women there are, and if they voted what it would do to elections, and how do we get them engaged to vote?
Well, turns out that first of all, we ALL don't vote to a shameful degree, but further: unmarried women vote more than unmarried men do. and yet no one wonders if, as Morra puts it, all the unmarried men are too busy playing Guitar Hero to vote. (Which cracked me up on a personal level, given my S.O. plays Guitar Hero incessantly, and he wasn't even registered to vote until I made him...and he rarely votes unless I physically drag gim. We'll see if getting him a permanent absentee ballot...which I signed him up for...works.)
Key excerpt from Morra:
"There is indeed a "Marriage Gap" among women. Married people vote at a higher rate than non-married people. But the marriage gap is actually larger among men. According to Census reports from the 2004 election, married men are as likely to vote (63% turnout) as married women (65%). But unmarried men (which includes single, divorced, separated, and widowed) are substantially less likely to vote (46%) than unmarried women (55%). The marriage gap is 10 points among women, and is nearly twice that (18 points) among men."
And sad to say, this was news to me. Welcome news, true. Now, do we think stat will stop the media and marketing types from perpetuating the notion of the disengaged,frivolous single woman? We do not.
How about you?
The Pew Research report on Dubya's approval or lack thereof provides more than numbers.
They take a look at what one word people would use to describe Dubya.
Dave Weinberger highlights only this part of the report here. He rightly compares it to how people would tag Bush if they could.
The winning tag: "incompetent."
Oh it would be satisfying if it weren't so sad. So Very. Sad.
Here's one thing I'd like to point out as a completely non-religious person who is born a Jew but has practiced no religion ever.
I find it really biased and disturbing that even Pew describes the use if "Christian" as the one word to define Bush as a positive comment. The other positives are "honest" and "good." Sure, I'll buy those. The negatives are words like "idiot", liar" and "incompetent." Uh huh. Makes sense.
There is a category called Neutral. It includes words such as "OK", "President" and "Conservative." Well ,OK is clearly a neutral term, and President and Conservative are considered neutral because they represent what he is, not how he is at it.
So why isn't Christian a neutral? It certainly is to me, since there are wonderful, giving, kind Christians and right-wing, radical, intolerant and hateful Christians (as there are in all religions, no question.)
I'm bothered by this, secularist that I am.
Ouch.
Bush's approval ratings hover in the low 30's.
And it finally seems, despite the lock-step mentality of Republican politicians (as mentioned in my previous post) actual regular Republicans are getting fed up.
Key excerpt:
For the most recent CBS poll, the results were based on the opinions of 358 Republicans, 366 Democrats and 412 Independents. Note the nearly 30 percent increase in Republicans, the 10 percent decrease in Democrats, and the fact that the final CBS poll numbers did not budge one inch. What gives? Part of the problem for Bush is that over the last month he's been losing support among all voters; most noticeably Republicans. So, just because pollsters call more Republicans doesn't mean Bush automatically gets a better score. Those days appear to be long gone.
More from Eric Boehlert of the HuffPo.
This time it's not the historians who are ranking Dubya as "worst." A recent poll shows that Bush is the least popular president of the last 10 in office.
Key excerpt from the accompanying Reuters article:
"Bush was also viewed as the most warlike president (43 percent), the worst for the economy (42 percent) and the least effective (33 percent)."
So how do I feel?
When I was driving home last night they were still thinking that Prop 75 and Prop. 73 would pass, which really honestly brought me to tears in the car. Not big, gulpy, sobby tears, just a fine mist of frustrated angry tears. If you want to read a take on the Prop. 73 issue that unfortunately has not been widely expressed via party "talking points", but is wonderfully convincing, check this one out by danah boyd.
[Side note: I know so many women who find this the bane of their existence: when they're really pissed the tears seem to arise...and it feels wimply, not angry and powerful. Does this happen to any guys out there? Seriously.]
Anyway. Obviously I was very happy to wake up and find that Ah-nold and his plans went down in big smoky flames.
But all this does is set the table, or lay the fondation if you prefer. We have work to do. To defeat Ah-hold in 2006. To help the rest of the country help us win back at least the Senate. And to move on toward a victorious 2008.
So, don't sit back and relax now.
Some of those anti-women's rights and anti-union props. came a little too close to passing for comfort. And you know Texas passed another constituional amendment putting discrimination against gays in the constitution, right?
Now is the time to work even harder and follow this punch that knocked the right-wing radicals back on their feet with a 2006 punch that will knock them down, and a 2008 punch that will knock them out.
Didn't even really notice that yesterday marked the 365th day since Dubya was re-elected.
Sounds like the U.S. is having buyer's remorse.
If it's not one thing, it's the other. If it's not the corruption, it's the incompetence.
Wow, when the people turn on a leader, I guess they turn pretty quickly and severely.
Pew Research has released a poll that is interesting because it asks people to look a little further into the future.
It asks questions about how Dubya's presidency will be judged by history. It asks questions about what they want the next President to do (in relation to what Dubya has done.)
And the results are in: Dubya has harmed the country with his policies and his politics, will be judged as a failure, and the people want someone who will come in and do something different in 2008.
This all plays in to my theory that at some point a large group of Republican officeholders will turn on Bush. He's a lame duck. Cheney isn't expected to run...so really, why keep sucking up to those guys? Prominent Republicans are going to fear that Dubya will take the whole party down with him. (With a little help from guys like DeLay.)
At some point if they want to retain the White House and their congressional majorities there could very easily be an effort to just shove all the blame and reponsibility onto the individual in the White house, and his staff...which as we've heard repeatedly lately, is packed full of personal cronies.
And thereby try to shuffle their feet, whistle and look side to side saying, "Who us? We had nothin' to do with it. He fooled us too!"
Wait for it.
Recent polls continue to confound as the public comes down Democratic on nearly every issue facing the Supreme Court (and Dubya's prospective Justice, John Roberts.)
Some example:
Almost two-thirds, 65 percent, are opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Just over half of those polled, 53 percent, said they support civil unions for gay people, while 36 percent said they favor gay marriage — a slight increase on both issues from a year ago.
By almost 2-1, people think it's more important to conduct stem cell research that may lead to cures for debilitating illnesses than to avoid destroying potential life of embryos involved in such research.
Oh, and the public ranks proper consideration of rights for detainees right up there 2nd to abortion as an important Supreme Court issue. That surprised me.
The abuses of power and ignoring the will of the people are going to rise up and bite the Republicans in the ass. Let's make it in 2006, m'kay?
With Ah-nold's popularity plummeting, and his claims of being an independent non-politician belied by his actions and his ties to corporate interests, he's at last having to bow to the pressure...first negotiating with the legislature instead of calling them names and now, severing his ties with the magazines that were paying him millions to lend his name to their masthead.
As for Dubya. Not standing by his man like he previously stood by Rummy. Perhaps he's realizing that not only has his approval rating plummeted, but so has the number of people who think he's honest and truthful. Which used to be the one thing people believed: "Hey I don't always agree with him, but at least I know where he stands." Ha!
People catching on ya think?
Well, if you're tired of the dreary and looking for a little lift, check out Donkey Rising.
Today's post is about Democratic gains at the state level, and yesterday's post was about Bush's declining poll numbers across the board, across all issues.
Because we all need a little sunshine sometimes, right?
Well, Dubya has a knack for surviving low approval ratings that would destroy other candidates/politicians, but it is certainly looking bad for him.
Is it because no one's buying his incomprehensible defense of his Social Security non-plan?
Is it because of payola scandals and other efforts to over-control the media?
Is it because the damn economy really doesn't seem to be doing very well?
Or is it because none of these things could rouse Bush from a vacation:
A memo saying Osama planned to attack in the US
The tsunami
Any serviceman's funeral
But he did rush back to sign an unconstitutional law allowing Congress to interfere in a private medical situation that a vast majority of Americans (of all political and ethical stripes) think should be left to the families and the state courts?
Hmmm. Hard to choose.
Sources: Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Donkey Rising with a variety of polls.
The worm has slowly turned, and it now appears that the Democratic candidate for Governor of Washington is ahead by, I kid you not, 10 votes.
I'm sure the Republicans will present some legal challenges to this. I almost can't say I'm blame them given how close this is, after a machine re-count, a hand re-count and the discovery of mistakenly ignored ballots in Kings County (a heavily Democratic area.)
Something I find quite interesting about this story is that, just like in Florida 2000, the Republicans have organized protests against the re-count and including those misplaced ballots.
This was done not by the state Party itself (they wouldn't want to look like they were against counting every vote, now would they?) but by a local conservative talk radio station. So it look grass roots, even if it's highly organized.
It worked in Florida. Let's hope it doesn't work here. But where are our protesters? I think Air America should be helping us fight fire with fire. Democrats should no longer act like we're above the fray, to quote Pat Schroeder.
Sources:
12/21 USA Today
12/22 Associated press
12/22 AP re: court order to count mistakenly uncounted votes
OK, do we care about counting valid votes, or don't we?
As far as I can tell from reading about the situation in the Washington Governor's race, there is no question about the voter's intent or the voter's proper filling in of their ballots. The ballots in question were rejected or ignored or never counted due to ballot worker error.
So, unlike the situation in the San Diego mayoral race, where many of the rejected write-in votes were not properly written in (voter's clear intent aside) this has nothing to do with voter error, and all to do with worker error.
How can we not count such votes? What message will that send? Many of these workers are volunteers...what's to stop a concerted effort by unscrupulous partisans to volunteer next time, knowing you can impact the outcome so easily?
Seems like a really bad precedent here.
Sources:
Associated Press
Salon.com [Must watch ad to view entire article]
"The United States is deeply concerned by extensive and credible indications of fraud committed in the Ukrainian presidential election" and "urges the Ukrainian government not to certify results of Sunday's runoff election results" between the declared winner - the incumbent, and his opposition party challenger.
This from a Bush White House spokesperson.
Source: AP
Funny how they have no such "deep concerns" over reputable reports of rampant irregularities and suppression efforts in our own national election.
Well, at least the Democratic leadership is finally chiming in with the third party candidates...and there will be at least some perfunctory investigation.
Interesting poll results from the NY Times.
It reflects the ever-confusing conundrum: people don't particularly dig what Bush is doing or stands for in a specific way, but they're attracted to his general personality and message.
So, there's hope and frustration to be found in these results.
Full text in extended entry:
Americans Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER
NY Times
Published: November 23, 2004
After enduring a brutally fought election campaign, Americans are optimistic about the next four years under President Bush, but have reservations about central elements of the second-term agenda he presented in defeating Senator John Kerry, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
At a time when the White House has portrayed Mr. Bush's 3.5-million-vote victory as a mandate, the poll found that Americans are at best ambivalent about Mr. Bush's plans to reshape Social Security, rewrite the tax code, cut taxes and appoint conservative judges to the bench. There is continuing disapproval of Mr. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, with a plurality now saying it was a mistake to invade in the first place.
While Democrats, not surprisingly, were the staunchest opponents of many elements of Mr. Bush's second-term agenda, the concerns extended across party lines in some cases. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents - including 51 percent of Republicans - said it was more important to reduce deficits than to cut taxes, a central element of Mr. Bush's economic agenda.
The poll also found pervasive concern about what Americans view as the corrosive effect Hollywood and popular culture have on the nation's values and moral standards. Seventy percent said they were very or somewhat concerned that television, movies and popular music were lowering moral standards in this country.
While this sentiment was voiced by supporters of Mr. Bush and of Mr. Kerry, it appears that the concern about a decline in values is becoming another point of polarization in American politics. Mr. Bush's supporters were more likely to cite it than were Mr. Kerry's voters, and it was an issue that had particular resonance in the South and among weekly churchgoers, rural voters and women.
The poll found that 55 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters said that Mr. Bush's supporters did not share their views and morals; 54 percent of Mr. Bush's voters said the same thing of those who voted for Mr. Kerry.
In addition, 70 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters said they were more worried about candidates who "are too close to religion and religious leaders" than about political leaders who "don't pay enough attention" to religion, after a campaign in which Mr. Bush repeatedly spoke of God and his faith. By contrast, 52 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters said they were more worried about public officials who "don't pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders."
Still, in a telling contrast with the 2000 election, 82 percent of respondents said that Mr. Bush legitimately won on Nov. 2. Just before Election Day, 50 percent of respondents said they considered Mr. Bush's defeat of Al Gore in 2000 a legitimate victory.
And even after this tense and vituperative campaign, 56 percent said they were generally optimistic about the next four years under Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush's job approval rating has now inched up to 51 percent, the highest it has been since March.
The Times/CBS News poll was taken from Thursday through Sunday, after a three-week period in which some pollsters questioned some findings of the survey of voters leaving polling places on Election Day. The nationwide telephone poll of 855 adults has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
The poll reflected the electoral feat of the Bush campaign this year. He won despite the fact that Americans disapproved of his handling of the economy, foreign affairs and the war in Iraq. There has been a slight increase in the number of Americans who believe the nation should never have gone into Iraq. A majority of Americans continue to believe the country is going in the wrong direction, traditionally a warning sign for an incumbent.
Across the board, the poll suggested that the outcome of the election reflected a determination by Americans that they trusted Mr. Bush more to protect them against future terrorist attacks - and that they liked him more than Mr. Kerry - rather than any kind of broad affirmation of his policies. As such, the result was reminiscent of the state of play Ronald Reagan found in 1980, when he defeated President Jimmy Carter.
Even as two-thirds of respondents said they expected Mr. Bush to appoint judges who would vote to outlaw abortion, a majority continue to say they want the practice to remain either legal as it is now, which was Mr. Kerry's position, or to be legal but under stricter limits.
Americans said they opposed changing the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which Mr. Bush campaigned on in the final weeks of his campaign. A majority continue to support allowing either same-sex marriages or legally recognized domestic partnerships for gay people.
The public appears ambivalent about the two proposals that Mr. Bush has identified as his major domestic initiatives for a second term: rewriting the Social Security system and reshaping the tax code, including more tax cuts.
On the tax code, administration officials are discussing plans that would, among other things, lower the tax rate on higher-income Americans and eliminate some deductions. In the poll, more than 6 in 10 of the respondents said people with higher incomes should pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes; 3 in 10 said all income groups should pay the same proportion.
About one-third of the respondents said the tax cuts passed in Mr. Bush's first term had been good for the economy; but nearly a fifth said they had done more harm, and just under half said the tax cuts had made little difference.
"I don't mind cutting taxes to some extent, but I think we've cut them quite a bit," Ron Clark, 63, a Republican from Livingston, Mont., said in a follow-up interview. "I'm not really against making the current reductions permanent, but I don't think we need to go beyond where we've gone, because I do worry about the deficit. It's gone up a heck of a lot in the last couple of years."
On Social Security, 45 percent said a proposal to permit people to invest their Social Security withholding money in private accounts was a bad idea; 49 percent said it was a good idea. The poll also found little confidence among Americans that Mr. Bush would assure the future solvency of the program: 51 percent said that Mr. Bush was unlikely to "make sure Social Security benefits are there for people like me."
Among the disputed results of the Election Day survey of voters was the finding that moral issues were critical in determining the outcome.
That survey found that 22 percent of respondents called it the most critical issue in making their decision. Some pollsters criticized the way the question was asked because it was presented as a general category, without any kind of explanation, along with a list of six other specific issues, including Iraq and health care.
In this poll, when allowed freely to name the issue that was most important in their vote, 6 percent chose moral values, although smaller numbers named issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. On a separate question in which voters were given a choice of nine issues, 5 percent chose abortion, 4 percent chose stem cell research and 2 percent chose same-sex marriage.
The top issue was the economy and jobs, which was cited by 29 percent of respondents.
That said, there is a little question that Americans have grown increasingly unhappy with the influence of popular culture on daily life, and that was a significant dynamic in this election. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said that Hollywood was lowering the standard of popular culture. And 70 percent said that all popular culture - music, movies and television - was lowering moral standards in America.
The poll also found, though, that Americans were evenly divided on whether television, movies and books were including too many gay themes and characters.
The poll and follow-up interviews found that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters were in different camps on these issues, eyeing each other with suspicion.
"I think they're driven by hatred and homophobia and vitriol," said Paul Cuthbertson, 53, a Democrat from Atlanta. "The Republicans in recent years have turned 'liberal' into a dirty word, which it isn't. I'm a liberal and proud to be so. This so-called Christian ideal of being against gay marriage is neither American nor Christian. I think it's un-American to discriminate against fellow citizens, and God does not call upon Christians to be vigilantes to punish people that they perceive him not to like.''
Pat Gilbert, a Republican from Battle Creek, Mich., said, "The two sides will be as far apart as can be forever.''
"I'm sure there are different pockets of voters who voted for Kerry, but I think they believe more in society in general - if you're not hurting anybody it's all right to do it," Ms. Gilbert said, adding: "I don't think they have a firm belief system that they base decisions off of. It's whatever today's climate is. In the long term, you'll have a society of chaos."
By 48 percent to 40 percent, respondents said they believed four more years of a Bush presidency would divide the nation more than it would unite it.
For all the attention paid to the effort Mr. Bush made to increase his support from religious supporters, 31 percent of respondents said they thought that evangelical Christians had too much influence over the administration. By contrast, 66 percent said they thought big business had too much influence over the administration.
Finally, in one bit of presumably good news for a party that is looking for it, Americans now have a better opinion of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party: 54 percent said they had a favorable view of Democrats, compared with 39 percent with an unfavorable view. By contrast, 49 percent have a favorable view of Republicans, compared with 46 percent holding an unfavorable one.
Fred Backus contributed reporting for this article.
How Bush interprets his win: with merely 51% of the popular vote and only 53% of the electoral votes.
"...the people made it clear what they wanted."
"Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."
"There is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress."
Lastly, he stated he would continue to reach out to "everyone who shares our goals."
Um...I am reminded of "The Princess Bride", when, after hearing Vizzini constantly call things "inconceivable", Inigo Montoya says : "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
Here's what I'd like to say to Dubya: I do not think "uniter" means what you think it means.
Count every vote.
How hard is that to understand?
After 2000, we have to acknowledge that a great deal of the bitter opposition to Bush stems from the feeling that his victory was not "legitimate."
People urging Kerry to concede are closing their eyes to this fundamental fact.
If Bush is so confident of victory, then waiting 11 days (for the Ohio provisional ballots to be counted) won't hurt him.
And the Democratic Party needs to communicate to groups from their political base who felt disenfranchised in 2000 that even if it doesn't change the outcome, the Democratic Party will stand up for their right to have their vote counted.
This seems simple to me.
The Daily Kos predicts nearly the identical numbers I predict. At least 5% popular vote lead for Kerry, and he says 311 electoral votes, vs. my prediction of 308.
And it provides some proof behind Michael Moore's public contention that traditional polls are missing the full story.
Check out the results of this first-ever effort by Zogby here.
Figured I'd go out on a limb and make an even more dangerous prediction: the electoral college:
Kerry: 308
Bush: 230
Even if Jebbie steals Florida for Dubya, it still comes out to:
Kerry: 281
Bush: 257
We' l see how I did on Wednesday :)
I'm just an opinionated blogger, perhaps a little more well-informed than some people, but certainly not a 24/7 news reader. but here are the stories catching my eye over the last few days. You tell me who's going to get momentum out of these:
1. The Administration is finally admitting they'll have to ask for $70 billion more dollars for Iraq...they're just waiting until after the election to do it.
2. Tons of explosive materials left unguarded and now AWOL.
3. The Chief Justice's illness is made public, making people think just a little harder about what kind of court the next President will help shape.
4. Bill Clinton gets back out on the road. The rabid minority of people who "hate" him are already voting for Bush. But he can galvanize people who have yet to get all excited about Kerry.
5. The Boston Red Sox...don't tell me there aren't those who are going to get swept up in BoSox fever and think of it as a good omen for Kerry! You don't know superstitious sports fan if you say that!
6. Grass roots efforts are breaking the Democrat way, from getting Luntz booted from MSNBC to getting Sinclair to back off of "Stolen Honor".
It just seems to me we've got the Big Mo'
I've been saying it to my friends and family for weeks, so I figured I better put my blogging where my mouth is and make my prediction:
Kerry will win, and it won't be a squeaker. He'll win the popular vote by perhaps 5%.
He will take Florida, Pennsylvania AND Ohio.
The turnout will be huge, favoring the Democrat. Youth will turn out. Every black voter in Florida will turn out. And so on.
And the Undecideds (if they truly exist) will break for Kerry when confronted with the real choice in the real voting both.
That's it. That's my prediction.
Today's fun blogger activity is predicting the outcome of the election. The challenge was issued, so i've seen a bumch of people giving it a go today.
I like The Talent Show's prediction.
Not just because he goes out a limb and goes big for Kerry...but because I actually think it will be this lopsided.
Check it out here
Back in May Zogby made a prediction that Kerry would win. Fairly bold.
he's standing by it, and that was even before the debat happened last night.
Read his excellent article here.
Encouraging story in NY Times.
Volunteering is making a difference.
And do you think these new voters are being accounted for in the polls? Nope. Don't think so.
Voter turn-out is everything: the more people turn out the BIGGER Kerry's win!
Full text in extended entry:
A Big Increase of New Voters in Swing States
NY Times
By FORD FESSENDEN
Published: September 26, 2004
COLUMBUS, Ohio - A sweeping voter registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded the efforts of Republicans in both states, a review of registration data shows.
The analysis by The New York Times of county-by-county data shows that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods - new registrations since January have risen 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new registrations have increased just 25 percent in Republican areas. A similar pattern is apparent in Florida: in the strongest Democratic areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in 2000, while it has risen just 12 percent in the heaviest Republican areas.
While comparable data could not be obtained for other swing states, similar registration drives have been mounted in them as well, and party officials on both sides say record numbers of new voters are being registered nationwide. This largely hidden but deadly earnest battle is widely believed by campaign professionals and political scientists to be potentially decisive in the presidential election.
"We know it's going on, and it's a very encouraging sign," said Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee. The new voters, Mr. Elmendorf said, "could very much be the difference."
A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, Christine Iverson, declined to comment on The Times's findings and said she did not believe Republicans were lagging in the registration battle. "We're very confident that we have a ground game that's as good as the Democrats', and better," she said.
The precise impact of the swell in registration is difficult to predict, as there is no reliable gauge of how many of these new voters will actually vote. Some experts, though, say that the spike has not been accurately captured by political polls and could confound prognostications in closely contested states.
What is clear is that each side has deployed huge numbers of workers and devoted millions of dollars to the effort. Much of it is being directed by civil rights and community groups, as well as soft-money organizations allied with the Democrats. One such Democratic umbrella group, America Votes, says its constituents - labor unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, community organizations - will spend $300 million on registration and turnout in swing states, a sum that dwarfs the $150 million in public financing the two candidates together will receive for the entire fall campaign.
The registration drives are just the first step in a campaign by each side to get more Americans to vote by using personal contact. As registration winds down, with early October cutoffs in many states, efforts will shift to staying in touch through Election Day with repeated phone calls and visits, and, on Nov. 2, ferrying people to the polls.
In Ohio - no Republican presidential candidate has ever been elected without carrying the state - the campaign has been especially exhaustive. Canvassers ride public transportation, visit coin laundries, and trudge the sidewalks and parking lots at the job centers, housing agencies and community colleges.
In Columbus, Akume Green has haunted the Franklin County Courthouse for months, working the sidewalk between the entrance and the nearby bus stop. Ms. Green says she has signed up more than 700 voters since March here and elsewhere in the city. But it is getting harder to do so, she said. On a recent day, the first 12 people she asked said they had already registered.
"I get about 30 new voters or changes of address in six hours," said Ms. Green, who was hired by Project Vote, the nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. "I used to get 16 in 45 minutes, but now everyone's registered."
Studies have shown that calling voters and showing up at their houses before and on Election Day substantially increases turnout - and is cheaper per vote than buying a television advertisement. Republicans used the strategy with great success in the 2002 elections.
But Donald P. Green, a professor of political science at Yale who has conducted many of those studies, said there was no reliable way to tell how many new voters would turn out at the polls, especially those from lower-income areas.
"Do you get 30 percent, or do you get 70 percent?" Professor Green said. "To the extent that these new voters are on the radar screen of groups that have the kind of resources these groups have at their disposal, they might well turn out."
Steve Rosenthal, the chief executive of Americans Coming Together, or ACT, a soft-money group that is trying to register Democrats, said he believed they would. "I think what's happening on the streets, below the radar, is what's going to make the big difference on Election Day," said Mr. Rosenthal, who said his organization and the other groups would register two and a half million new Democratic voters nationwide.
But Republican officials say they remain confident that their voters will prove easier to get to the polls. "It would scare me if we weren't doing our own thing," said Joanne Davidson, the regional chairwoman of the Bush campaign in four Midwestern states including Ohio, of the wave of new Democrats. "We know how to turn out voters."
Ms. Green is typical of the army of registrars who have been working the streets here, some of them since last September. Their persistence has produced results. Franklin County had 650,000 registered voters in the 2000 election. "Now we're over 800,000," said Matt Damschroder, the director of the Board of Elections. "If you look at the pure census numbers, you'd think we are close to registering the entire voting-age population."
Project Vote says it has registered 147,000 new voters in Ohio. Americans Coming Together said that, together with allied groups that are part of America Votes, it had registered 300,000 new voters. America Votes and ACT are openly Democratic, although they cannot legally coordinate with the party or the Kerry campaign.
Republican officials say they think the paid workers who are registering low-income voters are sloppy, and are skeptical of the number of voters they claim to have registered, saying many are duplicates and changes of address. Mr. Damschroder said he had to throw out many of the cards he got because the voters were already registered. "One woman had signed a card three different times," with three different groups, he said.
Prosecutors in Columbus have filed criminal charges against an Acorn registrar, saying that he filed a false registration form and forged a signature. Officials for the group say they fired the worker and instituted a quality checking system before the prosecutors acted.
Nevertheless, an examination of county registration records shows that the groups have added thousands of new Democrats to the rolls and have far outnumbered new registrations in Republican areas. In a 300-square-block area east of the courthouse in downtown Columbus that voted nine to one against Mr. Bush in 2000, for instance, 3,000 new voters have registered this year. That is three times as many as in each of the last two presidential election years. The number of registered voters in the area is up 18 percent since January.
By comparison, in a prosperous area north of downtown with a similar number of voters who are overwhelmingly Republican, just 1,100 new voters have been added this year, increasing registration rolls by 7 percent.
These numbers are similar across Ohio. The Times examined registration from Jan. 1 to July 31 in a sample of counties that included seven of the state's nine largest, along with some smaller rural and suburban counties. Voters do not give a party affiliation when they register in Ohio, but The Times looked at the voting history of ZIP codes to gauge the political inclinations of the new voters.
In rock-ribbed Republican areas - 103 ZIP codes, many of them rural and suburban areas, that voted by two to one or better for George W. Bush in 2000 - 35,000 new voters have registered, a substantial increase over the 28,000 that registered in those areas in the first seven months of 2000. The Ohio Republican party said it was pleased with the results.
"It's not easy work, but we go door to door in strong Republican precincts, making sure everyone is registered," said Chris McNulty, the state party chairman.
But in heavily Democratic areas - 60 ZIP codes mostly in the core of big cities like Cleveland, Dayton, Columbus and Youngstown that voted two to one or better against Mr. Bush - new registrations have more than tripled over 2000, to 63,000 from 17,000.
In Florida, where The Times was able to analyze data from 60 of the state's 67 counties, new registrations this year also are running far ahead of the 2000 pace, with Republican areas trailing Democratic ones. In the 150 ZIP codes that voted most heavily for Mr. Bush, 96,000 new voters have registered this year, up from 86,000 in 2000, an increase of about 12 percent.
But in the heaviest of Democratic areas, 110 ZIP codes that gave two-thirds or more of their votes to Al Gore, new registrations have increased to 125, 000 from 77,000, a jump of more than 60 percent.
In Duval County, where a confusing ballot design in 2000 helped disqualify thousands of ballots in black precincts, new registrations by black voters are up 150 percent over the pace of 2000.
"We're using guerrilla tactics to get into the malls and sign up voters before the security guards chase us off," said Adam Broad, 40, an organizer in Duval County with the Florida Consumer Action Network Foundation, one of dozens of community groups registering in Florida.
The groups are building nationwide databases of voters and have committed millions of dollars for continued contact with them before and on Election Day.
"If every Democrat showed up at the polls, you'd win, no question," said James Koehler, a precinct organizer in Columbus working for MoveOn.org, another soft-money group. Mr. Koehler said MoveOn hoped to have a volunteer in every precinct to call neighbors on Nov. 2.
But intensive voter contact and turnout are exactly what the Republicans believe they do best. Their plan calls for the same kind of sophisticated targeting, and a last-minute push for turnout called a 72-hour strategy, the plan Republicans used in 2002 to overwhelm incumbent Democrats like former Senator Max Cleland in Georgia.
Even before Election Day, the new voters may be having an impact on the campaign, because they may not be accurately reflected in the political polls.
"The people who are new voters are disengaged; they're less likely to respond to a poll question," said Philip Klinkner, a government professor at Hamilton College.
Well, the question isn't so much how to interpret the polls, but more like which polls are
Of course, a Gallup Poll always gets a lot of attention...Gallup being perhaps the best known name in polls...but the fact is there are reasons to just throw out any item you see on a Gallup Poll this year.
Strong statement? Find out why I'm willing to make it in the extended entry:
The main reason is that Gallup is ignoring one of the basic polling rules: try to reflect reality! How so?
Well, when polling you try to get responses from a demographic mix that is representative. Granted, it's a little hard with voting, since as I've discussed before, and as Michael Moore also helpfully points out, the unexpectedly large turnout of a traditionally stay-at-home demographic, like the youth vote as an example, can mean that the polls will be way off.
But in Gallup's case they've made an even more fundamental error: they have included a much higher percentage of responses from registered Republican voters in their poll sampling than is reflected by presidential voting turn-outs in the last 3 elections.
In other words, they are over-sampling Republican responses in their results.
You can get the gory details here.
Now, you may have one big question about this: why? Why would Gallup do this?
Well, how's this for a reason: their CEO is a big Republican donor.
Hmmmm. The picture is becoming clearer.
Polls are nasty things. They can impact elections. They can depress people into staying home. They can change or help make up the minds of people who think that "the crowd" must know something they don't.
What is really a shame is that the mainstream media outlets that promote the Gallup Polls don't have higher standards.
But in this race it's becoming less surprising how low the standards of the mainstream media are, huh?
Why is it that we on the left, by a little or by a lot, just can't seem to resist second-guessing ourselves, our candidate, our party etc., and so publicly.
Even when the gist of blogger Matt Yglesias' post is that there may be nothing wrong with the Kerry campaign, with an entry title like "What's wrong with the Kerry campaign?", you're not going to send that message to the many who scroll through their news readers.
This just takes me back, as so many things I read and hear do, over and over, to just how sick I am of Democrats eating their young.
Bush doesn't even need to bother attacking Kerry. People on Kerry's own side will do it for him.
For example: I am a big admirer of Mario Cuomo, but honestly, did he need to give this advice to Kerry via a reporter? Are you telling me he couldn't call him up or send him an email and give it privately without airing these condescending bits of laundry publicly?
Feh.
And this weekend it is providing some badly needed perspective on the post-convention bounce that supposedly Bush is enjoying.
Read both of these posts to feel a whole lot better, and maybe to elarn more about polling itself:
September 5th Entry: Could Everyone Please Just Calm Down Out There?
September 6th entry: Gallup Poll Gives Bush Only a 2 Point Bounce
Before anyone gets too hysterical about the Bush Bounce, keep it in perspective. Incumbents have historically enjoyed a 16% bounce after their convention.
Bush was already at between 44%-48% in polls, and now the most advantageous poll shows him at 52%. Pretty meager.
And not all polls agree the bounce is that large.
Here are some to check out:
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/presballot/
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=857
Then get back to work!
This blogger tries to explain some methodology, particularly what "Likely Voter" means.
Trouble is, most of the pollsters won't say...not exactly anyway. It's their secret sauce after all.
So, if you've been wondering, here's a semi-answer.
Thanks to my fine Democratic pen pal Christopher for providing this link:
Donkey Rising.: the blog from the Emerging Democratic Majority
It's more analysis of the latest polling number that will help calm you down and feel better.
I know it's been a tough few weeks hearing the spewing hate and lies of the extreme wing of the Republican Party. And I know it's been disturbing to see Republicans that you may have thought of as moderate getting dragged down into the mud wrestling pit with the rest of them. (And here's a lengthy analysis of one so-called moderate's possible motivation for that.)
But, now we have the next 60 days to look forward too, and I think it's all uphill for Kerry from here on out.
Help make it happen.
Make the Best Man Win!
Over at Talking Points Memo, he is singing my tune about calming down and keeping things in perspective.
Exactly right, I say.
I get really peeved with more than just Republican dishonesty, I get peeved with Democrat dissatisfaction.
The Republicans kept completely quiet during the DNC Convention than came out swinging. Sounds like a good plan, especially when compared to what seems to be a strategy of some Democrats to come out swinging during the RNC Convention...at our own candidate!!!
I know it's absolutely crucial to win this election. Did you think it would be a walk in the park? I know it seems like it should be, given how horrible Bush has been for the nation and the world. But it's not. Get over it and keep things in perspective.
If you have friends getting discouraged and burnt out remind them of this:
1. Historically, no incumbent has won when their approval rating and poll numbers have been this low this late in the game.
And no, this is not the most unusual year ever. We have had elections during War and great civil unrest before.
2. If the Undecideds are still Undecided after having over 3 years to observe the incumbent, then they are just looking for a reason to support someone else, and historically will break toward the challenger.
3. When you view polls that talk about registered and likely voters, bear in mind these things: likely voters are typically those who have voted before. You know like in 2000 when less than half the eligible voting public voted? And pollsters do various calculation to "weight" their poll responses based on historical voting likelihood of demographic groups. In other words, 18-24 year old historically don't vote in huge numbers, so their responses weigh less than other demographics.
All it takes is a single digit percentage change in some historically low-voting group...like the youth vote, or the single woman vote...and the poll numbers can be wildly impacted.
The odds are in our favor but YOU have to keep at it.
Talk to people.
Donate money
Volunteer
Go to a swing state
Get an Absentee Ballot to make sure YOUR vote has a paper trail!
And spend your time publicly criticizing the Republicans, not our own. This is the discipline they have, and we need to learn that lesson from them.
Since my last post may have been depressing, I'll post something else I've had bookmarked for a while that may cheer you up.
Lately, and quietly, I've had conversations with folks who believe Kerry can win, not just in a squeaker, but by a comfortable margin. It has something to do with "likely" voters and getting out the vote in historically "unlikely" voting groups like the youth vote or the single female vote, both groups that trend strongly Democratic.
This article is by a guy who provides some other reasons why Kerry may win bigger than any of the pundits predict.
True, he wrote this 2 weeks ago, and the Swift Boat BS hadn't truly peaked at that point. But just as it has peaked, I believe we are going to now see it boomerang back and create some backlash against the Bush side. I think the long-term effect of the SBVFT BS will be very small indeed.
So, to put your weekend on a more positive note, read the Gadflyer prediction of a big Kerry win!
Here's a site that compiles data from multiple polls and stacks them up side by side.
Note the polls stick to either registered voters or even more narrowly, likely voters.
I continue to believe the 'Get out the vote' effort is a critical one.
There are millions of single women who did not register and vote. Millions of youths 18-24 who did not register and vote. When they are polled they lean decisively toward Democratic principles.
Remember to volunteer and join the 'Get out the vote' effort,
I have trouble relying too heavily on polls. Given that they typically poll "likely voters" and to be considered "likely" you have to have voted last time.
Meanwhile, I've met lots of people getting activated for the first time, registering for the first time, and voting for the first time...and they're being galvanized to do so, because they want a change.
Nonetheless, the latest AP poll has some interesting things to note;
If you heard that one candidate was considered just as likable, and just as likely to share your values, but much more intelligent, more honest, and more likely to make you feel optimistic...what would you say that candidate's chances were?
I'd say pretty good. And that's John Kerry.
You might recall my earlier entry, discussing how the mainstream media focuses on polling that favors Bush and ignores polling that favors kerry.
In that entry I provided links to six polls that favor Kerry.
Now, here's another: the Zogby poll.
Check out this link and hear why the signs are pretty rosy for Kerry.
This should get you motivated to keep pushing, keep talking to people, keep working. Remember, we want more than a squeaker victory that sends Bush packing, we want a landslide that repudiates the Bush's entire brand of right-wing extremist "contemptuous conservatism." And yes, I just made that term up right now :)
OK, I feel a little better after my last post.
You, too, may be wondering how on earth the polls are still so close. Well, a recent column by EJ Dionne in the Washington Post offers a pretty optimistic view of things.
If you're feeling a little anxious, give it a read. You'll feel better.
Until you find out the next bone-head or dishonest move that this Administration thinks they can get away with.
Check out this article in the Washington Post about a hotly contested special election in South Dakota that went Democratic.
I do believe that people all over are starting to question the wisdom of the Bush Administration AND the Republicans who stubbornly close rank and blindly support him.
Remember when you're talking to folks or forwarding political emails, include your friends from other states.
California is not yet a slam dunk, but other states are even more hotly contested. Spreading the message around the country is imperative!
I saw James Carville on 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, and he said one thing to Democrats that we ALL should heed: "Get off John Kerry's back."
It wasn't so long ago everyone was talking about how the Democrats were united like never before. Pulling together. Having one goal and keeping it in our sights. And John Kerry won the primary season, pretty much overwhelmingly.
Now, 6 months pre-election, some Democrats are already ready to devour our young. Unity out the window, they're carping on Kerry and fantasizing about a broken convention. Are they crazy? Or just really really masochistic?
Some people cite polls, amazed that in the midst of a horrible month in ONE important area (Iraq) the President's poll numbers aren't in the cellar. But as always, people want someone to vote for, not just to vote against. Kerry is establishing the reasons to vote for him now. It's just gravy that Bush is encountering so many troubles.
If you don't believe me, read this prediction from John Zogby, the online pollster. It should hearten you. And maybe get some of those impatient, self-defeating Democrats "off Kerry's back."