« Yom Kippur Open Thread | Main | Can't Keep Up »

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Dem Voter Registration is Up in Swing States

Posted by DavidNYC

Or at least, so sayeth the New York Times. What's nice about this article is that the Times actually did the dirty work of crunching the numbers, without relying on partisan claims or anecdotal evidence. In the two states the Times looked at, Ohio & Florida, we are kicking serious GOP ass.

Of course, simply registering new voters is not enough. We need to make sure these people get out to the polls. Which is why I strongly encourage each and every one of you, once the fundraising season dies down, to get involved with a voter education/GOTV group. Some excellent ones are listed in the Swing State Activism section of the blogroll on the right. If you know of any others, please let me know.

Posted at 03:36 PM in General | Technorati


This is good news for the Kerry camp. Assuming a high turnout, can we make any new calculations about the swing states?

The voters that are registering Democratic will increase Kerry's chances all the more.

Posted by: Robert Marlye at September 26, 2004 06:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I knew about this...it's excellent, especially in the two meatiest swing states...OH and FL.

How can we ensure those people turn out, though? Kerry has not been super successful at energizing the base.

Posted by: Nathaniel at September 26, 2004 06:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

We don't really need Kerry to energize ourbase.
Bush does that for us!!

Posted by: DougyG at September 26, 2004 07:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kerry is going to win Florida. I can feel it. The question is, can he hold on to enough Gore states to win?!?

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 26, 2004 08:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I hope the reporting in the Times article is accurate. I guess we'll know come Election Day.

Posted by: Pepe at September 26, 2004 08:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I don't think we will win Ohio this time around(probably we will be within 1.5%). I do think we will win Florida, and NH. Have a feeling we will lost Iowa though.

Posted by: David Trinh at September 26, 2004 09:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

If Kerry wins NH, he will win Ohio.

This pattern has remained unbroken since
the 1992 election.

Posted by: Shar at September 26, 2004 10:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I really do not see what NH has to do with who OH votes for president. You could probably find many other similarities between states' voting patterns since 1992. Unless you're talking about neighboring states with much in common, such voting similarities would be all due to conincidence. As a native Ohioan who also knows NH pretty well, believe me, there's precious little in common between the two states other than the fact that they lean GOP.

Posted by: Pepe at September 26, 2004 11:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This is good news, but I fear it may all be for naught if media outlets continue to push misleading polls suggesting Bush is out in front. We all know how fast the solvent of perceived failure can dissolve a base of support -- can you say Howard Dean?

We know the race is, in essence, dead even. But if the great unwashed, lapping up USA Today/Gallup, develop a sense that Bush is inevitable the depressive effect on turnout and undecideds may make all else moot.

Posted by: Robert Farrell at September 26, 2004 11:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Alas, Robert, you do have a point. Polls can be the most influential elements of all in an election. Let's just hope that the numbers shift in Kerry's direction following the debates.

Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 06:59 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

OH and NH are very different states. OH is a very traditional Mid West sort of a state with a heavy manufacturing base. It is far more likely to vote for Bush as OH is more in line with other American Heartland States.

NH, while one of the most conservative states historically, has really lost its conservative streak lately. People from VT and MA are infulencing things in NH. NH voted for Clinton twice. Also NH is in New England, which probably makes it easier for a Senator from Mass. to win, as they are more closely tied culturally. NH isn't a state that is heavyily into industry. I think Kerry has a far better chance of picking up neighboring NH, than far away OH that has a strong Republican tradition. All state pols are Rs in OH. Bush will probably win OH just because of the sheer number of Rs. Which is also why Kerry will probably win FL, there's a lot of Dems in FL. If they turn out and vote, Kerry wins.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 27, 2004 08:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Excellent points, all, Rock in NJ. I believe NH could definitely swing to Kerry this year, but not OH, for the reasons you cite. Trying to compare OH and NH is like trying to compare apples and oranges. Like you, I am optimistic about Kerry's chances in FL.

Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 08:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm sorry Rocknj,

Ohio is in play. It will come down to turnout. It may come down to the battle of the regions. Kerry needs NE to turn out to dampen the SW advantage for Bush. NW and Central will be even. It could come down to SE Ohio, which is culturally conservative but economically depressed. Ohioans, would be offended if you try to link them with other midwestern states. Ohio is like 5 states in one.

Posted by: pc at September 27, 2004 09:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Ohioans, would be offended if you try to link them with other midwestern states

Not true at all, pc. I'm an Ohioan, and I can tell you the vast majority of Ohioans are very proud (too proud, if you ask me) to be linked to the Midwest. There are different "regions" of OH, but what unites them is being Ohioans and Midwesterners. Even in a major northeastern city like Cleveland, there is an undeniable "Midwest" pride thing going on.

Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 10:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

pc, I hope you're right. Believe me, I want Kerry to win OH. I find it hard to believe he isn't well ahead in Ohio considering Bush's horrible record of job losses and war. Why people would want 4 more years of that sort of nonsense is hard for me to understand. it really comes down to who people feel comfortable with. If Kerry is perceived as some sort of East Coast intellectual, and Bush is perceived as a common man from middle America. Bush wins. I know it's simpleminded, but that's how people tend to think. They want to identify with a candidate. I think Ohioans feel a lot more comfortable with Bush as a person, and given the strong Republican tradition in OH, Bush will win at the end of the day. I hope you're right though about turnout.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 27, 2004 10:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Rock, You seem to know OH well--have you ever lived there, or do you know a lot of Buckeyes?

Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 11:28 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Pepe, I was just trying to explain to Roncknj that Ohio has to be treated like 5 different states. You can't exactly say the same thing about Michigan or Wisconsin, or Iowa, or Indiana, all of which are in the midwest. Cincinnati and Dayton are only 45 miles apart but those two cities are totally different in culture and politics. Many people from Dayton couldn't even tell you how to get to Youngstown. Cleveland is a foreign place if you grew up in Lima.

I think the stigma regarding Kerry is real. Many people will vote that way, that he doesn't relate to them. But there's just as many that will vote against Bush because of the economy, and in the inner city shear dislike of Bush in general.

The Ohio GOP is becoming like the Illinois GOP. They are corrupt, and divided. It's just that the Ohio Democratic Party has been inept for about 10 years.

Posted by: pc at September 27, 2004 11:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Never lived there. The closest I've come is living in central PA during college. I've been through OH on the train a couple of times. I just get a good feeling what it's like by reading newsreports and talking to people like yourself who have lived there.

Believe me, I'm just as surprised at the mentalitiy people have when choosing someone as important as a President. I mean, people don't care if their jobs are being sent overseas, if their overtime is being taken away, if their sons and daughters are going off to war for dubious reasons. They want a President who they feel is like them, which is why Bush will likely win a place like OH.

Did you hear the story last week that Clevland has the highest poverty rate in the U.S.? It just goes to show how diverse a state like Ohio really is. They have their urban problems. I guess if the Dems do a really good job of getting the votes out in urban areas, Kerry might have a chance in OH, but I think rural Ohioans will come out and vote for Bush en mass. Bush will probably win by 2 to 5%. If not, we will be talking about President-elect Kerry.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 27, 2004 11:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Actually, ps, MI is probably even more dramatically distinctive than OH. Detroit has very little in common with the rest of the state, and if you have ever seen the contrast between the inner city and its very affluent suburbs, it's an eye opener. Then you have Upper Peninsula, which is more like northern WI than lower MI. Then there is the rest of MI in between Detroit and the U.P.

Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 12:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

well everyone is sure optimistic considering that bush crushed ker ry in the first debate.i swear i heard that all over the media already. does anyone believe the media will really say kerry won unless bush does something stupid like ford did in 76? what does bush have on the media , i swear fox is starting to look liberal next to cnn!

Posted by: JOEL at September 27, 2004 12:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

People can also get involved in the swing state of Ohio, by working with the Jeff Seemann for Congress campaign just south of Cleveland.

Contact our Field Director: megan@jeffseemannforcongress.com


Expect your post by the end of the day.

Posted by: ttagaris at September 27, 2004 12:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The mainstream media are neither terribly liberal or conservative. They are simply organs of the establishemnt. They make establishment points of view legitimate and disseminate them to the general population. Sure, Fox is more conservative and CNN is more liberal, but esstentially the present the same narrow political dialogue that is deemed acceptible for the American people to consider. Just take a few days to read some of the truly out of the mainstream rags on the right and left, and you'll quickly understand just what establishement lap dogs our mainstream media really is. There are SO MANY stories that are reported in the alternative media that never get exposure, even in the so-called liberal media, that it will really shock anyone with an open mind.

Kerry had better kick Bush's ass in the debates. It might be his last chance to really connect with people. He certainly has A LOT of issues he could nail Bush with. We'll know in a few days if Kerry has what it takes to win this election.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 27, 2004 12:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

JOEL you have a good point. My great uncle lived in Hamtramck, and my father's childhood friend lives in Northville. Nite and day difference.

I'm talking about how the fact you have about 5 or 6 city-states; Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown, and Canton-Akron. Even Karl Rove said that running for President in Ohio is more like running for Governor.

Posted by: pcunningham at September 27, 2004 01:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

From the beginning of the campaign, I maintained that Ohio was Kerry's to lose. Up until this past week, I refused to believe that a state so mired in financial destruction could rubber stamp more of the same, but I'm finally beginning to accept the premise that a Kerry victory in Ohio is now unlikely.

The reason? Iraq. It's abundantly clear that this election will now be decided on Iraq and Iraq alone. With the economy out of the headlines for the next five weeks (barring a serious economic disaster or surge), Ohio will probably vote for the party of the war-mongers. Ohio is in the process of being economically vaporized. Hundreds of thousands of Ohioans will be casting ballots to accelerate the pace of their own financial ruin on November 2. The long-term effect....Ohio and other old economy states will be reduced to rubble economically and politically, losing thousands of people and two or three electoral votes every 10 years because of it.

Of course, if Ohio is off the table as it well may be, that means the whole election rides on Florida, which doesn't make me or Jimmy Carter the least bit comfortable. Kerry needs a rock-solid debate performance Thursday night. If you hear Tim Russert proclaiming Bush's deft debate maneuvering at this time on Friday, it'll take a miracle for Kerry to win. September 30 is likely to be as nervous of date for us as November 2.

Posted by: Mark at September 27, 2004 01:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


This might sound really X-filish, but I think the destruction of the economy in a state like Ohio is considered a nice side-benefit to the whole process of globalization. Not only do Bush's wealthy cronies get to profit immensly from sending our jobs overseas, they also ensure a steady stream of new job applicants at military recruiting stations. What a perfect scenario for a Brave New World in which profit is paramount and people are exploited. Make sure life isn't too comfortable for the working people of America, so that they'll be interested in doing more drastic things like joining the miltiary.

If Ohio votes for Bush this fall, that's the sort of future they will be endorsing. One in which the military is the employer of last resort, and one in which there is no shortage of military recruits.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 27, 2004 02:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Bush has nothing to gain in the debate. The voters know him already. They know his record. Kerry has everything to gain or lose. He has an opportunity to introduce himself to undecided voters. Undecided voters already know enough about Bush to want an alternative. They are just undecided on whether the alternative is better than going status quo. Kerry does not need to blow Bush out of the water in the debates, but he needs to do good enough to ensure the undecided voters that he will do a good job as president. Kerry needs to show a strong plan for how to win the war in Iraq. He also needs to show a better plan to make the United States better. Bush has talked a lot about making the United States better with very little action. It is scary to think that almost three years after 9-11 our country still doesn���t have a national terrorist data base. Cat Stevens was well on his way to the United States before being identified as being on the watch list. He should have been identified before the plane left England.

Posted by: DFuller at September 27, 2004 02:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The price of oil is hitting nearly $50/barrel today. Not a good thing for Bush. Oil and interest rates are going up. Consumers are being hit in the pocket book. It could make a difference in a close election.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 27, 2004 03:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Ohio discussions again. In summary: Ohio is in play, and will be down to November 2. Don't believe the polls. I grew up there, go there every Christmas, and call there every week. Somebody wrote an article on the 5 Ohio's. While there are some decent points, overall the article is misleading. The major cities in Ohio are Cleveland, Cincy, and Columbus. Cleveland is losing population and influence. Toledo and Dayton are industrial, working cities, but people are moving away, tilting the political balance of the state slightly toward the GOP. Columbus is a classic example of a donut city. Suburbs conservative, inner-city degenerate. Ohio State profs are liberal. Most of the rural people tend to share the same values with the GOP. Pro-military, anti-terrorist, and anti-abortion. The rural areas of the northeast, toward Ashtabula county are clinging to their democratic roots, but are slowly being pulled into the GOP catagory. Cleveland is developing a conservative suburban ring, which is the only darn thing that saved Bush's fanny in 2000. The battle is going to be fought in Columbus, and the margin of Kerry victory will determine the outcome of the state. It is Worthington, Albany, Gahanna, and Westerville against the inner-city regions, such as Mifflin, Northland, Brookhaven (these are the high-schools). Southeastern Ohio is going GOP, except for Athens of course. Bush can take it to the bank, but it doesn't guarantee the state.

Even after the pollsters tell us who is going to win, don't buy it. Ohio is also vulnerable to recounts. Recount anybody?

Posted by: MarkOlsen at September 27, 2004 04:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think OH will be close, but I think it's heart is conservative, and that in the end, it will give its 20 EVs to Bush.

Part of my feeling on this is that I am from the very traditional Democratic heart of the state, the Northeastern corner--from the Mahoning Valley, to be exact. The Mahoning Valley has always been very working class/blue collar--like something out of that old sitcom Roseann.

My parents still live in the home I grew up in, in a quintessential working class neighborhood. Yet my mother reports that there are actually more Bush than Kerry signs in their neighborhood. It's close, mind you, but my folks' neighborhood is leaning Bush.

I must say this surprised me, as the Democrats always had a huge edge in the part of OH that I grew up in back in the 60s and 70s. Finding a Republican in my home town back then was about as hard as finding one here today in my adopted home of Chapel Hill/Durham, NC. It sounds to me like the GOP has made some gains in the northeastern part of the Buckeye State, while holding their own in their own parts of the state. For the reason, I think it will be hard for an unfortunately uninspiring candidate like Kerry to pull an upset in OH.

Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 04:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I've heard on Hardball and other political commentator shows that Southern Ohio has a southern Babist tradition. That it is culturally connected to the southern U.S., like their neighbors in Kentucky. That's what really give Ohio a Republican bent. If that region of the state became part of Kentucky, perhaps Ohio would be more of a moderate Democratic state like Michigan.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 27, 2004 05:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Well, you know, before 1787, southern OH was part of VA--and George Washington knew the region pretty well. Also, before 1787, northeast OH belonged to--of all states--CT! Warren, OH, to this day bills itself as the former capital of the Connecticut Western Reserve. The Connecticut Western reserve was settled mostly by people from CT and New England, as well as PA. To this day you can see a palpable difference between northern and southern OH in the way the towns are physically laid out. The old towns of northeast OH are laid out just like a New England town, while in southern OH, the towns are laid out more like a southern town.

Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 05:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I seen a recent article regarding voter registration fraud running rampant thru Ohio. Perhaps this is the reason for the high Dem registration.

Posted by: JeffS at September 27, 2004 05:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

A lot of the fraud stories have come from the GOP pushing the stories to the press relentlessy.

Posted by: pc at September 27, 2004 05:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

When that ring of suburban Ohio Moms realize that their children will be subject to a draft, they will be voting for Kerry in droves. National Guard recruitment is down, big time.

Pepe, look at the percentages for NH and OH that determined the winner of the presidential elections since 1992. Those percentages are identical.

I recently traveled through Mentor, Ohio, and I failed to notice one Bush/Cheney sign. A lot of Kerry/Edwards signs, however.

Posted by: Shar at September 27, 2004 06:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Pepe, look at the percentages for NH and OH that determined the winner of the presidential elections since 1992. Those percentages are identical.

I don't dispute that, I'm just saying it's purely coicidental. OH and NH could not be more different from one another, despite a historic leaning towards the GOP.

Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 06:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Actually, I'm getting tired of the "voter fraud" stories. The GOP said the same thing about the Gore's win in NM in 2000. Had they needed NM to win, they probably would have cried "voter fraud!" in that state to taint the election. I'm sure voter fraud exists, but I doubt that it's as common as people from both parties now want to make it. It sounds too much like sour grapes, and I hope this is not going to be a trend from the losing side in all subsequent elections.

Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 06:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Voter Fraud is just one of those hot button issues the GOP uses to discredit the vote. Of course, when they're the ones doing it, we hardly hear about it, like in Florida in 2000.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 27, 2004 07:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark Olsen, three other southeastern Ohio counties almost certain to go Kerry are Belmont, Jefferson and Monroe. If Kerry can't pull off these 1984 Mondale counties, then he's gonna lose Ohio by double digits. The four main counties to watch in Ohio are Franklin, Montgomery, Clark and Stark. The former three went narrowly for Gore in 2000 and the latter went narrowly for Bush. If Kerry wins all four, he has a good chance in OH. If he loses any of them, color the state red.

Posted by: Mark at September 27, 2004 07:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Pepe, I wouldn't get too worried about Kerry's yard sign deficit in Ohio steel country. At least in Minnesota, only a few counties that put their orders in early received an abundance of Kerry-Edwards yard signs before this past week. The Kerry campaign is apparently being very stingy with yard signs, believing mass production and distribution of them is a waste of resources, which I don't necessarily agree with. There's a psychological effect on a swing voter who sees his or her neighborhood dominated by Bush signs on Election Day. However, assuming Ohio's yard signs have just arrived as they recently did in Minnesota, my guess is a trip through your old neighborhood a couple weeks from now will produce a more traditional distribution of Dem. vs. Rep. yard signs than on your past journey.

Posted by: Mark at September 27, 2004 07:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

rock_nj, very astute observation pertaining to the GOP's benefit in cranking up the level of despair in Ohio and elsewhere with the benefit of swelling the ranks of volunteer soldiers. Fact is, Republicans benefit from expanding poverty even without the military factor. The larger the ranks of the desperate, huddled masses, the greater the leverage the GOP's robber baron constituencies have in controlling wage levels and income distribution. As long as the GOP continues its successful undermining of the safety net, the meltdown of America's Ohios works to their advantage in countless ways.

Posted by: Mark at September 27, 2004 07:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kerry will carry Montgomery, Franklin, Clark and hopefully Stark. Definitely needs to do better in the first three mentioned so he can offset Bush's numbers a little in Warren, Butler, and Delaware.

Posted by: pc at September 27, 2004 08:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

For Mark:

Kerry should carry Montgomery. Franklin is going to be close, but I would guess it would tip Kerry. If it goes to Kerry by more than 5 or 6 points, Kerry can carry Ohio. The beat on the ground has Stark going GOP. There are some economic and cultural shifts going on there. The southeastern counties in Ohio are increasing becoming GOP territory. I think that the GOP has a better chance of sweeping the southeastern counties than anybody would guess. Where I disagree, is that losing those counties guarantees loss of the state for the Dems. The margins in Hamilton, Montgomery, Franklin, and Cuyahoga are very important. People forget about Cuyahoga because it is strongly democratic, but turnout in Cuyahoga can swing the state. For the same reason, I think that Stark will go GOP, but not by much, and becomes less of a factor than some might think.

Posted by: MarkOlsen at September 28, 2004 11:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

MarkO, I realize things are changing fast in the southern Ohio/Kentucky/West Virginia region, and it appears to be extending into western Pennsylvania as well. With that said, if Kerry can't win the counties around Steubenville when they have seen the highest rate of job loss of any metropolitan area in the nation, the entire region is hopeless. The same must be said of Stark County. What in your opinion is shaping these counties trend to the political right, particularly when the right has never been more hostile to the economic plight of the blue collars who dominate the region?

I swear the new political alignment is positively delusional. It's almost like a Bizarro-world alternate dimension where voters are bound and determined to support the political candidates who are most eager to destroy them.

Posted by: Mark at September 28, 2004 11:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kerry leads in first poll of lv since Republican Convention and also closing gap in Gallup.

IBD/CSM/TIPP 9/22-27 (9/14-9/18) Kerry 46% (43%) Bush 45% (46%)
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll 9/24-9/26 (9/13-9/15) Kerry 44% (42%) Bush 52% (55%)

Posted by: DFuller at September 28, 2004 01:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment