General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDems take comfort in new early voting numbers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/17/morning-plum-dems-take-comfort-in-new-early-voting-numbers/a hallowed political tradition: Campaigns that are losing in the polls claim their vaunted ground games will make up the difference, in early voting and voter mobilization on Election Day.
This time, Democrats insist that it really is going to happen and they have new early voting numbers in Iowa, shared with this blog, that are meant to bolster their case.
The premise of the DSCCs voter-mobilization program is that overcoming the Democrats midterm voter drop-off problem will require more than just getting out unenthusiastic voters. It will also require a hyper-targeted effort to mobilize voters who did not vote in 2010 a very deliberate effort to expand the electorate beyond the one showing up in polls.
According to new figures from the hard-fought Iowa Senate race supplied by the DSCC, this may be happening. The DSCC says that as of yesterday, over 170,000 Iowans have already voted in 2014, a 63 percent increase over 2010. This comports with early voting numbers compiled by political scientist Michael McDonald. A DSCC official emails:
Among those ballots cast, nearly 7,000 more registered Democrats have voted than registered Republicans. Our models show that Bruce Braley has a lead of over 15,000 votes among those who have already voted, thanks to a 25-point lead among the unaffiliated voters who have already voted.
The recent Des Moines Register poll also showed Braley leading among early voters. But heres the key nuance. The DSCC official says its model shows Dems are bringing in significantly more non-2010 voters than Republicans are:
samsingh
(17,590 posts)Democrats will begin to return to advantage in future ones when more repug seats are at stake
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Every midterm election in every area the winner is always Mr. and Ms..Non Voter. And isn' that the fascist GOP's greatest fear? I say we terrorize them with an army of voting- thirsty zombie first time non- voters newly arisen from the Sleeping Dead.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BTW, are you talking 53% registered voters?
After the 2004 election, I contacted the Census Bureau to ask how many adults who are otherwise eligible to vote don't even register. The reply: We don't gather that info.
Every year or two, my city asks me if I own a dog and how many minors and adults live in my home. So, they could get the info if they thought it mattered.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)because of being convicted felons and their state therefore does not allow them to vote, etc.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)At least not as of 2004, it didn't. I checked.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Some stats and a link or two...
39 percent of unmarried women who are eligible are not registered, representing 28 percent of all unregistered citizens
51 percent of young people between 18 and 29 who are eligible are not registered, representing 31 percent of all unregistered citizens
37 percent of African Americans who are eligible are not registered, representing 12 percent of all unregistered citizens
48 percent of Latinos who are eligible are not registered, representing 12 percent of all unregistered citizens.
http://www.voterparticipation.org/the-rising-american-electorate/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/page-gardner/the-real-crisis-35--of-am_b_1615318.html
merrily
(45,251 posts)I think there may be some loose language in that about "eligible". Either that, or the Census Bureau lied to me or misunderstood my question, or changed its policy.
That someone living in the US is over 18, but did not vote, does not mean he or she was eligible to vote. As I said to Fred Sanders, he or she may be a resident, but not be a citizen or may be ineligible to vote under state law for some reason, like having been convicted of a felony.
My specific question to the Census Bureau in 2004 was: "How many Americans who are eligible to vote do not register to vote?" And the response was they were sorry, but they do not collect the information that would enable them to answer my question.
So, I have no idea who is being more accurate, the Census Bureau or the authors of those articles.
However, I guess the percentage is close enough for government work, literally.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Also, bear in mind that "unaffiliated" does not always mean "may go either way, or even third party."
Few states have been as consistent in modern times as Massachusetts, as far as voting blue in Presidential elections. Yet, the largest group of registered voters in Massachusets is not blue or red or green, but unaffiliated (in Massachusetts, "unenrolled" . That was how I registered initially, even though I would not vote Republican, even with a gun to my head.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)Going to try to do some volunteering and call people this week too.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)GOTV!!!
Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)
appalachiablue This message was self-deleted by its author.
Itchinjim
(3,084 posts)Straight ticket Democrat of course. Go Bruce!