Early Voting Shows 'Surprising' (to GOP M$M) Turnout For Democrats

[JohnWxy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/early-voting-election-day_n_771047.html


~~

"If people thought the Democrats were just going to roll over and play dead in this election, that's not what we're seeing," said Michael McDonald, a George Mason University professor who tracks early voting nationally. "They've got to be feeling a little bit better with the numbers that they're seeing."

While it's impossible to tell for whom people are voting, so far more Democrats than Republicans are casting ballots in Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, Louisiana and Nevada's heavily Democratic Clark County, which supplied two-thirds of the state's voters in 2008.

Republicans are flexing their organizational muscles and leading the pace in Florida, even though Democrats have the edge in registered voters there, and in Colorado. The parties are running about even in Maine. Ohio's early voting trends reflect the state's swing-voting status: Democrats are ahead in the party stronghold of Cuyahoga County around Cleveland, while Republicans lead in GOP territory of Hamilton County, which is home to Cincinnati. Ballots are virtually even in Franklin County, which anchors fickle central Ohio.
(more)

[vi5]

1. Don't we get this every election?

I recall getting this same basic thing about early voting every election probably for the past 5-10 years or so and it usually doesn't indicate one thing one way or another. Some of those elections have broken our way, some haven't.

Same thing with the "The polls mean nothing because they can't sample cell phones!!!" story that so many hang their hat on every election, particularly ones where polling in advance shows us losing.

Don't get me wrong I hope it means something, but history shows that it really does not.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. What history is that?

Early voting has only been a factor since massive distrust of polling booth voting appeared with the stolen election of 04. Early voting turnout favors the Dems in 06. Who won that one? Early voting turnout favors the Dems in 08. Who won that one?

History - I think that maybe that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

[vi5]

15. Sure whatever.....

I heard the same line of bullshit in '02 (remember the 2000 election was "stolen" as well so people were already worked up after that one) which we lost as well. So yeah, fine. Hang your hopes and dreams on the early voting. Whatever makes you giddy with anticipation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Early voting is a new thing in most places. I'm not sure when NC started it - I pretty much ignored it because I actually like taking time off work to go to the polls on voting day - but I don't remember talk of it here before 04. Florida didn't start early voting until 04. Maryland passed the law for it in 06, but IIRC this year is the first that implements it. According to Wiki, just 16% of presidential votes were early voting in 2000, and 22% in 2004 - the article didn't give numbers of 06 and 08, but certainly, as more state adopt early voting the percentages went up.

And you don't need to put 'stolen' in fuckng quotes - 2000 WAS stolen, and that is obvious to anyone who had read the many, many dissections of that election. 2000 was stolen by fraud and intimidation, and the supremes preventing a full count of the ballots. 2002 was stolen by Diebold. 2004 was stolen by fraud and Diebold. They made a valiant attempt to steal 06, but higher than expected turnout - including early voting - overcame the level of fraud they thought they needed to win: despite numerous accounts of thousands of unaccounted-for votes appearing that threatened to turn it in favor of Repubs, enough real votes prevented their doing in 06 what they did in o4; despite some machines recording thousands more votes than there were registered voters, they screwed up their fraud by as little as 2%. Didn't hear much about it, because when the results match the expectation, nobody looks into fraud on the losers' side, but there were places where the Dem polled a solid 6-8 points higher than his opponent, but only won by a squeaker - in more than one case less than 1%.

But never mind that - it doesn't fit your narrative that THE DEMS ARE GOING TO LOSE!!!!! (Be afraid! Be Very Afraid!!)

It's obvious what makes YOU giddy.

[oswaldactedalone]

17. Early voting began in NC

in 2000. I remember being on the phone bank in Dem headquarters and mentioning that to people. Most were unaware of it at the time.

[vi5]

19. See the other response...

Early voting in NC started in 2000. It was definitely around in a lot of places for 2004.

And you're obviously not understanding what I'm saying (shocking, I know!). I'm not disputing that more dems use early voting than republicans. Precisely because we have so much reason to be suspiscious. So obviously early voting numbers are going to lean heavily Democratic. I'm just saying it's not a bellweather for election results.

Also, as for what makes me giddy, it seems you miseed (again......shocking!) where I said that I hope I'm wrong. It's not some major conspiracy theory on my part. I just think that engaged democrats and liberals tend to be suspect of voting machines and the process itself so they go with early/absentee ballots which means that those early numbers are heavily democratic leaning. As I said, I just don't think it means anything one way or another. Not that we'll definitely lose and not that we'll definitely win.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. No, no, and again, no.

It is NOT that more dems use early voting. There is, in fact, little evidence of that. The point is, early voting increases turnout overall, and when more people vote, more democrats win. The higher the turnout, the likelier a Democratic victory.

And, if YOU read the previous answer, you'd note that the poster said "most were unaware of it at the time". That being the case, the idea the the press was touting Dem victories based on early voting was simply nonsense. It is YOUR statement that is the absurdity, claiming the press in 02, 04, was predicting Democratic victories based on early voting, at a time when early voting was a negligible factor, and dismissing the fact that post 04, when far greater numbers of states offered early voting, AND far greater numbers of voters began taking advantage of it, and it became a real factor, the results were Democratic victories.

Simply put, "I heard the same line of bullshit in '02 (remember the 2000 election was "stolen" as well so people were already worked up after that one) which we lost as well" is, itself, bullshit.

So, just why ARE you trying to discourage Dems?

[vi5]

21. "Why are you trying to discourage dems"

Yes, you got me. That's exactly what I'm doing. Please. If someone's voting motivation is already so piss-poor that an anonymous poster on a Democratic message board can discourage them, then there's just really nothing I can add to that, which would make it any more sad than it already is.

And by all means bookmark this thread and post and come back the day after and tell me I was wrong. It's a plate of crow I'll happily eat. I jut happen to think the Little Mary Sunshine "Yay we're going to win!" thinking is more of a drag on voter turnout than the fear that we're not going to win.

[NorthCarolina]

2. Probably nothing that Diebold can't "fix" on Nov. 2nd. eom

[Nite Owl]

3. I really think that for all they are saying about

the 'enthusiasm gap' on the Dem side the GOP has it's own huge gap. Most of my neighbors are republicans and many are just staying home or voting for the dem. They won't vote for Paladino here or the tea party guy running for congress either. They are not real right wing nuts just republicans. I'm in NY and maybe it's a little different here but there have to be other places where republican voters are just not going to go vote for some of these nuts they have on the ballot. On the dem side the thought of some of these tea party candidates is downright scarey.

[bemildred]

4. Bullshit will only take you so far. nt

[glitch]

5. +1 Creating your own reality only works if everybody buys into it.

Even then it doesn't work forever. Reality bats last. :evilgrin:

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. I like that.

"Reality bats last."

Is that yours? I don't care - I'm gonna steal it anyway.

:fistbump:

[bemildred]

9. Indeed, that is good. nt

[glitch]

12. Maybe. It's hard to tell anymore :) nt

[savalez]

13. That is good.

[JohnWxy]

11. "reality bats last." .... l like it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. There they go again, believing their own propaganda.

There will be some perfectly normal, expected mid-term attrition, but we will hold both houses of congress. And if Obama persists in his new trajectory, he'll have no problem getting a second term, too.

[savalez]

14. He'll need to forget about reaching across the isle and..

the bipartisan crap. Just full steam ahead.

[oswaldactedalone]

10. Just keep working to GOTV

and donate what you can to the good side. GOTV, GOTV, GOTV

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Absolutely. The numbers are on our side.

The greater the turnout, the likelier a Democratic win. That's why the Repubs work so hard at depressing the vote.