Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Thurston Howell IV Donating Member (436 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 07:59 PM
Original message
Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?
Here's an explanation of why Kerry lost Ohio that avoids/ignores voter suppression and fraud concerns, based on exit polling done by America Coming Together. Got it in a a mass email from the writer.


Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?
By Steve Rosenthal

When it came to getting out the Democratic vote in Ohio during the presidential election, we hit our target numbers. My organization, America Coming Together, along with our 32 America Votes partner organizations, the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry-Edwards campaign not only exceeded our turnout goals for the Buckeye State, but far exceeded anything the Democrats have done in the past.

And we still lost. President Bush won the election by fewer than 130,000 votes out of 5.6 million cast in Ohio, according to the state's latest figures. We added 554,000 votes to our totals, but the Republicans countered with 508,000, enough to keep the state in their column.

Since then my colleagues and I have gone back to answer a nagging question: Who were all those Bush voters? Though much has been made of the Republican grass-roots effort in Ohio and elsewhere, we did not see the sort of Republican organization that seems necessary to produce that many new votes. Where did they come from?

We've done a post-election poll of 1,400 rural and exurban voters in Ohio counties that Bush won by an average of 17 percentage points. Their answers, and a closer look at other poll data, explode a few widely held theories about what happened.

The first myth: Many more churchgoing voters flocked to the polls this year, driven by the Bush "moral values" and the gay marriage referendum.

Reality: The 2004 election brought no increase whatsoever in the portion of the voting electorate who attend church on a weekly basis or more often than that, according to exit polls. In Ohio, the share of the electorate represented by frequent churchgoers actually declined from 45 percent in 2000 to 40 percent in 2004. Nationwide, Bush improved his vote among weekly churchgoers by just one point over 2000, while increasing his support among those who don't go to church by four points.

So how could religious voters have been the basis of Bush's victory, at least in Ohio? Answer: They weren't.

Second myth: The Bush campaign won by mobilizing GOP strongholds and suppressing turnout in Democratic areas.

Reality: Turnout in Democratic-leaning counties in Ohio was up 8.7 percent while turnout in Republican-leaning counties was up slightly less, at 6.3 percent. John Kerry bested Bush in Cuyahoga County (home of Cleveland) by 218,000 votes -- an increase of 42,497 over Gore's 2000 effort. In Stark County (Canton) -- a bellwether lost by Gore -- Kerry won by 4,354.

Third myth: A wave of newly registered Republican voters in fast-growing rural and exurban areas carried Bush to victory.

Reality: Among Ohio's rural and exurban voters, Bush beat Kerry by just five points among newly registered voters and by a mere two points among infrequent voters (those who did not vote in 2000).

Fourth myth: Republicans ran a superior, volunteer-driven mobilization effort.

Reality: When we asked new voters in rural and exurban areas who contacted them during this campaign, we learned that they were just as likely to hear from the Kerry campaign and its allies as from the Bush side. (In contrast, regular voters reported more contact from the GOP.)

Then perhaps it was conservative religious groups or pro-life organizations or the National Rifle Association that reached these new Republican voters?

No, according to our post-election polling; only 20 percent of exurban and rural Ohio voters reported that they had been contacted by someone from their church, and only slightly higher percentages were contacted by conservative organizations. In contrast, these same voters in the least unionized regions of Ohio were more likely to have been contacted by a labor union.

Much has been made of the Republican effort to turn out voters through personal contact. Yet our poll shows that voters in these Republican counties were just as likely to be visited by a Kerry supporter at their homes as by a Bush supporter. Fewer than 2 percent were visited by a Bush supporter whom they knew personally.

Among the voters the Republicans targeted, the Democrats went toe-to-toe, knock-to-knock and phone call-to-phone call with them. And rest assured, in urban areas Republicans could not come close to matching the Democratic ground effort.

Still, Kerry lost in Ohio, if narrowly, and that tipped the Electoral College in Bush's favor. If this wasn't a flood of "moral values" voters or a GOP juggernaut, what was it?

The reason Kerry lost the election had much more to do with the war in Iraq and terrorism than the political ground war in Ohio. Terrorism trumped other issues at the polls -- including moral values -- and anxious voters tended to side with Bush.

o By 54 percent to 41 percent, voters decided that Americans are now safer from terrorist threats than four years ago, national exit polls said.

o By 55 percent to 42 percent, voters accepted Bush's view that Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism. By 51 percent to 45 percent, they still approved of the decision to go to war (though a majority expressed concerns about how the war is going).

o Just 40 percent said they trusted Kerry to do a good job handling the war on terrorism, compared with 58 percent who felt that way about the president.

The Bush campaign was able to persuade some voters who supported Gore in 2000 to turn to Bush in 2004 on the issues of terrorism, strength and leadership. Bush bested Kerry among those who voted in 2000 by five percentage points -- Bush bested Gore in 2000 by three points.

The other major factor was our side's failure to win the economic debate. Despite an economy that was not delivering for many working people in Ohio, the exit poll results show that voters in Ohio did not see Kerry providing a clear alternative. Just 45 percent expressed confidence that Kerry could handle the economy, compared with Bush's 49 percent.

The GOP put on a strong mobilization effort, but that's not what tipped the Ohio election. They did not turn Gore voters into Bush voters by offering a ride to the polls. Instead, it was skillful exploitation of public concern over terrorism by the Bush team -- coupled with Democrats' inability to draw clear, powerful contrasts on the economy and health care -- that pushed Bush over the finish line.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nope. It was fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. Add to that the flyers telling black people not to vote...
And I have the feeling that the Ohio results would be within the "margin of error".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. I agree...
What Thurston Howell describes is why Bush even came close to challenging Kerry. What pushed him over the top, however, was outright fraud and corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. your thread constitutes copyright violation
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 08:02 PM by CatWoman
you need to shorten it considerably, and provide a link.

COPYRIGHT ISSUES AND BANDWIDTH THEFT

Don't post entire copyrighted articles. If you wish to reference an article, provide a brief excerpt and include a link to the original source. Generally, excerpts should not exceed three or four paragraphs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#copyright
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Calvinist Basset Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Did you read the first few sentences of this post?
**received from the writer**

**in an e-mail**

How is this copyright transgression and bandwidth theft if the writer is credited, the original writer presented the document to a DUer--likely knowing that it would be passed on, and (as an e-mail) there is no link to a website for the document to be read?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34157-2004Dec3.html
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 08:24 PM by CatWoman
this article has appeared several times here, and the link is provided above.

an email doesn't need a link, but a published article does.

capeache?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Calvinist Basset Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Got it
But how was the poster supposed to know there was a link or even a previous thread here at DU available if it came in an e-mail? I certainly wouldn't have known if it came in my inbox--though I probably would have discarded this one if I'd received it.

My suggestion is simply this: Politely provide the information you have before blaming someone of intentionally undertaking illegal activity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Regardless
it had a byline, didn't it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Calvinist Basset Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Here's what I see:
A title, the name of the writer, and an essay. Nowhere in the post is there information that it was published anywhere else.

If the DUer intentionally left out other information regarding publication, link, etc., that would be one thing. But if this is the only information provided in the original e-mail, how would a person know that it was previously posted/published elsewhere?

All I'm saying is that it seems you jumped to a conclusion about the poster's intentions/negligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thurston Howell IV Donating Member (436 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. It seemed like a gray area to me
I'm aware of the 3 or 4 paragraph rule. I've posted in relation to dozens of articles -- and have always abstracted a few paragraphs and given the link. This entire thing came in an email to me, so it seemed like a "personal" correspondence. It had no link, so I posted the whole thing.

In the future under similar circumstances, I will either include a few paragraphs, or just skip it if the excerpt doesn't make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Ditto!
And we're not going to wait until the end of January or February to BEGIN 'examining' the voting irregularitis in Ohio...as a Republican Rep in Ohio was just quoted as saying on "Countdown." Momma did raise no fools!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoiledEarthLink Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. How in the world do you plan to make it a reality to rest of the world
Ignoring the fact that none of us can find a smoking voting booth to prove it was stolen what do you have that can prove the positive nature side that Kerry won Ohio? I keep hearing the same mantra but can never get a straight answer that helps to uncover the mysterious evidence showing the election was stolen. Have you some evidence you are holding back until the time is right? The time is now because December 12 is fast approaching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Hate to tell you this 'Soiled'....
But the instances of complaints are an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE greater PER CAPITA than in the Ukraine.

(If you need me to explain 'Order of Magnitude' or 'Per Capita', I'll be happy to...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoiledEarthLink Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. As one of the complainants I can agree
But all the complaining in the world won't help without some solid evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. And there won't be evidence if these machines count the vote...
THAT'S the problem.

So don't play with the notion that the Democrats 'should've done this' and 'didn't do that'.

The bottom line is that these machines need to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. Niiice!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demolifer2004 Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. damn it people
Stop acting like we won. Unless you'r content with losses in 2006 and 2008. Maybe it makes you feel better, but I'd rather win the next election then live in a pretend world where Kerry is president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Riiiight. Acting like losers - that's the ticket!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demolifer2004 Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. not what i meant
We shouldn't act like losers. We also shouldn't act like Kerry gets inaugarated next month. I'm just sick of people comforting themselves by saying "Oh well, we really won . Diebold, right-wing media, Karl Rove, blah blah blah." Get mad! Start focusing on the future now. We didn't win and that should only make us more determined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. Nobody's 'acting' like 'we' won...
We're 'acting' like we want fair elections that leave no doubt as to who 'won'.

We have more evidence of fraud from this election than in the Ukraine.
But our 'administration' said they would not recognize the 'winner' of that election because of the 'evidence' of fraud.

THAT is hypocrisy.

How can we trust an administration that will not acknowledge allegations of fraud in their own country?
Such an attitude is rife with implication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. THEFT! period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetladybug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. FRAUD! ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION, but you can believe whatever you want
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demolifer2004 Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. So can you
If we don't stop blaming others for our losses, we're going to keep losing. I'd rather accept that we need to change the way we do business and focus on winning in 2006 and especially in 2008. I'm not saying that fraud wasn't a factor at all, but we have bigger issues to deal with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. This has nothing to do with 'blame'...
Let me ask you this (if you have the fortitude to answer)...

Do you believe it's ok for a Republican sympathetic company to make unauditable machines that count our votes?

If you can say it's ok - then you are admitting that it's ok if the Democrats controlled those machines and won too... which may happen one day (under which circumstances I expect your silence.)
Get it?

It doesn't matter WHAT the Democrats do - if those machines are still here in 2006 and 2008, they will lose if they run Jesus Christ himself as a candidate!


(BTW- I AM a Republican! - a REAL one.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. Sorry, but I'd rather focus on the present....
and destroy as much of *'s credibility as possible. Actually, this is beginning to work and people aren't even acknowledging it. Remember, the internets can be a powerful thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickofTime Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Doesn't Make Sense
Over 50,000 American soldiers have come back from Iraq MIA, KIA or WIA, so how could anyone believe Bush is better on terror? 11-Sep-04 happened on Bush's watch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Calvinist Basset Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I agree.
New York overwhelmingly went to Kerry--and they witnessed the attack firsthand. How could other states across the country not listen to them regarding whom they trusted to keep the U.S. safe?

The 9/11 commission placed significant blame at Bush's feet for not acting on new, relevant intelligence prior to the attack.

And the article does not specifically counter some of the more troubling claims about election fraud/voter intimidation that point to suspicious activity. So far, this article (like so many others that try to debunk the election fraud theory) fails to provide irrefutable, reliable information to convince me this election wasn't rigged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. That crap came in my e-mail as well. My response: why so proud of a crappy
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 08:30 PM by robbedvoter
article?(author sent it)
WE wuz robbed. YOU be a loser and keep away from me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thurston Howell IV Donating Member (436 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. I believe fraud was probably involved in the results
However, I don't have the smoking gun -- neither do you.

I thought Mr Rosenthal's information was interesting to be aware of, that's why I shared it. It's just another piece of data, not the end of the story.

His data showed it wasn't misplaced "values" or christians crawling out of the wood work. It was the manipulation of fear that garnered Bush the (non-fraudulent) votes he got. That seems worth knowing.

BTW, I will make an effort to stay away from you. Thanks for the tip!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
37. What is most disturbing is
that for all the 'garnered fear' that won Bush** votes, there was a great deal more discontent that undermined his support... and he still 'won'.

What will it take before we realize these machines are a problem?

Mark my words - 50 years from now history will reveal this administration to be the most corrupt, inept, and malificent that has disgraced America.

And I spoke out about Clinton's Administration... he was an angel compared to these guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
31. Covering his own butt
He was head of the Clark campaign in Ohio before he became Ohio director for ACT. His job was to get out the vote.

It seems he's covering his own butt. His point is that he did a great job. Turnout was up. He got the voters to the polls. Kerry didn't get them to vote for him.

I think he's worried where his next job will come from and he's just beating his chest saiing "I did a great job. The rest of you morons screwed it up."

Just my read on the srticle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. I'm sure this is a duplicate.
Read this one just a few days ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thurston Howell IV Donating Member (436 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. I just got the email today
and didn't see any posts on it. Sorry about the dupe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
27. Umm... you're not a statistician are you?
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 09:39 PM by Dr_eldritch
And neither is this author.


"Reality: Turnout in Democratic-leaning counties in Ohio was up 8.7 percent while turnout in Republican-leaning counties was up slightly less, at 6.3 percent. John Kerry bested Bush in Cuyahoga County (home of Cleveland) by 218,000 votes -- an increase of 42,497 over Gore's 2000 effort. In Stark County (Canton) -- a bellwether lost by Gore -- Kerry won by 4,354."

So tell me what the hell 'turnout' means.

Then tell me which precincts recorded this 'turnout'.

Then tell me which of these precincts used e-voting machines.

And FINALLY tell me how the precincts that used those machines correlate with these 'turnout' numbers.


If anyone is so inclined - I suggest you send my very questions to the author of this article and see what he has to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
39.  I am locking this a s a copyright violation.
there is sufficient reason to believe this was a published article, therefore, to print the entire article crossees the copyright rules.

Than you for your understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC