Early Voting Shows Surprising Turnout For Democrats

NANCY BENAC AND LIZ SIDOTI | 10/21/10

 

WASHINGTON — Election Day is already over for more than 3 million Americans, and a surprising number of them are Democrats.

Republicans clearly are gaining ground in turning out early voters compared with their showing two years ago, but figures from the first batch of states that offer clues about 2010 early voting patterns still give Democrats an edge in a number of states and big counties.

"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.

With 30 percent or more of all votes likely to be cast early, both sides are going all-out to lock in supporters' ballots early. And for the first time in a midterm election, they're combining traditional shoe-leather canvassing and get-out-the-vote rallies with technological tools like Facebook and text messaging.

Strategies run the gamut: In Washington state, Democrats held a "tweetup" to rein in young early voters. In Illinois, a voter-education group posted a YouTube video about the state's early-voting law highlighting the ability to vote naked – from the comfort of home, please. In Florida, Democrats e-mailed a notice that "Today is Election Day. No, that's not a typo, because every day between now and November 2 is Election Day."

With nearly every indicator in a new Associated Press-G&K poll pointing toward big GOP victories, the Democrats' ground-game advantage is squaring off against the Republicans' enthusiasm edge – and the outcome could determine who wins close races.

Democrats hope they can minimize sweeping coast-to-coast losses with a retooled get-out-the-vote operation that's been tweaked since Barack Obama's groundbreaking 2008 presidential campaign and tested during several special House elections the party recently has won. Republicans, by most accounts, have a less sophisticated program, but they are banking on their loyalists – as well as GOP-leaning independents and disaffected Democrats – turning out in droves simply because they are fired up to vote against the party in power.

Early voting also has been strong in a number of states that don't break down turnout by party. In California, for example, nearly 570,000 ballots have been cast. In Texas, 316,000 have voted, compared with 157,000 at this point in 2006, according to totals from the 15 counties with the largest number of registered voters. In Washington, where virtually everyone casts a mail-in ballot, the state estimates roughly 240,000 have voted.

"This is a phenomenon that's here to stay and it's going to continue to increase in popularity, even in the midterms," McDonald said.

Those looking to read the election tea leaves also keep an eye on which party's voters have submitted the most applications for early ballots.

The Ultimate Political No-Brainer

William Rivers Pitt truthout OpEd

I am beginning to strongly suspect the Democrats in Congress would vastly prefer to lose their majority status come November, rather than continue to carry the apparently onerous burden of being in charge.


The number of alternate explanations for their behavior of late is becoming sparse. Sure, yeah, there are plenty of people who will tell you there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans, especially on Capitol Hill. Both parties are beholden, for the most part, to the same corporate paymasters, and so Democrats acting like Republicans is no big surprise.

But the thing is, the Democrats aren't acting like Republicans. Republicans, for all their myriad flaws and faults, always play to win. They go for the throat every time, are not shy about saying or doing whatever is required to win the day, and have a knack for turning a sound bite into a stiletto and jamming it under the fifth rib of whatever opponent happens to present themselves.

When the GOP held majority control for the first six years of the George W. Bush administration - minus that little interregnum that came about when Jeffords woke up on the left side of the bed - they absolutely bulldozed the Democratic minority just about every single time they wanted something passed. You remember, right? There were little pieces of Democrat all over the place after virtually every vote. They were relentless.

Of course, the GOP eventually blew it by 2006, thanks to an avalanche of scandals and the final national realization that a dunderheaded war freak was sitting in the White House. The fact that they lost their majority control, however, didn't change the way they operated. Quite the contrary, as we have seen. They vote en masse even against legislation they approve of if it means beating the Democrats. They roll boulders into the road to thwart everything, and do so with neither shame nor remorse. I disagree with virtually every aspect of Republican philosophy, and my disagreements have gone even deeper since the GOP became the Far-Right-Teabagger-Birther-Taliban-Christian-Nutbag Party, but I will say this: if the Democrats had acted more like Republicans when they were in the minority, there would almost certainly be a lot less dead people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this country would be a lot less broke.

But they didn't do that, of course, and since gaining the majority in Congress, the Democrats have been as limp and useless as a dead jellyfish, and never more so since Obama took office. The last two years have been agonizing to watch on any number of levels, mostly because these people can't seem to get out of their own way.

They're not acting like Republicans, except when they vote for legislation that serves their dual paymasters, of course, but that's not what I mean. They don't play to win, ever. They don't seem to know how to do it. If you listen closely, you can hear Tip O'Neill spinning wildly in his grave; under no circumstances would that grand old Speaker have tolerated the kind of dishwater spinelessness evinced by this current crop of Democrats.

I really do think they want to get beaten in November, so they can return to the safe, responsibility-free environs of the minority. There are very few other explanations, especially now that they have right in front of them the biggest no-brainer tactical move in the history of the universe: repealing the Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. The issue is a big fat meatball floating right over the plate, and it seems all too evident that these nimrod Democrats are just going to watch it as it sails by.

The numbers on this issue are staggering, and Congressional Democrats have had it explained to them in Technicolor by one of the heaviest pollsters in the game. Stanley Greenberg, of the polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, was invited to speak to members of the Democratic caucus several days ago, and he laid it out as plain as could be.

According to his numbers, only 38 percent of Americans favor keeping the Bush tax cuts for rich people, and if the Democrats vigorously embrace repealing them, they stand to make tremendous gains nationally against the GOP in what looks to be a rough midterm season. After Greenberg was finished, Speaker Pelosi followed up with a plea for the party to dive into this potential boon headfirst.

First of all, it blows my whole mind to think these people actually needed to have such a simple concept explained to them by an expert with bar graphs and pie charts. Beyond that, however, is the staggering fact that, after having the data spoon-fed to them, they still don't seem to have a stomach for the fight.

It would be one thing if they just agreed with the GOP and wanted to keep those tax cuts in place. It would be sickening, but it would make sense. There are some Democrats who do agree, but you'd think a desire to win elections and maintain majority control would trump that, especially given how bleak the prospects are for November.

Junking the Bush rich-folks tax breaks would save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten years, which sounds like pretty spiffy fiscal responsibility given our current economic situation. It would maintain tax relief for the middle class, which desperately needs the help. It would be a fork in the eye of the same GOP brigands who passed the damned things in the first place. And it would show the American people that Democrats actually stand for, well, something.

The fact that they actually have to sit down and think this one over tells me more than anything else that Congressional Democrats are either trying to lose, or don't have the stomach to fight for something that will help millions of people, because the GOP might be mean to them.

I really do think they want to lose. If they fail to embrace this issue with both arms, that's exactly what will happen.

Suck It Up and Dig In

William Rivers Pitt, truthout

The "mainstream" news media has, over the last few weeks, been giving us a clinic on the art of the self-fulfilling prophecy. To wit: Democrats are discouraged on the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, liberals are even more so, the right is on fire, and the American people in general are preparing to vent their economic frustrations on the majority party in Congress, and by proxy the president. Virtually every poll, newspaper and network has declared the upcoming vote to be the electoral version of Little Big Horn for the Democratic Party, even though the election is almost two months off.

Not so long ago, I was calling such dire predictions nonsense. After all, the Republican Party has offered nothing of substance in terms of policy proposals to explain why they deserve to be allowed back into power. The Tea Party insurgency on the GOP's right flank has knocked off a number of very electable Republicans in primary races all over the country and replaced them with candidates with views so extreme as to make Dick Cheney look measured and reasonable by comparison.

More to the point, I simply refused to believe that the American people in general could possibly be bumfuzzled enough to forget how bad things were in this country not even two years ago due to the pestilence of Republican rule. I couldn't imagine that the very people who have been suffering the economic consequences of that pestilence, who suffer it today and will suffer it tomorrow, could be damnfool enough to let the wolves back into the yard.

Well, if the prophesies of the "mainstream" news media are as self-fulfilling as they appear, the damnfool bumfuzzles are gearing up to rule the day on the first Tuesday in November. As astonishing as it may sound, the very people who have been getting ruthlessly and deliberately pummeled by the politicians and policies of the GOP are, by all reports, preparing to deliver an axe into the hands of the very headsmen who put them on the chopping block in the first place for fun, profit and power.

I'm sure there are plenty of explanations for why this appears to be happening; political scientists, sociologists and scholars of abnormal psychology will have a field day parsing the whys and wherefores of this phenomenon if the deal does indeed go down. In the end, however, I think Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post got closest to the bone last week in a column titled "The Spoiled Brat American Electorate.” In it, Robinson wrote:

According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they're ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans - for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn't an "electoral wave," it's a temper tantrum.

In the punditry business, it's considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the American people. But at this point, it's impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

The nation demands the impossible: quick, painless solutions to long-term, structural problems. While they're running for office, politicians of both parties encourage this kind of magical thinking. When they get into office, they're forced to try to explain that things aren't quite so simple -- that restructuring our economy, renewing the nation's increasingly rickety infrastructure, reforming an unsustainable system of entitlements, redefining America's position in the world and all the other massive challenges that face the country are going to require years of effort. But the American people don't want to hear any of this. They want somebody to make it all better. Now.

Chalk it up to the vagaries of the ceaseless revolutions of the 24-hour news cycle. Everything proffered by the "mainstream" news media comes in instantaneous fashion, and their screaming in-the-minute coverage of epic, long-term dilemmas ably serves to create the kind of dull-witted, memory-deficient angst that leads people who have been badly screwed to volunteer for a whole new round of screwing. Chalk it up to fear, to impatience, or to the fact that the GOP and their media allies are Jedi Masters when it comes to crafting political messages that appeal to the gut while being a shortcut to thinking at the same time.

Chalk it up to whatever you like, but unless the political pundits in the "mainstream" and independent media are pulling the 21st century version of "Dewey Defeats Truman," this electorate appears to have every intention come November of hanging itself with its own hair like Rapunzel when the Prozac runs out, and it is, frankly, sickening to contemplate on any number of levels. Mr. Robinson's use of words like "brats" and "tantrum" may be harsh, but it is hard to say he is wrong.

Contemplating all of this is hard enough on the soul and the stomach by itself, but amazingly enough, it gets worse. A new poll was released on Wednesday by Democracy Corps that, quite simply, makes me want to eat my own teeth. It re-re-re-reports the oft-repeated "generic ballot" refrain, i.e. in these upcoming midterm elections, a generic Republican leads a generic Democrat by a seemingly insurmountable margin. But within the layered questions in this poll, there is a data point that literally makes me want to throw up on myself. According to Democracy Corps' survey of "drop-off voters" - a term referring to those who voted in 2008 but are unlikely to vote in 2010 - the Democrats are finally and disgracefully in the lead. By a margin of 47% to 40%, Democratic voters are more likely to refuse to show up at the polls in November, despite everything that is at stake.

47%? I don't even begin to know what to say. Perhaps there is something in the genetic makeup of Democrats and liberals that makes being in the minority an irresistibly attractive option. I can understand that. Being in the minority in politics is easy; you aren't responsible for anything, because it's the other guys who have all the power, and so you can stand on your soapbox and be unbending in your "resistance" without having to deal with pesky nuisances like leadership, compromise, or long-term goals. Perhaps 2008 was nothing more than a temporary power trip for a bunch of self-righteous ego junkies who felt like they needed to be on the winning team after eight years of George W. Bush, but who cannot now stomach the realities of majority control, because it might tarnish their so-called liberal credentials.

I know this much: anyone - be they straight-line Democratic, liberal, progressive, Left or what have you - who believed the election of 2008 would be the final cure for all that ails this nation and this world needs to find another hobby besides national politics. Because if you thought 2008 and Obama would fix everything - in two years- then politics is just that to you: a hobby, a masturbatory exercise devoid of context or comprehension that makes you nothing more than cholesterol clogging the arteries of progress.

"Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards," said German sociologist Max Weber. "It takes both passion and perspective.” At this point, it appears that far too many Democratic and liberal voters in this country - 47%. Seriously? - Have plenty of passion, but little perspective, and the word "strong" describes them not at all when it comes to dealing with the political difficulties of the day. Could the Democrats in Congress do better? Yes. Should they do better? Yes. Should the same be said for President Obama? Certainly, yes. Is that reason enough for 47% of Democrats and liberals to sit on their hands in November and deliver the nation back to the very people they supposedly would oppose with all their might? If your answer to that question is also "Yes," then shame on you.

If Democrats and liberals are incapable of summoning the will to keep these right-bent fiends out of power after the eight-year demonstration of what they're about that we just endured, then they don't deserve to be anywhere near political power at all. Obama has not fulfilled our hopes and aspirations, and has in several cases betrayed them egregiously. The same can surely be said for Democrats in Congress. But if you've allowed yourself to forget how bad things can truly become, then do the nation and the world a favor and follow my advice: find another hobby, and take with you with the 47% who share your lack of conviction. The rest of us will do our best to take up the slack, and God help us all if November turns out as badly as is predicted.

You can do that, or you can suck it up and dig in. There is no alternative.

General Motors, Good Business, Republicans and the State Budget

A couple of big stories this weekend were the continued failure of California’s elected officials to reach a deal on the state’s budget and the emergence of a “new” General Motors from it’s government-forced Chapter 11 reorganization.

Almost everyone is baffled by the inability of California’s legislative leaders to break the state’s budget stalemate, leaving it on the edge of bankruptcy. Concurrently, GM, which a month ago was itself flirting with financial ruin, has been given a second chance exactly because it was forced into bankruptcy.

In each case, layman and analyst alike were bewildered by a culture that had grown so completely isolated from how things work in the “real world.” California’s Governor and Legislature are like GM managment of six months ago, flying hat in hand to Washington in corporate jets when they should have traveled in hybrids.

Unfortunately, there is little chance that the federal government will take over California, force it to reorganize it’s outdated business model and shed billions of dollars of debt by selling off underperforming assets as it did with GM. However, California’s leaders could learn a great deal from the GM experience.

For years, decades even, there have been warnings that the state, like GM, has been operating under an outmoded and untenable business model. Top management in both cases isolated itself in a cocoon of illusion hung from a framework of false assumptions.

GM executives assumed consumers would buy pick-up trucks and SUV’s forever. Management refused to support policies that would have helped contain the cost of production. They made concessions to workers that were unsustainable in lean times. The company ignored market trends while holding out false hope that the market would somehow turn around and bail them out, even as they hemorrhaged billions of dollars.

Operating under it’s outdated business model, the erstwhile automobile giant suffered a four-decade decline in market share. Over just the last decade, GM lost more than 75% of its market value. A few months ago, it reached the point at which it consumed more money than it brought in by making and selling cars.

As with GM, the state of California has become cash-flow-negative. The business model by which the state once operated is no longer sustainable. Costs must be brought under control and the books need to be balanced. In business, cost control is necessary in good times in order to survive in hard times. State leaders must do the same.

To the Democrats credit, they have moved in the direction of cost cutting, but they need to do more. What they need to do is project expenses into the future and determine a reasonable and fixed baseline amount as the basis for programmatic decision making. The Democratic leadership must then show political courage by making the tough decisions by making deep cuts and show leadership by bucking special interests.

GM was forced by a bankruptcy judge and the Obama administration to shed brands, models, factories, workers and a bloated management. It has also been made clear by the bankruptcy court and the administration that GM needs to undertake a radical restructuring of it’s entrenched management system to survive.

California needs the political will to reduce programs, cut costs and adopt a sound financial structure that will allow the state to live within it’s means. However, such an approach is predetermined to fail unless the Republic minority will consider revenue enhancements.

In business, one cannot simply look at one side of a balance sheet. The other, equal side of expenses is income. Balancing income and expenses is a basic principal of business. Taking income increases entirely off the table makes no sense from a business perspective. Sacramento Republicans cannot expect to solve the state’s financial problems while ignoring half of the equation that is the basis for any successful enterprise.

An example of Republican intransigence is opposition to an oil extraction tax. California may be the only state in the union, perhaps the world, which literally gives away resources to oil companies. Other oil producing states and nations charge handsomely for the permission to drill for liquid gold. Not one oil company has walked away from an oil field because it’s owner charged it for the opportunity to make money.

A modest oil extraction fee would enrich state coffers by about $1.2 billion dollars a year. California’s Republican legislators argue that such a fee would raise consumer costs. But, their argument falls flat because petroleum product prices are set internationally. Market forces much greater that any fee the state may impose governs oil and gas prices. One would think that members of the political party that prides itself for being “businesses friendly” would understand such a fundamental economic reality.

No credible economist in the world would endorse the Sacramento Republican’s approach to addressing the state’s budget stalemate. Members of the political party that has always argued that government ought to be run more like a business have taken what is essentially an anti-business position concerning the state’s budget.

With a sound financial structure in place, a management approach that includes flattening out the company’s multiple layers of executives and another $50 billion in federal loans available to make it through the year, GM has no excuses left if it continues to struggle in the marketplace.

Meanwhile, in Sacramento, Republicans have placed their anti-tax dogma above sound business practices. They have abdicated not only their leadership responsibilities, but also one of their most popular and successful political positions to satisfy right wing zealots. It is almost unheard of. California Republicans have ceded their “run government like a business” message to anyone willing to be reasonable about taxes.

This is where GM and the Sacramento Republican leadership face the same paradox. How do they go about changing the way they do things when they have not changed the group of people that got them in this mess to start with?