The Final US Election Thread

[GeneralHankerchief]

Blagojevich (or however you spell it) appoints someone to fill the remainder of the seat. I don't think there's a special election involved. So far the rumors are that it'll be Jesse Jackson, Jr., but I don't think that'll happen because it means that there will just be another House seat to fill then.

He's also going to have to fill Rahm's seat too.

These are going to be two pretty important picks for him, being embattled and up for re-election in 2010.

[Spino]

So much for the bilious hype regarding this so-called revolutionary and unprecedented election. The only variable that stands out about this election was the fact that you had a 1/2 black candidate n the race which broke the standard Northern European vs. Northern European formula. For all the hoopla surrounding voter registration and the early voting bruhaha the actual difference between this election and the previous one? 1% increase in voter turnout...

http://domino.american.edu/AU/media/...9?OpenDocument

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize: Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting

Contact: Curtis Gans, 202-885-6295, 703-304-1283, 540-822-5292, gans@american.edu, csnag@eols.com
Jon Hussey, AU Media Relations, 202-885-5935 or hussey@american.edu

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 6, 2008)—Despite lofty predictions by some academics,
pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004.

According to a report and turnout projection released today by American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE) and based, in part, on nearly final but unofficial vote tabulations as compiled by the Associated Press as of 7 p.m. Wednesday, November 5, the percentage of Americans who cast ballots for president in this year’s presidential election will reach between 126.5 million and 128.5 million when all votes have been counted by early next month.

If this prediction proves accurate, turnout would be at either exactly the same level as in 2004 or, at most, one percentage point higher (or between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent). If the rate of voting exceeds 61.0 percent of eligibles, turnout will have been the highest since 1964. This projection is based on the 121.5 million tabulated votes compiled by the Associated Press plus some estimate—partially based on experience with post-election vote counting in previous elections and partially based on factors specific to this election, most notably the spread of balloting prior to Election Day—on how many ballots are still to be counted.

A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party’s share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980.

Of the 47 states and the District of Columbia included in this report, turnout was up in only 22 states and D.C. (Because of the extensive uncounted no excuse absentee balloting in Alaska and California and all-mail voting in Oregon and most of the state of Washington, those states are not included in this report.)

“Many people were fooled (including this student of politics although less so than many others) by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004,” said Curtis Gans, CSAE’s director. “But we failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats.”

Gans attributed the GOP downturn to three factors: 1) John McCain’s efforts to unite the differing factions in the Republican Party by the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin as vice-presidential nominee was a singular failure. By election time many culturally conservative Republicans still did not see him as one of their own and stayed home, while moderate Republicans saw the nomination of Palin reckless and worried about McCain’s steadiness. 2) As events moved towards Election Day, there was a growing perception of a Democratic landslide, discouraging GOP voters. 3) The 2008 election was a mirror image of the 2004 election. In the 2004 election, the enthusiasm level was on the Republican side. By Election Day, Democratic voters were not motivated by their candidate but rather by opposition to President Bush, while Republican voters had a much greater liking for their standard bearer. In 2008 and according to polls from several sources, by at least 20 percentage points, Obama enjoyed stronger allegiance than McCain. Even the best get-out-the-vote activities tend to be as successful as the affirmative emotional context in which they are working. In 2004, that context favored the GOP. In 2008, it favored the Democrats.

“In the end, this election was driven by deep economic concerns and the prevailing emotional climate,” Gans said. “While there probably has not been, since 1932, the confluence of factors that underlay this election—90 percent of the American people seeing the nation on the wrong track, 75 percent disapproving of the president’s performance, more than 80 percent perceiving a recession and feeling that things will get worse, and the reality of growing economic distress—on one level this election was typical. When economic conditions go bad, the party in the White House gets blamed and they lose.”

This is a summary report with basic highlights, commentary, summary charts, and notes. The complete report including statistical charts for overall and partisan turnout for all races covered in this report is available in a downloadable copy at http://www.american.edu/media/electionexperts.

Convenience Voting Didn’t Help

During the past several years, and in the belief that turnout would be enhanced, many states have moved to various forms of what has been called convenience voting. The most extreme form is the all-mail balloting in Oregon, and more recently, in most of the state of Washington. Other forms include no-excuse absentee voting (whereby citizens can get absentee ballots without stating a reason and cast them for a period in advance of the election), early voting (whereby at certain polling places established by election officials in convenient locations, citizens can, in person, cast ballots for a specified period before an election) and Election Day registration (where a citizen can both register and vote on Election Day).

The evidence from the 2008 election is that if the mission of these electoral devices is turnout enhancement, the mission has been a failure.

Of the 14 states which had the largest turnout increases in 2008, only six had implemented one form or another of convenience voting. Of the 13 states which had the largest turnout decreases, all but one had one form or another of convenience voting. (See chart 3.)

“It has always been abundantly clear that, after four decades of making it easier to vote and having turnout decline (among most groups) except for elections driven by fear and anger,” Gans said, “the central issue governing turnout is not procedure but motivation. These new procedures, except for Election Day registration for some states, don’t help turnout and pose some discrete dangers for American democracy.”

Some Statistical Highlights:

Of the states included in this report, Democratic turnout increased in all but seven states, led by Indiana (up 8.32 percentage points), North Carolina (8.3), Hawaii (6.4), Delaware (6.1), Georgia (6.1), North Dakota (6.0), Nevada (5.9), Montana (5.4), New Mexico (.1), and Virginia (5.0)—all except Hawaii, new areas of potential Democratic strength. Republican turnout increased in only eight of 47 states and the District of Columbia included in this report.

The greatest increase in overall turnout was in North Carolina, where turnout increased by 9.4 percentage points to a record high. Georgia also had a record high turnout, increasing by 6.7 percentage points, as did South Carolina with a 6.0 percentage point increase. Others setting new records included Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, and the District of Columbia.

As usual the highest turnout was recorded in Minnesota (75.9 percent of eligible), followed by Wisconsin (70.9), Iowa (68.9) Missoouri (67.4), Michigan (66.7), South Dakota (66.7), and North Carolina (66.3).


Commentary (Two Shorts for Longer Future Analysis):

1. The opportunity for long-term realignment: The Democratic victory was not only large in margin and sweeping in scope, it also was a continuation of their gains in share of the eligible vote, which began after the 1980 election and many of their largest gains in 2008 came in states where the Democrats had not previously had a foothold—in the post-Voting Rights Act south and in the mountain west and southwest. While this election did not in itself realign American politics after 28-years of Republican dominance, it presented the opportunity for such a realignment to take place. But that realignment can only occur if President-elect Obama is a successful president. If he restores political trust, economic stability, international respect, and broad citizen approval, the Democrats could be in power everywhere for a very long time. But that is a tall order which may not be, given the severity of current conditions, an accomplishable task. However, the GOP would be wise not to play politics in the manner they utilized during the Clinton Administration—a manner that was largely obstructionist and nay-saying. If they pursue that strategy in the face of Obama’s call to cooperation in dealing with crisis, the GOP could be in the political wilderness for a very, very, long time.

2. Convenience Voting: This election showed what many previous elections have shown—that the types of innovations adopted in the past several years—particularly early voting, no-excuse absentee voting and mail voting—do not enhance and may hurt turnout. They pose other dangers—the most significant is the danger that something may occur on the last few days of the electoral season, such as, the present context, the capture of Osama Bin Laden, a domestic terrorist act, or an elderly candidate having a heart attack—after 35 million citizens have cast an irrevocable vote. With the exception of those who physically can’t get to the polls or those who for business reasons can’t be at the polls on a given election day, the nation would be safer if everyone voted on the same day. Mail voting and no-excuse absentee voting also offer the greatest opportunity for voting fraud and intimidation of any aspect of the electoral system. This is because these forms of voting provide for the elimination by any individual of their right to a secret ballot and thus, their vote could be (and has been on a few occasions) bought, or someone delivering an open ballot filled out the “wrong” way could discard it, or one could be pressured at ballot signing parties among one’s peers, pressure easy to resist behind a voting curtain, not so easy to resist at the home of a friend. It is why the United States adopted the Australian (secret) ballot in the first place around the turn of the last century.

But in a larger sense, convenience voting is addressing a real problem with the wrong solutions. The participation problem is, at heart, not procedural but motivational. In a variety of ways, events, politics, leadership, education, communications, and values have damped the religion of civic engagement and responsibility. We will not get that back by treating would-be voters as spoiled children. We need to demand more of our citizenry rather than less. The Democrats liked convenience voting this time because it benefitted them. The Republicans liked it in 2004 because it benefitted them. But democracy was not benefitted. These devices are extremely popular, but popularity is not the same as wisdom and in this case, it is antithetical. It’s time to consider rolling them back.

“Many people were fooled (including this student of politics although less so than many others) by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004,” said Curtis Gans, CSAE’s director. “But we failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats.”

Gans attributed the GOP downturn to three factors: 1) John McCain’s efforts to unite the differing factions in the Republican Party by the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin as vice-presidential nominee was a singular failure. By election time many culturally conservative Republicans still did not see him as one of their own and stayed home, while moderate Republicans saw the nomination of Palin reckless and worried about McCain’s steadiness. 2) As events moved towards Election Day, there was a growing perception of a Democratic landslide, discouraging GOP voters. 3) The 2008 election was a mirror image of the 2004 election. In the 2004 election, the enthusiasm level was on the Republican side. By Election Day, Democratic voters were not motivated by their candidate but rather by opposition to President Bush, while Republican voters had a much greater liking for their standard bearer. In 2008 and according to polls from several sources, by at least 20 percentage points, Obama enjoyed stronger allegiance than McCain. Even the best get-out-the-vote activities tend to be as successful as the affirmative emotional context in which they are working. In 2004, that context favored the GOP. In 2008, it favored the Democrats.

“In the end, this election was driven by deep economic concerns and the prevailing emotional climate,” Gans said. “While there probably has not been, since 1932, the confluence of factors that underlay this election—90 percent of the American people seeing the nation on the wrong track, 75 percent disapproving of the president’s performance, more than 80 percent perceiving a recession and feeling that things will get worse, and the reality of growing economic distress—on one level this election was typical. When economic conditions go bad, the party in the White House gets blamed and they lose.”

So this revolutionary new direction the country is taking? This liberal mandate handed up from the divinely inspired sheeple masses? It's so much BS. McCain completely failed to energize the Republican base. Had McCain been more appealing to conservatives his chances of winning would have improved dramatically (although given the economic conditions a victory still might have been out of reach). Selecting Palin as his VP to appeal to conservatives, blue collar voters & disgruntled Hillary supporters didn't help his cause. It is now painfully apparent that Romney should have been the Republican's main man this year... or in the very least McCain's running mate. On the other hand Romney can now enter the 2012 election with a clean slate, having maintained his distance from a losing candidate who was so closely associated with GW Bush on the campaign trail.

So the likelihood that the mob will run back into the arms of a GOP candidate in 2012 is quite good.

Based on the stats we're throwing about here at CNN the one factor that stood out about this election is that of the people who turned out to vote it was minorities that clinched it for Obama. As with most elections since the end of the Vietnam war more white people voted for the Republican than the Democrat. In fairness Obama did receive the highest percentage of white voters since Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton (43-46%). It was the Black & Latino vote that killed McCain. Given that GW Bush managed to get a more sizeable percentage of Latin voters in 2004 (44%) means that this voting bloc is still not out of reach. In 2012 the Republicans will need to select a much more charismatic candidate in order to sway those lost Latino votes back into their camp.