The official count of the ballots cast in Medina County for the 2008 general election shows that 90,652 voters voted, which represented a turnout of 70.76%. In 2004, the number of voters in the general election in Medina County was 86,016, which represented 72.73% of registered voters.
In the 2004 general election, Bush received 48,196 votes and Kerry received 36,272 votes. In the 2008 general election, McCain received 48,189 and Obama received 40,924. Those figures would seem to indicate that nearly all of Medina County's growth in voters were Obama supporters.
Showing posts with label 2004 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2004 election. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Legacy of Ken Blackwell
A fact that most journalists don't write or talk about is that George W. Bush was elected president because of controversial elections in two states: Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. In both states, partisan Secretaries of State used their position to help Bush. In Florida it was Kathrine Harris and in Ohio it was Ken Blackwell.
Recently a reader sent us a link to an article that appeared on the website Truthout written by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman. Firtakis and Wasserman, who write for a blog called The Free Press, have been talking about what happened in Ohio in 2004 for the last four years.
The article talks about the recently announced victory of Mary Jo Kilroy in Ohio's 15TH congressional district. This is a quote from the article:
Mary Jo Kilroy of Columbus will be the first Democrat to represent any part of Franklin County in Congress since 1982, and the first to represent her 15th Congressional District since the 1960s.
In 2006 Kilroy barely lost to incumbent Deb Pryce as thousands of contested provisional ballots went uncounted. Under then-Secretary Blackwell, voters in Democratic precincts were routinely challenged on minor details and forced to cast provisional ballots to allegedly be counted at a later time.
But thousands were merely pitched in the trash or otherwise negated. Some 16,000 provisionals and 93,000 machine-rejected ballots have never been counted from a 2004 election decided by an official margin of less than 119,000 votes. Independent observers believe a fair vote count would have given Kilroy her House seat in 2006. Also in that election, e-voting machines had statistically unlikely high rates of undervotes in central city polls.
So what happens when you get rid of Republican hacks like Harris and Blackwell and replace them with less partisan Secretaries of State? Well, not only do Democrats like Kilroy win congressional races, but both Florida and Ohio went for Barack Obama.
Now, obviously, just getting rid of Harris and Blackwell wasn't enough to tip those states to Obama. The horrible economic record of the Republicans as represented by George W. Bush's failed policies was probably the biggest factor in Obama's win. Still, having rabid partisans like Harris and Blackwell out of office certainly helped, especially in Ohio, since we had a relatively close presidential election.
What is also ironic is that when both Harris and Blackwell tried to run for statewide office, they were defeated, Harris for Senator and Blackwell for Governor.
What's also interesting is that after they were both defeated, the Bush Administration didn't find them a cushy government job. In fact, in Harris's case, neither Karl Rove or Jeb Bush would endorse her for the Senate.
The election of Jennifer Brunner was critical for Democrats in 2006 and it will be critical for Democrats in 2008. Brunner will be targeted by the Republicans who don't want to lose control of the State Reapportionment Board and who want to continue to disenfranchise minority and other Democratic leaning voters. All of us who value free and fair elections need to work for Brunner's election.
Friday, January 04, 2008
The Mind of the Undecided Voter
Christopher Hayes, who is the D.C. political editor of The Nation magazine, posted a blog entry on his experiences in Wisconsin in 2004 with undecided voters. It is a very fascinating article. Now obviously his experiences are with a non-scientific sampling of such voters. He was in Wisconsin to work for an environmental organization that was trying to help elect progressive candidates in Wisconsin. He wasn't there to conduct scientific surveys. His observations, though, are very interesting.
These are some conclusions he came up with about undecided voters:
Undecided voters aren't as rational as you think.
Undecided voters do care about politics; they just don't enjoy politics.
The worse things got in Iraq, the better things got for Bush.
Undecided voters don't think in terms of issues.
The following quote from the article is Hayes's concluding paragraphs:
In this context, Bush's victory, particularly on the strength of those voters who listed "values" as their number one issue, makes perfect sense. Kerry ran a campaign that was about politics: He parsed the world into political categories and offered political solutions. Bush did this too, but it wasn't the main thrust of his campaign. Instead, the president ran on broad themes, like "character" and "morals." Everyone feels an immediate and intuitive expertise on morals and values--we all know what's right and wrong. But how can undecided voters evaluate a candidate on issues if they don't even grasp what issues are?
Liberals like to point out that majorities of Americans agree with the Democratic Party on the issues, so Republicans are forced to run on character and values in order to win. (This cuts both ways: I met a large number of Bush/Feingold voters whose politics were more in line with the Republican president, but who admired the backbone and gutsiness of their Democratic senator.) But polls that ask people about issues presuppose a basic familiarity with the concept of issues--a familiarity that may not exist.
As far as I can tell, this leaves Democrats with two options: either abandon "issues" as the lynchpin of political campaigns and adopt the language of values, morals, and character as many have suggested; or begin the long-term and arduous task of rebuilding a popular, accessible political vocabulary--of convincing undecided voters to believe once again in the importance of issues. The former strategy could help the Democrats stop the bleeding in time for 2008. But the latter strategy might be necessary for the Democrats to become a majority party again.
There is, of course, another way to look at this and that is the view that voting is not an intellectual decision but an emotional decision. Once you accept that premise, his conclusions begin to make more sense. That's not to say that there aren't million of voters who make primarily intellectual decisions when voting. It is to say that most human decisions result from a combination of reason and emotion, and in some cases the reason side of the equation is stronger and in others it isn't.
A drawback to the Hayes article is his apparent belief that decided voters are somehow making more intellectual decisions than undecided voters. This overlooks the fact that even for decided, partisan voters, their choices have emotional overtones. Most Democrats and most Republicans have intellectual reasons for choosing one party over the other, but they also have emotional reasons. For a lot of committed partisans they choose one party or the other because it "feels right", not just because they think it is right.
In any event, the article is quite fascinating, even if you don't agree with all his conclusions.
These are some conclusions he came up with about undecided voters:
Undecided voters aren't as rational as you think.
Undecided voters do care about politics; they just don't enjoy politics.
The worse things got in Iraq, the better things got for Bush.
Undecided voters don't think in terms of issues.
The following quote from the article is Hayes's concluding paragraphs:
In this context, Bush's victory, particularly on the strength of those voters who listed "values" as their number one issue, makes perfect sense. Kerry ran a campaign that was about politics: He parsed the world into political categories and offered political solutions. Bush did this too, but it wasn't the main thrust of his campaign. Instead, the president ran on broad themes, like "character" and "morals." Everyone feels an immediate and intuitive expertise on morals and values--we all know what's right and wrong. But how can undecided voters evaluate a candidate on issues if they don't even grasp what issues are?
Liberals like to point out that majorities of Americans agree with the Democratic Party on the issues, so Republicans are forced to run on character and values in order to win. (This cuts both ways: I met a large number of Bush/Feingold voters whose politics were more in line with the Republican president, but who admired the backbone and gutsiness of their Democratic senator.) But polls that ask people about issues presuppose a basic familiarity with the concept of issues--a familiarity that may not exist.
As far as I can tell, this leaves Democrats with two options: either abandon "issues" as the lynchpin of political campaigns and adopt the language of values, morals, and character as many have suggested; or begin the long-term and arduous task of rebuilding a popular, accessible political vocabulary--of convincing undecided voters to believe once again in the importance of issues. The former strategy could help the Democrats stop the bleeding in time for 2008. But the latter strategy might be necessary for the Democrats to become a majority party again.
There is, of course, another way to look at this and that is the view that voting is not an intellectual decision but an emotional decision. Once you accept that premise, his conclusions begin to make more sense. That's not to say that there aren't million of voters who make primarily intellectual decisions when voting. It is to say that most human decisions result from a combination of reason and emotion, and in some cases the reason side of the equation is stronger and in others it isn't.
A drawback to the Hayes article is his apparent belief that decided voters are somehow making more intellectual decisions than undecided voters. This overlooks the fact that even for decided, partisan voters, their choices have emotional overtones. Most Democrats and most Republicans have intellectual reasons for choosing one party over the other, but they also have emotional reasons. For a lot of committed partisans they choose one party or the other because it "feels right", not just because they think it is right.
In any event, the article is quite fascinating, even if you don't agree with all his conclusions.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Afro-American Evangelical Voters: Personally Conservative but Socially Liberal?
There is an interesting article on the Washington Post website dated November 26, 2007, about Afro-American evangelical voters being torn between the two parties. On the one hand they lean conservative on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, but on the other hand they are liberal in terms of combating racism and on economic issues. This is a quote from the article:
Morality is different in terms of the way we see it and white evangelicals see it," said Pastor Lyle Dukes of Harvest Life Changers Church in Woodbridge, a member of Jackson's group who supported Bush in 2004. "What we think is moral is not only the defense of marriage, but we also think equal education is a moral issue. We think discrimination is immoral."
The above quote sums up the problem for some Afro-American evangelical voters. The GOP will never back them on issues such as fighting racial discrimination or equalizing education opportunities. The Democrats won't back them on issues such as abortion gay rights. In 2004 they resolved that dilemma by backing Bush in greater numbers in such states as Ohio where there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot outlawing same-sex marriage.
That year Bush received 16% of the Afro-American vote in Ohio while nationwide he received about 11% of the Afro-American vote. Given the closeness of the race here in Ohio, that extra 5% was very important to Bush and the GOP.
This year, though, such voters are feeling like there is no one for them to support. The Post article ends with a point made by a Afro-American preacher who supported Bush in 2004:
He thinks the GOP pays attention to evangelicals when it needs their votes but has not delivered when it comes to advancing their causes. Jackson said that after the 2004 election, he attended a White House meeting of evangelical leaders and listened as Rove said he didn't think the church vote had won the election for Bush.
Jackson told him: "I am a registered Democrat. The only reason I am here is because I thought you were working on issues of faith and that it would be better for my folks than the promises, promises of the Democratic party."
Democrats, he said, "come to us under the cloak of darkness at the last hour, get what they want and then act like they don't know us the next day."
That got a big laugh from the conservatives, he recalled. Then Jackson said he told Rove: "You all are doing the same thing to the evangelicals."
Morality is different in terms of the way we see it and white evangelicals see it," said Pastor Lyle Dukes of Harvest Life Changers Church in Woodbridge, a member of Jackson's group who supported Bush in 2004. "What we think is moral is not only the defense of marriage, but we also think equal education is a moral issue. We think discrimination is immoral."
The above quote sums up the problem for some Afro-American evangelical voters. The GOP will never back them on issues such as fighting racial discrimination or equalizing education opportunities. The Democrats won't back them on issues such as abortion gay rights. In 2004 they resolved that dilemma by backing Bush in greater numbers in such states as Ohio where there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot outlawing same-sex marriage.
That year Bush received 16% of the Afro-American vote in Ohio while nationwide he received about 11% of the Afro-American vote. Given the closeness of the race here in Ohio, that extra 5% was very important to Bush and the GOP.
This year, though, such voters are feeling like there is no one for them to support. The Post article ends with a point made by a Afro-American preacher who supported Bush in 2004:
He thinks the GOP pays attention to evangelicals when it needs their votes but has not delivered when it comes to advancing their causes. Jackson said that after the 2004 election, he attended a White House meeting of evangelical leaders and listened as Rove said he didn't think the church vote had won the election for Bush.
Jackson told him: "I am a registered Democrat. The only reason I am here is because I thought you were working on issues of faith and that it would be better for my folks than the promises, promises of the Democratic party."
Democrats, he said, "come to us under the cloak of darkness at the last hour, get what they want and then act like they don't know us the next day."
That got a big laugh from the conservatives, he recalled. Then Jackson said he told Rove: "You all are doing the same thing to the evangelicals."
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Medina County Off-Year Voting Statistics
According to the Medina County Board of Elections website 37,414 voters voted in the 2007 general election. The BOE also shows the county as having 124,107 voters. Based on those two figures, the turnout was 30.1%. The figure for the total number of voters is misleading, however.
There are 23,040 registered voters in Medina County who didn't vote in either the 2004 or 2006 general elections. There are also 74,247 who voted in either of those two elections. Assuming that voters who have missed voting in both a presidential and gubernatorial elections aren't going to vote in an off-year election, it makes sense to take them out of the equation when figuring the turn-out for 2007.
If you remove the 23,040 "missing" voters from the equation, you get a voter universe of 101,067. Using that figure, the turn-out increases to 37.1%. If you calculate the turn-out based on the voters who actually voted in either the 2004 or 2006 general elections, the turn-out increases to 50.3%.
What's interesting about off-year elections is that both political parties aren't seeing a very large percentage of their voters voting in them, if 2005 is any guide. In 2004 Democratic voters in Medina County numbered 16,195 while Republican voters numbered 16,416. In 2006 Democratic voters numbered 15,207 and Republican voters numbered 15,555.
In 2005, however, the turn-out for Democratic voters dropped to 4019 and the turn-out for Republican voters dropped to 3258. If either or both political parties had turned out their voters anywhere close the 2004 or 2006 general elections, the results would probably have been dramatically different.
There are 23,040 registered voters in Medina County who didn't vote in either the 2004 or 2006 general elections. There are also 74,247 who voted in either of those two elections. Assuming that voters who have missed voting in both a presidential and gubernatorial elections aren't going to vote in an off-year election, it makes sense to take them out of the equation when figuring the turn-out for 2007.
If you remove the 23,040 "missing" voters from the equation, you get a voter universe of 101,067. Using that figure, the turn-out increases to 37.1%. If you calculate the turn-out based on the voters who actually voted in either the 2004 or 2006 general elections, the turn-out increases to 50.3%.
What's interesting about off-year elections is that both political parties aren't seeing a very large percentage of their voters voting in them, if 2005 is any guide. In 2004 Democratic voters in Medina County numbered 16,195 while Republican voters numbered 16,416. In 2006 Democratic voters numbered 15,207 and Republican voters numbered 15,555.
In 2005, however, the turn-out for Democratic voters dropped to 4019 and the turn-out for Republican voters dropped to 3258. If either or both political parties had turned out their voters anywhere close the 2004 or 2006 general elections, the results would probably have been dramatically different.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Did Kerry Vote for War Because of Political Considerations?
Bob Schrum, the consultant who managed the Kerry campaign in 2004, and who has managed to lose every presidential campaign he has been involved in, is publishing his memoirs. In his memoirs, according to this Boston Globe article, he writes that Kerry was skeptical of Bush and didn't want to vote for the resolution authorizing military force. According to Schrum, he was talked into by Jim Jordan, his former press secretary and his campaign manager in the early part of the 04 campaign.
This whole story, if true, illustrates the problem with listening to others when considering what you stand for and what you support and don't support. Obviously Kerry's instincts about Bush and the war vote were accurate. He was right to be skeptical. He was wrong, however, to let Jordan talk him into doing anything he didn't think should be done. If he had voted his conscience instead of Jordan's advice, he might be president today because he would have presented a lot clearer message on the war.
Years ago there was a advertising executive who worked on Republican presidential and state campaigns. He said that when he first got into consulting candidates would come to him and say, "This is what I believe. I want you help me get elected." Then he said that candidates started coming to him and said, "What do I need to believe to get elected?" He said that was when he got out of doing political campaigns.
Such candidates are not only found on the Republican side as the Globe article shows. Too many Democratic candidates and Democratic consultants are in politics because they want to be "in politics" not because there are certain things they want to accomplish or certain ideas they want to promote. Apparently John Kerry is one of those candidates. Kerry didn't deserve to be president, but the we certainly didn't deserve to have George W. Bush re-elected president.
This whole story, if true, illustrates the problem with listening to others when considering what you stand for and what you support and don't support. Obviously Kerry's instincts about Bush and the war vote were accurate. He was right to be skeptical. He was wrong, however, to let Jordan talk him into doing anything he didn't think should be done. If he had voted his conscience instead of Jordan's advice, he might be president today because he would have presented a lot clearer message on the war.
Years ago there was a advertising executive who worked on Republican presidential and state campaigns. He said that when he first got into consulting candidates would come to him and say, "This is what I believe. I want you help me get elected." Then he said that candidates started coming to him and said, "What do I need to believe to get elected?" He said that was when he got out of doing political campaigns.
Such candidates are not only found on the Republican side as the Globe article shows. Too many Democratic candidates and Democratic consultants are in politics because they want to be "in politics" not because there are certain things they want to accomplish or certain ideas they want to promote. Apparently John Kerry is one of those candidates. Kerry didn't deserve to be president, but the we certainly didn't deserve to have George W. Bush re-elected president.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Psychology Today Article on Political Ideology & Personality
Okay, so we have all instinctly known that there are innate personality differences between liberals and conservatives, but it is nice to have proof. If you click on the link in this entry's title, you will see an article that explores those differences. Conservatives respond more to threats that involve death and are more organized in their personal lives. Liberals like color and are messier. The article also explains why Republicans use ads that convey implied or explicit threats such as the ad that the Bush campaign ran in 2004 with the wolves or the ad that Reagan ran in 1984 with the bear lumbering through the woods. What the article also points out, though, is that research indicates that simply asking people to stop and analyze the information they are being given leads to a decrease in susceptibility to this kind of psychological manipulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)