Early Voting And Absentee Balloting Favors Obama -- In Multiple Bush States
The Associated Press has a good rundown on early voting and requests for absentee balloting in various key battlegrounds:
* Dems lead in Iowa, with Dems asking for roughly 60,000 more ballots than Repubicans as of last Wednesday.
* Dems lead in Ohio, with about 35,000 more Dems requesting absentee ballots than Republicans as of last week.
* Dems lead in North Carolina early voting, with some 62% of the more than 200,000 who voted last Thursday and Friday being registered Democrats, while only 22% were registered Republicans.
* In Georgia, many of the more than 540,000 ballots that were cast as of Wednesday were in Dem strongholds of metropolitan Atlanta, and blacks accounted for 37% of them.
* In Florida, GOPers hold an edge in absentee balloting, with 220,000 more Republicans requesting absentee ballots than Dems.
All of those states went for Bush in 2004, and if McCain doesn't win them all the map becomes very difficult for him.
O god if my ballot doesn't get here -
The only thing about this is that I seem to recall early voting favored Kerry -
I guess I could use teh google to find out -
October 20, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be right about early voting having favored Kerry, at least in Fla. where this was true by a large margin. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/29/84842.shtml
It is no advantage -- it just is used to pump up the other side to be sure and get all their votes out by election day.
October 20, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still, I'd prefer early absentee voting in Obama's favor than McCain's, regardless of the historical precedence.
October 20, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I hear that, and also, the fact that it went once that way doesn't really mean anything, does it? This way it may go the other way, simple as that.
What it is *not* is a thing to crow about because that will breed complacency and pump up their zealots.
October 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Halperin At Time's The Page reports that McCain had $47 million on had at the start of October!
October 20, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has serious money problems with that campaign - the Repugs aren't bringing in the money cause they don't have the numbers of people donating that Obama has.
October 20, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you watched Frontline, you'll see that the Republican base really isn't there with McCain, which was why they went with Sarah Palin. That's all they've really got--is to prevent the splintering of the Republican base. When you have an electorate base that doesn't like you, it's hard to get funds raised for you.
October 20, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not and wish I had - I've learned more useful shit from Frontline -
The party is fractured beyond repair, IMO. There's going to be a war between the mainstream Repugs and the far right Repugs for control of the party and it's going to be bloody and I love everything about it.
October 20, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! From your lips to God's own ears.
There's going to be a war between the mainstream Repugs and the far right Repugs for control of the party and it's going to be bloody and I love everything about it.I definitely agree with you that the war is going to be bloody, and I definitely agree that it will a great deal of fun to watch. I will quibble with you, however, about the idea that it will be between the "mainstream" and the "far right." I am not sure that, in the context of the Republican party, there is any difference between those two categories. The far right is the mainstream of the Republican party. I would submit that the coming civil war will not be between the far right (of which there are a lot) and the moderates (of which few remain), but rather between two particular factions of the far right. I think that we can look forward to the Grover Norquist government-so-small-we-can-drown-it-in-the-bathtub extremists and the Pat Robertson God-has-told-me-to-run-for-office extremists turning on each other. In other words, fiscal conservative extremists and religious conservative extremists each blaming the other for the defeat. Neither of these two camps (in my mind) has a particularly better claim than the other to be part of the "mainstream" (either of the party or of the broader society), but it will still be enormous fun watching them gouge out each other's eyes and kick out each other's teeth.
October 20, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess I should have used that preview option before clicking submit. Of course I meant to put that second quote from Tena's post in blockquotes, just like the first. Mea culpa.
October 20, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'll believe the Republicans are breaking up when it's on Access Hollywood. Yeah, they'll have some reorganizing, soul-searching, regrouping, and agonizing to do. But splintering? We'll see.
Like Stephen King says in one of his books: I'll believe in ghosts when I've got one caught between my teeth.
October 20, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is well taken. Perhaps this is a triumph of hope over expectation. On the other hand, I have a lot of fiscal conservative Republican friends from the suburb in which I grew up and a few religious conservative Republican acquaintances from my church, and I notice that the two groups have little regard for each other. I would not, therefore, be too quick to dismiss the possibility of mutual recriminations hurled back and forth between them in the wake of the coming defeat.
October 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying that it won''t happen. But if it does, it'll probably come out of left field. I just don't think we should get our hopes up too much....
October 20, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my area, the conservative/religious GOP tend to be primarily Catholics, which have formed the back bone of the GOP voting their values. They are not extremists like the Palins but they want morals, no gays, no abortions and no welfare along with no taxes seems to be the way they go. They also like birth control and exceptions for rape and incest. However, they do not like the hate Palin is ginning up.
October 20, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't jump on me -- there is no point. I notice that the poll tracker at right shows a lead now of less than 6 points. I keep feeling that the public has shut the door on damn erratic McCain and his Moose Queen, and then I see things like this.
October 20, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I won't jump on you. But please, gently come in off of the ledge.
October 20, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got ya. It is confusing to me, though. I regard McCain's currency as so low, I don't understand how he is in the race at all at this point.
October 20, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's just numbers.
That's what brings me comfort - it's just numbers and polls are funny things.
Look at the story Josh put up late last week about Intrade. Someone with money has kept McLame alive on Intrade. One person with money.
It's weird, I grant you, cause I would agree with you that there should be a bigger spread - but it's just numbers and they do lie and obfuscate.
October 20, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully turnout helps us a bunch as well. I do think the angry mobs that follow gramps and Barbie around hurling epithets and threats (and occasionally blows) will bring them some turnout, but I am hopeful it will be just amongst the thick-headed raging mobsters themselves.
October 20, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's a safe bet, I really do.
;)
October 20, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
No president in 18 elections has touched a 9 point spread. 6 points is an utter landslide and polls go up and down, that's just what they do. Worry less about the polls and worry more about helping us win. That's the only way we can end this race with no regrets.
October 20, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
On one level, of course, I don't either, but I have been expecting the race to tighten before election day. As someone on teh internets pointed out, what's really going on is McShame is firming up his support among the base but so long as Obama stays in the 49-50 percent range, he'll win. And that's what we're seeing -- a slight rise in McShame's percentage but not a decline in Obama's.
That said, we all have to do everything we can over the next 15 days because 1) complacency is the single greatest threat we face and 2) we need to try to win as big as possible to set the stage for policy success after January 20th.
October 20, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds good and I hope it hold that way. There were a lot of undecideds (CNN said aound 10%) and maybe a bunch of them are shit-for-brains.
October 20, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget also that the early voting numbers are great, a sign of the Obama ground game, and I wonder if the polling numbers are really picking up what's going on here.
They could also be a sign of a reverse-Bradley effect -- remember that what really happened in that election is that Bradley won on election day but lost because of an unprecedented GOP effort at absentee ballots. It's not out of the question that these early voting numbers could put the election out of reach even if McShame were somehow to come back on election day.
But I'll reiterate -- this election is still ours to shape. We have to keep fighting until the last poll closes.
October 20, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe John Oliver broke them down into Fucktards, Douchenozzles, Tiger Petters, and people who lose arguments with babies.
October 20, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do kindly appreciate that thoughtful clarfication, MPCBoston. Cheers.
October 20, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anytime I can help....:)
October 20, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try some perspective. You aren't the typical voter. You've probably been obsessed with this election for months, if not years, at this point.
All of this makes it impossible for you to see McCain as many others still do: the brave POW maverick who has stumbled just a bit in the last two months.
October 20, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...and blacks accounted for 37% of them."
Kind of a racist assumtion there...or is it not racist to assume "blacks" would vote for Obama?
October 20, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You again. The comment made no sense, and then I saw who sent it and it added up for me.
October 20, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's just interesting what y'all consider to be (and not to be) racist...
October 20, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was it sexist of McCain himself to choose Palin specifically because he thought having a woman on the ticket would cause more women to vote for him? Yes it was. Obama can't be held responsible for what millions of blacks will do, but McCain did engage directly in sexist behavior.
I'd also copy what others have pointed out. Blacks HAVE ALWAYS voted for the Dem in huge, disproportionate numbers. And in fact, in the primaries, blacks originally were voting for the white woman in the race, not the black male. They did not come around until later in the primary season. So can the racist crap.
October 20, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment.
But Wallace ain't going to can the racist crap cause he's a racist.
LOL!
October 20, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no wonder he's beating this crazy drum! It still makes zero sense, but now I see the motivation, so thanks!
October 20, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with this entirely.
I have no idea whether SFC is a racist. I do know that he's excellent at repeating the typical Republican right wing talking points, with pretty good effect, because it seems to annoy people into responding with a personal attack on SFC, rather than an attack on the argument.
He's a provocateur, and an effective one. Does that make him racist? No.
October 20, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you
October 20, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
No problem.
I absolutely couldn't disagree with you more on probably every issue with respect to this campaign, but the careless tossing around of terms like "racist" bothers me.
There are people who seem to be bigots who comment around here. MarginalPlayer. Mitchum. Tellmemore. You're not in that category, and I think it's offensive that people resort to a petty character attack when they disagree with you.
Although I'm guilty of the same thing. I think I've called you a moron on previous occasions. Sigh.
October 20, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moron I can live with.
October 20, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is assuming anything. Barack's overwhelming support among African-Americans is shown in every poll.
October 20, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
is it sexist to assume that barack is sexist because he said lets put lipstick on a pig?
October 20, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
And hear I thought you had gone AWOL permanently.
As to your point if Kerry got 80%+ of the black vote in 2004, it stands to reason that Obama will receive a similar (or higher) level of support from black voters. Sort of like McCain will get a similar level of support from white evangelicals (or higher).
So no, it's not racist.
October 20, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
And McCain will, most certainly, get the highest percentage of voters who yell threats of "kill him" and "terrorist" at ugly rallies celebrating moose killing neo-con moms.
October 20, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's moose killing neo-con HOCKEY-moms
October 20, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not after that puck drop at the Flyers game. The way she handled the biscuit, there's no way she's a REAL hockey mom.
October 20, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
now now, to be fair, a hockey mom isn't the same as a hockey player.
October 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but if your kids play hockey, as we all did, your mom learns to drop the puck. She's considered the only neutral person available!
October 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh, I guess you're right.
October 20, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except how the numbers were broken out. I didn't see a list of the percentage of white evangelicals in the article...just a straight reference to the number of "blacks," as the author put it. Were some of them Republican? Were they all Democrats? Or do we just assume all "blacks" are Democrats and support Obama?
October 20, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, for the cheap seats:
"No one is assuming anything. Barack's overwhelming support among African-Americans is shown in every poll."
October 20, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where in the article does it state that all black are Dems and support Obama? All it states is that early voting trends "favor Obama" which is a pretty safe thing to say, based on past voting patterns. Stop trying to start shit.
October 20, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
In all seriousness, SFC, I think that it's come down to this: In order to prove how racist we all are, you've resorted to parsing almost nothing at all. I appreciate you keeping everyone honest, but I just don't see the meat here.
October 20, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
90% of black voters voted for Gore in 2000 and only slightly less voted for Kerry in 2004 (fyi - neither man is black, just in case ya didn't know).
Try and find any other group that votes that consistently and overwhelmingly for a single party. There's none - not the military, not evangelicals, not anyone.
The fact that Obama will get a larger African-American turnout than usual doesn't mitigate the fact that blacks have spent 3 decades watching the Republican Party demonize them and use them as the bogeyman to get white votes. Like it or not that's why they have voted 90% for Dems.
And btw Hillary would have gotten a huge increase in black turnout as well. Whereas Clarence Thomas would not.
October 20, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not racist at all to assume the majority of blacks will vote for the Dem.
October 20, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would assuming that a majority of youth absentee ballots would favor Obama be ageist?
October 20, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no. The statistics bear out the fact that 90% or more of African-Americans will vote for ANY Democrat. Why is that? Because the Republicans have nothing to offer them but more of the same BS.
October 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I think your paragraph about Ohio is misleading. According to the article, "There was a similar pattern in Franklin County, Ohio, a key county that includes Columbus, the state capital. As of last week, about 76,000 registered Democrats had voted or requested absentee ballots, compared to 41,000 Republicans and 89,000 unaffiliated voters."
Is that where you got the 35,000 figure from? If so, that only represents the Democratic advantage in one county, not the entire state.
October 20, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I lived there, Columbus had a population of around 700,000, and was the second-largest city in Ohio behind Cleveland (Cincinnati was a very close third). This was in 1980, and this number does not include the vast and sprawling suburbs, which are most certainly larger today. Add these three metropolitan areas together, and you get at least a third of the state's population.
October 20, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of those places that you mention represent several counties, though, right?
What I'm saying is that Greg's number of 35,000 more Democrats requesting absentee ballots than Republicans is only data from a single county, Franklin County.
I am guessing that for all of Ohio, the gap between Democrats and Republicans requesting absentee ballots is much higher.
October 20, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This line is curious, "In Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio, Democrats โ or at least those living in heavily Democratic areas โ are requesting and submitting ballots in large numbers."
So do these states actually track absentee ballot requests by party ID or are they extrapolating using the party ID breakdown of the areas in which the ballots were requested? If it's the latter, I'm not sure how accurate that is.
October 20, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind, I see what they did. They lumped the four states into a single generalization. Georgia doesn't track absentee ballots by party ID but the other 3 states do.
Ignore me. :)
October 20, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just in:
"CALEDONIA, Wis. -- Police in Caledonia said they're investigating a weekend attack on a Barack Obama campaign worker.
Nancy Takehara told WISN-TV that she drove from Chicago to help canvass a neighborhood in Caledonia Saturday on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee.
Ronald Goetsch said he had a heated verbal exchange with Takehara over allegations of voter improprieties in other states and the role of voter registration groups and asked her numerous times to leave his property.
Takehara said Goetsch grabbed her by the back of the neck and was pounding her head and screaming.
Goetsch told The Journal Times in Racine that he did pull the woman's hair and regrets his actions.
Police said their report on the incident will be forwarded to the Racine County District Attorney's Office when it's complete."
October 20, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot the by line: From the AP.
October 20, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
6 or 7 years ago everyone I know predicted this - we all expected them to fight like this when it came down to their losing, finally.
That's the demographic the Repugs have left -the insane, furious permanent "victims" - a lot of really angry and low-achieving white males are flipping out -
October 20, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, 7 years ago I thought they would cancel the 2008 elections since terrorism was such a priority and you couldn't let the country fall into the wrong hands. I mean, the wrong people might not attack Iraq when some lone-ranger maniac from Saudi Arabia launched his crazed terrorist strike.
I literally didn't think they'd go peaceably. If they do, it's better than I thought.
October 20, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she should've got off his lawn the first time he asked her...
October 20, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit, dude! You just went on my global Ignore list!
I'm at a loss for words...
October 20, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it does say "exchange." Just based on what I've read, there seems to be more to this story than just one angry resident--it sounds like the canvassers may have tried to argue with the guy.
October 20, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that excuses his getting physical?
I don't think so.
October 20, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying it was okay. We don't permit children to act like Ronald Goetsch, and for good reason. I'm not just ready to attribute this incident--the details of which could be more complete and involve a man of questionable sanity--to some broader physicalization of the right.
October 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
^C^V co-sign! See below.
October 20, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it doesn't.
But if he asked her to get off his property and she repeatedly ignored it, why is that appropriate behavior?
Seriously?
If that were a Republican canvasser and a Democratic voter, people here would lbe all up in arms about how WRONG IT IS FOR REPUBLICANS TO BEHAVE THAT WAY!!!
The double standards around there at times are freaking amazing.
October 20, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's all I'm saying. We simply don't know enough about this to pin it on the Nascent Rightwing Violent Uprising or whatever. Doing so fits better with the film cliche of the secretly insane character who maps conspiracies through article clippings taped all over the walls.
October 20, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you and what did you do to CT Voter?
October 20, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's me. Really. Every once in awhile the double standard zaniness reaches a point where it crosses a visible threshold for me, and I react.
October 20, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a HUGE difference between a "heated verbal exchange" and physical assault.
My personal opinion: there's no excuse for physical violence outside of self defense or defense of others (well at least in this context. I don't want to start a whole different conversation here).
Sargent Dipshit gets my Asshole of the Moment Award(tm) for defending this idiot. Trying to re-cast his actions as somehow justifiable because they were in a shouting match is tantamount to a wife beater saying "she shouldn't have made me angry".
October 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, there was probably no need for violence. He should've just called the cops and had her arrested for tresspassing. I would have more sympathy for her if she were in an Obama booth somewhere or at a mall handing out literature when she was "assaulted" as opposed to refusing to leave someone elses property.
October 20, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
At his civil trial, though, the plaintiffs might argue your first sentence. Does he have assets she can seize?
October 20, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to take the landowner's side, but in some states, can't you be shot for just for trespassing? Sounds like both people got a little crazy.
October 20, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not in this world.
Democrats: OK.
Republicans: ALWAYS WRONG.
October 20, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too true, and I'm often guilty too. You seem introspective today.
October 20, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Annoyed is more like it.
Annoyed with the hysteria over early voting.
Annoyed that people are more than willing to excuse behavior out of Democrats that, were Republicans behaving that way, would have them screaming bloody murder.
Sort of like last week. Hey, let's hope Cheney has a really hard time during that heart procedure, and it's ok to wish physical harm on him because of all the damage he's done to this country!!! So it's perfectly acceptable to wish physical harm on someone as long as you think that person has done damage.
How fucked up is that?
Don't even get me started. You don't produce change by replacing Republican zealots with Democratic zealots.
October 20, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crazies on either side worry me. I'm all for the center-left.
That said, I early voted on Saturday, and I ended up voting for someone, a Dem, who is less qualified than the other candidate for rep. Now, if this guy screws up (just because I thought the Dems could get more done in Washington with an additional representative on their side) then I will be kicking myself. In fact I am kicking myself right now. Party loyalty can be stupid, we ought to be voting for the best people.
I guess my point is that people need to think about things before they start wishing even Cheney ill. It isn't about loyalty or fighting the bad other guy, it's about what's best for our future.
October 20, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too true, and I'm often guilty too. You seem introspective today.
October 20, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too true, and I'm often guilty too. You seem introspective today.
October 20, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
weird multiples.
October 20, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, well over the line man.
October 20, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a shithead you are.
October 20, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, maybe he should have just shot her in defense of his property.
October 20, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
INteresting. Because in the DailyKos diary by this individual, she makes no reference of being on his property.
October 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure he does now that the cops have explained that he could go to jail for assault.
October 20, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tennessee looking good too:
In the first four days of early voting in Knox County, just over 24,000 people voted. In 2004, just over 25,000 voted in the same time period, amounting to 23 percent of the 108,342 total early votes casts in the 15-day early voting period. In 2000, 14,400 voted in the first four days amounting to 21 percent of the total 70,199 votes cast.
Statewide, after two days of early voting just over 100,000 had voted, compared to 72,174 for the same time period in 2004.
So, we continue to see a Republican stronghold (Knox County) slightly behind the 2004 pace and Middle and West Tennessee, strong Democratic enclaves, voting ahead of pace.
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2008/10/early_voting_pa.shtml
October 20, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great link. Thanks.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 20, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I can't wait to vote! Early voting started today in Colorado, and I should be able to go tomorrow.
My only concern is that we've got so damned many amendments to vote on. The ballot is roughly the size of the Wasilla phone book.
October 20, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of effective sentence structure, I kindly suggest it might have been more profitable for you to say "fucking" Wasilla phone book, more punchy as they say, but I am with you just fine as it is.
Have a good vote!
October 20, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
those ballot amendments are earmarks, in effect - they tack that shit on to bring out voters who might not otherwise turn out.
I hate the Repugs - and I'm trying so hard not to -
October 20, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate Hateblicans, too, which is like hating Hate: The double negative translates into something positive.
That's all good.
October 20, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I hate the Repugs - and I'm trying so hard not to -"
LMAO! Don't overexert yourself!
October 20, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Mass we have just three: Weed, Taxes, and Dog Racing.
Sounds like a full weekend on the town, no?
October 20, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
O please tell me that you will vote to legalize weed. Goddamn when is this country get real? It's far less damaging than booze and if they want to fix the economy, I have the fix - legalize weed.
Tax the growers, the distributors and the buyers like they do booze and cigarettes. In a year the deficit will be gone.
October 20, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's just to decriminalize under an ounce, and of COURSE I support it. Can't you see how stoned I am already in my picture?
And I agree on the tax benefits.
I remember a recent Real Time where Barney Frank said that he was going to begin legislation soon to legalize weed nationwide. He felt that his position as a Rep was secure enough to do battle on that front.
Maybe this is just setting some groundwork.
October 20, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that. God I love that man - like he said, he doesn't have anything to lose.
I just love him - he is one of the smartest people in Congress.
October 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt! (plus he plays on my team ;-) )
October 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's one of the best teams going - ;)
October 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I work in Newton, MA, which is part of his district. I end up at least once a year at City Hall at a rally to stop cuts in human services. He always comes to speak at the mayor's invite. Each time he appears to be almost asleep in his front row chair, but then when it's his turn to speak he just turns it on! Inspirational and very fucking funny.
Also just a nice guy to have a chat with.
October 20, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The other reason for those ballot amendments is to keep people from voting straight ticket. The Dallas paper is telling people not to vote straight ticket for that reason. That makes me furious.
October 20, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cast my early ballot on Saturday for the next President of the United States, Barack Obama. What a great feeling!
And now I'm going to throw some more money to the campaign so that they can continue to reach other voters.
October 20, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must feel like a million dollars! Hurray for you, and thanks for your efforts!
October 20, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes! The GOP's early voting in Florida is TERRIBLE news -- far outweighing the Dem's comparatively insignificant lead in Ohio. A quarter of a million votes to make up by election day? In Florida? Where a thousand votes in a presidential election is practically the difference between defeat and a landslide? And 30K votes in Ohio is hardly what I would call a comfortable cushion. This leaves me wondering whether this race is actually going to ride almost entirely on Virginia and Colorado after all. Most unsettling. Message to Obama campaign: Get the hell out of W. Virginia. You're way overreaching.
(Or am I being hysterical again?)
October 20, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're being hysterical.
Mantra: If Barack holds all the Kerry states and holds in NM, IA and CO he wins. With or without FL, OH or any other state.
Don't get complacent but don't panict - he doesn't have to win FL or OH to win this election. It's not 2000 or 2004. It's 2008.
October 20, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Ready to give up Florida and Ohio so blithely? Sounds to me like that puts us in real risky territory. A mantra sounds like a prayer to me. I'd rather have this election riding on something more substantial than that -- namely, at least one of these two giant swing states. If the first hour of election night finds FL and OH projected for McCain, I will be in an ambulance on the way to the hospital.
October 20, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe we have reason to suspect these numbers from Florida. FIrst, there are about 650,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Florida. And second, the polls are solidly in Obama's favor. Wo why is Florida in such stark contrast to other states?
I went back and read the article more carefully. After detailing early voting statistics in various states, the article states that Republicans have requested 220,000 more absentee ballots. Well, I checked the Florida Division of Elections website, and it turns out that Florida has both early voting and absentee voting. No mention in the article about early voting stats from Florida (in contrast to all the other states mentioned). So let's wait and get more information before we panic.
October 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just to clarify, Florida has both absentee voting and early on-site voting, but the article only reports absentee ballot numbers for Florida. Seems to me there are lots of reasons to think absentee voters may lean Republican as opposed to folks voting at the polls, particularly in Florida (i.e. retirees, people who live elsewhere most of the year, etc...).
October 20, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not giving up on them at all!
I think we'll win FL - I'm doubtful about OH but no one is giving up on it. I'm just saying stop worrying about them, it's not like the last 2 elections where we absolutely had to win one of them to win. We don't this time - so don't panic. That's all.
October 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Following this post, I'm putting a brown paper bag over my head and breathing deeply.
October 20, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do.
And then go volunteer for Obama.
October 20, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, we lost the last 2 elections betting all on FL & OH. Sounds like a bad plan for the 3rd time. Especially since we already have IA, NM and CO, which more than makes up for FL or OH. I want them too but we already have the EVs so don't get panicky about those 2 states.
That's why Barack is going to win - he's not giving up on anything but he's not following the losing playbook of the last 2 elections.
October 20, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Early voting seems to be increasing. I wonder which party that will help in the long term? Probably as simple as whoever leads in party identification.
Young people move around more so receiving a ballot by mail is more difficult.
I got my MN absentee by email which was simple and clear.
I can't wait for Nov 5. and Jan 20.
October 20, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it will help whichever party is better organized with a strong base and ground game. This year, that's all Obama. But we can't get complacent about this.
The Republicans for years had their evangelical base incredibly well-organized, and that was the key for all the races they won (even the ones that didn't involve Diebold machines and voter suppression).
If the Republican party were half as organized this year as they were in past years, this would be much tougher for us. Fortunately, McCain's a disaster for them because he can't hold the coalition together. It's been threatening to break for years, but Bush, with his born-again street cred and his old-money connections was able to keep it going longer than I would have expected. But this year, Romney was the money guy, and Huckabee had the born-agains, and McCain was the compromise that didn't really satisfy either.
October 20, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said, even though you didn't deign to adorn your text with the occasional cussword.
Indeed, you can almost see McCain's cranium ripping apart as he angrily struggles in vain to propitiate both camps, while simultaneously trying even less succesfully to fake wisdom and patriotism.
October 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 20, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
; !
October 21, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
One reason it has increased is because nobody trust E voting and I know for a fact that Obama is telling everyone from every HQ in the country to vote early. It cuts down on the bullshit at the polling places on election day, for one thing.
'
October 20, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did the Florida HQs not get the message?
October 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I voted today in my west Texas city. The town I live in is a very, very repug. town (one of the most poorly educated towns in Texas, too). My observation, locally, was that very few people were voting this morning. Most that were were older folks, well into their 60's it seemed.
Last presidential election there were many more people voting the morning of the first day of early voting.
There was a complete lack of any supporters for McCain while approaching the polling place.
My non scientific conclusion is that there is no passion or fervor for McCain, in my (red)neck of the woods.
October 20, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Noice, Bobbie - thanks for the report.
October 20, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
On this point, a good friend of mine is a determined Republican and I try to almost never talk politics. He picked up this "socialist" meme very early on just like he picked up "flip-flopper" on Kerry, on both occasions acting almost as though they were his original ideas. Well, he has emphasized to me this time, that even so, he has *no* enthusiasm in voting for McCain even though he may drag himself to do it.
October 20, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
1st of all wallace, A real man NEVER lays hands on a woman ( well maybe you do ) Disgraceful on any level!
October 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly so.
I cannot imagine my husband laying so much as a finger on a woman.
But then he was raised right.
October 20, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
100% agreed!
October 20, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unmentioned in this post is the volume of ballots requested by independents, many of whom may have leaned toward McCain but instead now find themselves Palin-affected.
October 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the lead in Florida makes sense, since most republicans in FL don't actually live there most of the year.
October 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thrilled about the early voting, but I'm very worried about Democrats encouraging absentee voting. Mailed ballots are the easiest to disqualify; David Iglesias busted ward Democrats in New Mexico giving native americans mail-in ballots on a mining issue without envelopes, and then rejecting them because they came in the wrong envelopes.
Repugs will use this in every state, to the greatest extent they can. We have to keep the publics eye on the number of uncounted ballots.
October 20, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read somewhere in a story/blog entry on early voting in North Carolina (sorry, I can't find the original) that the state Republican Party was encouraging its early voters to use absentee ballots, rather than early voting in person. Might be a reason to be cautious about the large margin of Democrats vs Republicans cited in the story above. For those of us with a paranoid bent, it might also be an early indicator that the Republicans have something up their sleeve with electronic voting machines.
October 20, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain supporters view Joe the Plumber's endorsement as just as good if not better than Colin Powell's
October 20, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another reason for early voting may be to avoid Republican efforts to stop people from voting on election day. So in this context, early voting makes sense.
October 20, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal on Florida. There is absentee voting and there is early voting. Reps are leading in absentee ballot requests. In 2004, we didn't have early voting. Now we have two weeks of voting 8 hours a day 7 days a week. So there is no comparison between 2004 and 2008. I spent the morning at an early voting site. Today was the first day. People were camped out. A one-to-two-hour wait to vote all morning.
Many people who used to do absentee are now doing the early.
They had exit polling being taken at the site, so I guess they will have exit polls on early voting soon. Nothing to freak out about. Obama support looked strong to me, but that of course will vary by location.
October 20, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Things are looking good for Dems and Obama in North Carolina.
And yet, on MTP, Joe Scarborough was "warning" the Obama campaign to "get out of North Carolina." His argument was that things will tighten up and that the country isn't split 60-40, but rather 51-49. And in the same breath he says, "You don't have to win 350 electoral votes."
It seems to me that Scarborough would be content with a 51-49 split of the country, as it's difficult to continue to argue that the country leans to the right with a 60-40 split.
October 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comments. At this point, I've discovered I'm an election junkie, trying to find every little bit of information I can during my every waking moment. I'm down in GA which, I guess, is considered an "almost swing state." At the very least, it is turning from red to pink. So if it stays red this election year, there's still hope it will go blue later on. And I must say, Atlanta is still growing exponentially, which only adds to the bluing of GA.
Growing up, I remember my parents complaining that GA and the south in general used to be strongly democratic. Then, the republicans pulled their religious razzle dazzle show and it has been red ever since. I registered young, but didn't vote for a long time after turning 18 because I didn't believe my vote mattered. I am hoping more and more young people will at least register this year. I was one of the rare ones who turned 18 while still in high school, though it wasn't a presidential year as I recall.
I read an interesting article saying the republicans' greatest fear is not just losing this one election, but losing a whole generation. They are afraid of the Reagan effect--that the young will register as democrats and/or vote Obama and then identify for a long, long time as democrats. Possibly for life. I'm a little disturbed at the thought of relying on the youth vote to win this year, as it has never worked out, but nonetheless heartened if the young do nothing more than register and identify with the party. Still, this year's election is just too important to lose.
October 21, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink