Dems Are Having A Good Convention - Now The Work Begins

 

The Democratic Party is having a great convention - full of joy and hope. And there's good reason for that. They have a very good candidate in Kamala Harris. Meanwhile the Republicans have nominated a terrible candidate - a convicted felon that is disliked by most Americans. And all the polls are trending toward the Democratic candidate. But now the tough part begins.

Being joyous or hopeful doesn't win campaigns. The polls don't win campaigns. And having a poor opponents doesn't insure a campaign win. Those are all good thing, but only one thing wins a campaign - VOTES!

While Trump's fans are a minority of the voting population, they will definitely vote in the coming election - and if too many good people stay home on Election Day, they will win. 

Getting out the vote is now the most important thing Democrats must do. We need a massive turnout. A turnout that insures a victory large enough that even Trump and his acolytes can't claim the election was stolen. We must give Kamala Harris a margin of victory that no one can doubt.

But it doesn't stop there. Just electing Kamala Harris isn't enough. We must also give her a Democratic Congress. If the Republicans win control of either house in Congress, then they will block anything Harris tries to do. None of the country's problems will be solved.

The country faces many problems, but those problems can be solved with a Democratic Congress and a Democrat in the White House. The only way to accomplish that is to vote - and then make sure your friends, family, and neighbors vote. We need a massive turnout on Election Day.

Interest In Election Is High And Could Mean A Large Turnout

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll - done between April 1st and 22nd of a nationwide sample of 1,001 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.
 

It Looks Like It Could Be A Huge Turnout For This Election

The chart above is from the Morning Consult Poll -- done on September 30th and October 1st of a nationwide sample of 2,005 registered voters, with a 2 point margin of error. 

Texas Had A Poor Turnout In Its Party Primaries

 From the Texas Observer

Republicans Leading In Texas Early Voting

The chart above uses numbers from the office of the Texas Secretary of State. It shows the early voting totals for both political parties through February 18th (Friday). So far, Republican voters are significantly outnumbering Democratic voters statewide. 380,085 Republicans have voted, while 222,594 Democrats have voted -- a difference of 157,491.

By November, Democrats need to make up this enthusiasm gap, and get their voters to the polls in large numbers.

Trump's Election Lies Cost Georgia GOP Two Senate Seats

I must admit that I was mildly surprised by the Victories of Ossoff and Warnock in the Georgia Senate races. Both had trailed on Election Day, and if the turnout was the same for the runoff, the Republicans would be expected to win. 

But the turnout was not the same, and the Democrats did a better job of getting their voters to the polls than the Republicans did. What kept so many Republicans at home during the runoff? A pretty big factor was Donald Trump's insistence that there was voter fraud and the election in Georgia was stolen from him.

If that was true, then why should Republicans vote? It turns out that was the thinking of many white Republicans.

Here is part of an analysis of the Georgia runoff election from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Control of the U.S. Senate was on the line, but many Georgia Republicans — at least some deterred by Donald Trump’s loss — stayed home rather than cast ballots in January’s runoffs. 

Their absence at the polls helped swing Georgia and the Senate to the Democrats.

Over 752,000 Georgia voters who cast ballots in the presidential election didn’t show up again for the runoffs just two months later, according to a new analysis by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of recently released voting records.

More than half of the no-shows were white, and many lived in rural areas, constituencies that lean toward Republican candidates.

Trump’s message that the election was stolendiscouraged voters such as Craig Roland, a 61-year-old Rome resident. Roland said he didn’t believe his vote would count.

“What good would it have done to vote? They have votes that got changed,” Roland said. “I don’t know if I’ll ever vote again.”

Meanwhile, 228,000 new voters cast ballots in the runoffs who hadn’t voted in the Nov. 3 election. They were more racially diverse and younger voters who tend to back Democrats. . . .

The AJC’s analysis found that the drop in turnout was most severe in northwest and South Georgia, areas where Trump held rallies, in Dalton and Valdosta, to bolster support for the state’s Republican senators. . . .

The numbers show that while overall turnout fell from 5 million in the presidential election to 4.5 million in the runoffs, the most precipitous declines occurred among Republican voters, Fraga said. . . .

Over three-quarters of Republican voters said they thought there was widespread voter fraud in the presidential election, compared with 4% of Democratic voters, according to a poll conducted for the AJC.

Percentage Of Eligible Voters Voting Is Highest Since 1900

 From Axios.com:

Tuesday's turnout rate of the voting-eligible population eclipsed elections in most Americans' lifetimes, and is on pace to break a century-old record, per the WashPost: 

• The latest figure (61.5%) stands only a few points away from breaking a 60-year-old record set in 1960 (63.8%).
• If the current projection of 66.3% holds, 2020 turnout will be the highest since 1900, when 73.7% of eligible Americans cast ballots: "But America had a much smaller voting pool over a century ago. Women did not yet have the right to vote, nor did Asian Americans and many Native Americans."

Records from 1980 were broken in at least 31 states.

This Presidential Race Has Been Remarkably Stable

The chart above is from the Morning Consult Poll. Each point on the chart reflects a three day average of about 12,000 voters.

Notice how constant the results of the poll has been. Since early June, Biden lead over Trump has been virtually the same.

Is this election over? Have voters already made up their minds about how they will vote? I think that is probably true. Most people don't want Trump in the White House another four years, and they have decided that Biden is an acceptable replacement for Trump.

WARNING! -- This doesn't mean you don't have to vote!

A majority opposed Trump is 2016, but too many people stayed home instead of voting -- believing their vote was not needed. We cannot let that happen again.  Whether you live in a red or blue state, your vote is needed -- every vote is needed. A large voter turnout will kick Trump out of the White House, while a small turnout could help him squeak out another win.
 

Democrats Are enthused To Vote In This Election

The turnout in midterm elections is normally not the same as in presidential elections. That hurt Democrats in the 2010 and 2014 elections. In those elections, the Republicans were enthused to vote and turned out in much larger numbers than Democrats.

As the chart above (from Axios) shows, that has changed this year. The turnout for primaries this year (which is indicative of enthusiasm to vote in November) was the opposite of 2010 and 2014. This year Democrats had a 57% turnout for primaries, while the Republican turnout dropped to 43%.

Considering the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country, the fact that Democrats are enthused shows there really is a good chance of a "Blue wave" this year.

The only thing that could save Republicans would be if Independents broke big for them. But considering the unpopularity of Trump among Independents, that is very unlikely to happen.

59% Say It's Likely Dems Will Flip Congress In 2018

I found this poll interesting. It's the newest Rasmussen Poll -- done on November 9th and 12th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

It shows that 59% (nearly 6 out of 10 people) think it's likely that the Democrats will regain control of Congress in the 2018 election. Only 34% think the Republicans will retain control, and another 7% are unsure.

It's still a year until that election, and the real results will depend on turnout. Voter turnout is traditionally low in off-year elections, but there is a lot of enthusiasm among Democrats right now. If they can get large numbers of voters to the polls next November, then they can win back control of Congress -- if they can't do that, then the Republicans will retain control.

Millennials Have The Voting Power (But Aren't Using It)

In 2015, the Millennial generation outnumbered the previous largest generation (Baby Boomers) for the first time -- and that gap will continue to grow. That means the Millennials should have a large say in who gets elected to office in this country. But they don't, because they aren't using the voting power they now have.

In the 2016 election, only 49% of Millennials voted -- making them 25% of the voters in that election. By comparison, about 69% of Baby Boomers voted -- making them 34% of the voters in the election. Democrats have a significant advantage among Millennials, but that advantage is useless until they can convince them to vote in much larger numbers.

Here is just part of an article on this by Stephanie Akin in Roll Call:

A report from the Pew Research Center published this week found that millennials and Generation X voters outnumbered baby boomers and older generations for the first time ever in the 2016 presidential election. The report marks the latest milestone in a trend that demographers say will keep building for at least another 20 years. And while Pew includes Gen X voters in its report, millennials alone outnumber boomers as a whole and are driving the trend.

The population shift has yet to make a mark in elections. That’s partly because young people are less likely to vote. . . .

“We have these two broad camps in America, one of them is older, whiter and more conservative and the other is younger, browner and more liberal,” said Paul Taylor, author of “The Next America,” which looked at the widening generation gap and the changes it would bring to American life. . . .

Those statistics would indicate that Democrats already have a vast advantage. The problem is that — so far — they don’t vote at rates comparable to other generations.

“Millennials continue to punch below their weight,” Taylor said.

Millennials overtook baby boomers last year as the country’s largest generation and also caught up to them as a share of the U.S. electorate. But they cast only 25 percent of the votes in November, Pew has found. And election turnout among millennials is expected to drop by more than half in 2018.

The outcome of next year’s midterms, and future congressional elections, could depend in large part on whether political organizers can motivate millennials to turn up, said Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, the director of CIRCLE at Tufts University. 

“Especially in congressional elections, there’s just not enough attention paid to the importance of mobilizing young people,” she said. . . .

But so far, the data show that young people are not that motivated, Kawashima-Ginsberg said. A survey conducted by her organization last year found that while about 75 percent of young people were paying attention to the presidential election, only a quarter were paying attention to congressional elections. 

Reactions to the Trump administration could shift the tide, she said.

Trump, with his crackdown on border security, travel ban on nationals from certain Muslim-majority countries, and attempt to ban transgender people from the military, has made little effort to craft social policies that would appeal to many younger voters, Kawashima-Ginsberg and other observers said. 

In response, some liberal groups have stepped up efforts to recruit young people for leadership training programs and encourage them to run for office, according to Kawashima-Ginsberg. As young voters see more candidates who look like them and share their values, she said, they could be more likely to participate. 

But the reverse is also possible: Young people who don’t feel that either party represents their interests could give up on politics altogether, she said.

Comparison Of 2016 Vs. 2012 Group Support In Election

The chart above was made from information provided by the Pew Research Center. The positive numbers show the margin of support for groups voting for Hillary Clinton, and the negative numbers show the margin of support for groups voting for Donald Trump.

Note that the support for in Clinton was down from the support Barack Obama got in 2012. Donald Trump also outperformed what Mitt Romney did in 2012, but by smaller margins. For whatever reason, Democrats simply did not turn out in large enough numbers for Clinton. If they had the same turnout Obama got in 2012 (or close to it), Clinton would have won.

Clinton Lost Because Democrats Did Not Turn Out To Vote

This was supposed to be an election in which the voters were really interested. That turned out to not be true. As the top chart (from the Washington Post) shows, a smaller percentage of registered voters participated in the 2016 election than in any of the three elections that preceded it (2004, 2008, 2012). Only 56% voted, while 58% had voted in 2012, 61.6% in 2008, and 60.1% in 2004. You have to go all the way back to the 2000 election to find a smaller percentage voting (54.2%).

Donald Trump had bragged that he would increase turnout for the Republicans. That did not happen. Only 59.7 million Republicans voted -- 1.2 million less than in 2012, 0.3 million less than in 2008, and 2.3 million less than in 2004. The GOP turnout was down slightly from previous election.

If the GOP turnout was down, then how did Hillary Clinton lose to Donald Trump? The answer is that the Democratic turnout was down even more than the GOP turnout. About 6 million fewer Democrats voted than voted for Obama in 2012. And 9.8 fewer Democrats voted than did in 2008.

How did this happen? We know that Democrats didn't want Trump to become president. Were they lulled into thinking that Clinton had the election in the bag, and didn't think their vote was needed? Did too many Bernie supporters stay at home -- still mad that their candidate didn't get the nomination? Did many Democrats get fooled by the right-wing (and left-wing) lies about Clinton? Was it a combination of all three?

Whatever the reason, Democrats have only themselves to blame for the Trump presidency. Their mush vaunted "ground game" simply failed to turn out enough votes. They would have won if they'd just come close to the votes they turned out for Obama. But they didn't.

Texas Sets A New Record In Early Voting In 2016

Early voting is now over in Texas, but even in this red state (which most believe is sure to go for Trump) there is a lot of interest -- enough to set a new early voting record. The charts above were made with information from the office of the Texas Secretary of State (which supervises voting in the state).

The top chart shows the number of early voters in the largest 15 counties of the state, and the bottom chart shows the percentage of registered voters who cast an early vote in those counties. Note that both the number of voters and percentage of voters easily eclipsed the 2008 figures (the year in which the previous record was set).

These 15 counties have 9,759,797 of the state's 14, 238,436 registered voters (about 68.6% of all Texas registered voters). Looking at them can be a very good gauge of what's happening statewide.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Here in Potter County, 18,415 people voted early -- about 33.5% of the 55,011 registered voters. That is a record turnout.

Randall County also had a record turnout with 40,637 people voting early -- about 50.5% of the 81,190 registered voters. A record turnout.

NOTE -- The city of Amarillo is in both Potter and Randall counties.

First Day Of Early Voting Is Up Sharply In Texas

The charts above are from the office of the Texas Secretary of State. The top chart shows the in-person early voting for the first day in Texas for 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 in the largest 15 counties in the state. The second chart shows the percentage of registered voters that voted in-person on the first day in those years.

Note that both the number and percentage of in-person voters is up sharply. Part of this could be that people are getting used to early voting, but I think it also shows significant interest in this year's election -- and that many have made up their minds and are ready to get their voting done.

Early voting could drop off after this first day, but I don't think it will. I think we're looking at a larger than normal turnout this year -- both in early voting and on election day.

The charts below give the same information with mail-in ballots added.

Amarillo Has Record Turnout For First Day Early Voting

It looks like there's going to be a big voter turnout here in Amarillo for the 2016 election. The city, which is in Potter and Randall counties, say a record turnout for the first day of early voting on Monday.

Over 5,000 people voted in the two counties combined. Randall county had 3,311 voters cast a vote (about 3.88% of the county's 81,190 registered voters), and Potter county had about 1,700 voters cast a vote (about 3.09% of the county's 55,011 registered voters).

That's the largest first day turnout in early voting for both counties.

Four New National Polls Show A Tighter Race For President

Four new national presidential polls have been released, and they show the race is getting tighter. One gives Hillary Clinton a 4 point lead over Donald Trump. The other three have Clinton with only a 2 point lead over Trump. The polls are:

Rasmussen Poll -- September 6-7, 1000 likely voters (3 point moe)

Economist / YouGov Poll -- September 4-6, 955 registered voters (4.7 point moe)

Reuters / Ipsos Poll -- September 1-5, 1084 likely voters (3.5 point moe)

GW Battleground Poll -- August 28-September 1, 1,000 registered voters (3.1 point moe)

I still think Clinton will win in November, but it may be a good thing for the public to see some tight polls. If Democrats and Independents (and anti-Trump Republicans) think Clinton will easily win, then too many of them could stay home on election day. That would be disastrous -- both for Clinton and for down-ballot Democrats. Democrats need a huge turnout in November, and maybe a few scary polls can help to accomplish that.

2014 National Voter Turnout Was The Lowest Since 1942

The numbers in this chart are from the United States Election Project.

I have posted before about the pitiful turnout in Texas on election day this year. Only a shameful 33% of the registered voters in the state bothered to vote, making it the state with the worst turnout of registered voters. Now I learn that Texas was not alone in having a poor turnout.

The PBS Newshour has gotten statistics from the University of Florida's United States Election Project (USEP), and it turns out that the nation as a whole had a rather pitiful turnout of only 36.4%. That's the lowest turnout since 1942 -- seventy years ago.

The USEP didn't just look at registered voters. They based their numbers on the voting-eligible population of each state (whether registered or not). This is a more stringent method of figuring turnout.

Still, there were a few states that did pretty well in turning out voters -- with seven states having a turnout of over 50% (with Maine at 59.3% and Wisconsin at 56.9% leading the way). I personally think this turnout is still too low for a democracy, but it looks damn good when compared to the national average.

Meanwhile, other states did very poorly -- with seven states unable to even get 30% of the eligible voters to the polls (with Indiana at 28% and Texas at 28.5% being the states with the lowest turnout). The 10 states with the highest and lowest turnouts are listed below:

10 Highest Voter Participation States of 2014:
1. Maine 59.3%
2. Wisconsin 56.9%
3. Alaska 55.3%
4. Colorado 53%
5. Oregon 52.7%
6. Minnesota 51.3%
7. Iowa 50.6%
8. New Hampshire 48.8%
9. Montana 46.1%
10. South Dakota 44.6%

10 Lowest Voter Participation States of 2014:
1. Indiana 28%
2. Texas 28.5%
3. Utah 28.8%
4. Tennessee 29.1%
5. New York 29.5%
6. Mississippi 29.7%
7. Oklahoma 29.8%
8. DC 30.3%
9. New Jersey 30.4%
10. Tie-West Virginia/Nevada 31.8

Approval -- President Vs. Congressional Leaders

These approval ratings for the congressional leaders and President Obama are from the normally Republican-friendly Rasmussen Poll.

The Republicans are trying hard to say the coming election is a referendum on President Obama (or at least should be). If it is then they are in trouble, because President Obama's ratings have rebounded (after falling when the Obamacare program got off to a poor start). But the ratings for congressional leaders are much worse. They have not rebounded. While Obama has a slight positive edge (52% to 47%), all of the congressional leaders have a very low approval rating -- and the lowest approval is held by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

Put this together with the low approval ratings for Congress as a whole, which has not rebounded and remains at an average of recent polls at 13.4%, and it becomes obvious what this election is really going to be about -- a referendum on a Congress that almost no one likes. The only question for me is just how strong will the anti-incumbent vote be? Will it be strong enough to flip control of Congress? That will depend on the turnout -- on whether voters show their disgust by voting against incumbents, or by staying at home on election day. A big turnout will favor Democrats, while a small turnout will help Republicans.

Do Texas Democratic Candidates Really Want To Win ?

Texas hasn't had a Democrat elected to statewide office in over twenty years now. That makes it one of the reddest states in the nation. Why is this so? Do Texans really love the failed policies of the Republican Party that much? Or have they not been given a real choice -- with the Democratic Party running weak candidates who are afraid to stand up for progressive values and instead run tepid campaigns that make them look like slightly more palatable right-wing candidates?

I firmly believe it is the latter. It has become almost a tradition among Democrats to move far to the right once they are nominated. There seems to be a belief among party leaders in the state that you cannot win by espousing progressive values -- that Texas is so conservative that only a right-winger can win a statewide election. And those leaders have convinced the party's candidates (even some with progressive credentials) to hide their beliefs and run as a conservative. That doesn't give Texas voters (most of whom don't know the candidates until election time rolls around) much of a  choice -- support a right-wing candidate (Republican) or a right-wing-lite candidate (Democrat).

This, of course, has resulted in a long string of losses for Texas Democratic candidates. After all, if the voters wanted a right-winger, then they know that the Republican Party offers that. Why would they vote for a Democrat who offers basically the same thing? They wouldn't. Trying to appeal to the right-wing voters is now, and always has been, a losing proposition for Texas Democrats. The right-wingers will always vote Republican, and other voters will mostly stay home in exasperation.

There are 13,601,324 registered voters in Texas (71.9% of the voting-age population). Do you know how many voted in the last gubernatorial election in 2010? A pathetic 38% (less than 5 million voters). That means 62% of registered voters didn't bother to vote -- probably because they didn't see much difference between the conservative Republican and his only slightly less conservative Democratic opponent. There was no real choice, and a majority of voters knew that.

And that was not an anomaly at all. Democrats have been posing as conservatives, and most voters have been not bothering to choose between the candidates (who seem very much the same) for several gubernatorial elections. In 1998, 32.4% of registered voters showed up on election day -- and in 2002 it was 36.2%, and in 2006 it was 33.6%. I don't know about you, but that looks like a pattern to me -- a pattern that needs to be changed.

A few months ago, I thought Texas Democrats had learned this lesson -- and were finally willing to offer the voters a real choice. Wendy Davis (top picture) was talked into running for governor, and Leticia Van de Putte (bottom picture) was encouraged to run as the party's candidate for lt. governor. Both of these women have a progressive record they could run on, and they sprang to statewide prominence by defending women's rights. Finally, it looked like the voters were going to be offered an alternative to the failed policies of the right-wing.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working out that way. Both women, at least so far, have run tepid campaigns that seem to position them as moderately conservative. They seem to have fallen for the same old fallacy that has infected Texas Democratic candidates for 20 years (and insured they would lose). Look at their website, and peruse the issues they are telling the voters are most important to them. They are the same old issues that any candidate (regardless of party) could run on -- better education, better economy, help the veterans.

Wendy Davis doesn't even mention women's rights on her website (the issue that propelled her to prominence), and Leticia Van de Putte mentions that almost as an afterthought. Neither mentions taxing the rich and the corporations, neither mentions opposition to fracking or stopping pollution, neither mentions expanding Medicaid (even though an April poll showed only 35% of Texans opposed it), and neither mentions the minimum wage should be raised (although that same poll showed 55% support for a $10 an hour minimum wage). Where are the progressive issues? Where are the issues that show they would make a real change from the current policies in place in Austin?

Frankly, with each passing day, I become more afraid that the Democratic candidates in Texas are opting to go down the same losing road that others have trod for the last twenty years. They are trying to pose as conservatives, afraid to stand up publicly for progressive values -- and it is going to result in another election where the turnout is in the mid-thirties and the Republicans win. I'm starting to wonder if Texas Democratic candidates really want to win (or believe they can win).

I hope I'm wrong, and after the state convention both Wendy and Leticia stand up for progressive values -- offering the voters a real choice and a reason to go to the polls. I think they would find a lot of Texas voters have been waiting for that.