Why “our side” lost?
[O.K. I’m still ambivalent about the whole Kerry campaign, therefore the quotes around “our side”, but this is at least an interesting analysis… encouraging in a way, as I’m pessimistic about the ultimate outcome in Iraq, and if we’re still there four years from now, and Al Qaeda is still blowing up things on a regular basis, the Republicans are going to have a hard time keeping the voters they won this time around and should be in the mood for a change.
–Thomas]
http://actforvictory.org/act.php/blog/index
Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?
By Steve Rosenthal
From the Washington Post - Sunday, December 5, 2004
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
oll results show that voters in Ohio did not see
K
When it came to getting out the Democratic vote in
Ohio during the presidential election, we hit our
target numbers. My organization, America Coming
Together, along with our 32 America Votes partner
organizations, the Democratic National Committee and
the Kerry-Edwards campaign not only exceeded our
turnout goals for the Buckeye State, but far exceeded
anything the Democrats have done in the past.
And we still lost. President Bush won the election by
fewer than 130,000 votes out of 5.6 million cast in
Ohio, according to the state’s latest figures. We
added 554,000 votes to our totals, but the Republicans
countered with 508,000, enough to keep the state in
their column.
Since then my colleagues and I have gone back to
answer a nagging question: Who were all those Bush
voters? Though much has been made of the Republican
grass-roots effort in Ohio and elsewhere, we did not
see the sort of Republican organization that seems
necessary to produce that many new votes. Where did
they come from?
We’ve done a post-election poll of 1,400 rural and
exurban voters in Ohio counties that Bush won by an
average of 17 percentage points. Their answers, and a
closer look at other poll data, explode a few widely
held theories about what happened.
The first myth: Many more churchgoing voters flocked
to the polls this year, driven by the Bush “moral
values” and the gay marriage referendum.
Reality: The 2004 election brought no increase
whatsoever in the portion of the voting electorate who
attend church on a weekly basis or more often than
that, according to exit polls. In Ohio, the share of
the electorate represented by frequent churchgoers
actually declined from 45 percent in 2000 to 40
percent in 2004. Nationwide, Bush improved his vote
among weekly churchgoers by just one point over 2000,
while increasing his support among those who don’t go
to church by four points.
So how could religious voters have been the basis of
Bush’s victory, at least in Ohio? Answer: They
weren’t.
Second myth: The Bush campaign won by mobilizing GOP
strongholds and suppressing turnout in Democratic
areas.
Reality: Turnout in Democratic-leaning counties in
Ohio was up 8.7 percent while turnout in
Republican-leaning counties was up slightly less, at
6.3 percent. John Kerry bested Bush in Cuyahoga County
(home of Cleveland) by 218,000 votes-an increase of
42,497 over Gore’s 2000 effort. In Stark County
(Canton)-a bellwether lost by Gore –Kerry won by
4,354.
Third myth: A wave of newly registered Republican
voters in fast-growing rural and exurban areas carried
Bush to victory.
Reality: Among Ohio’s rural and exurban voters, Bush
beat Kerry by just five points among newly registered
voters and by a mere two points among infrequent
voters (those who did not vote in 2000).
Fourth myth: Republicans ran a superior,
volunteer-driven mobilization effort.
Reality: When we asked new voters in rural and exurban
areas who contacted them during this campaign, we
learned that they were just as likely to hear from the
Kerry campaign and its allies as from the Bush side.
(In contrast, regular voters reported more contact
from the GOP.)
Then perhaps it was conservative religious groups or
pro-life organizations or the National Rifle
Association that reached these new Republican voters?
No, according to our post-election polling; only 20
percent of exurban and rural Ohio voters reported that
they had been contacted by someone from their church,
and only slightly higher percentages were contacted by
conservative organizations. In contrast, these same
voters in the least unionized regions of Ohio were
more likely to have been contacted by a labor union.
Much has been made of the Republican effort to turn
out voters through personal contact. Yet our poll
shows that voters in these Republican counties were
just as likely to be visited by a Kerry supporter at
their homes as by a Bush supporter. Fewer than 2
percent were visited by a Bush supporter whom they
knew personally.
Among the voters the Republicans targeted, the
Democrats went toe-to-toe, knock-to-knock and phone
call-to-phone call with them. And rest assured, in
urban areas Republicans could not come close to
matching the Democratic ground effort.
Still, Kerry lost in Ohio, if narrowly, and that
tipped the Electoral College in Bush’s favor. If this
wasn’t a flood of “moral values” voters or a GOP
juggernaut, what was it?
The reason Kerry lost the election had much more to do
with the war in Iraq and terrorism than the political
ground war in Ohio. Terrorism trumped other issues at
the polls-including moral values-and anxious voters
tended to side with Bush.
o By 54 percent to 41 percent, voters decided that
Americans are now safer from terrorist threats than
four years ago, national exit polls said.
o By 55 percent to 42 percent, voters accepted Bush’s
view that Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism. By
51 percent to 45 percent, they still approved of the
decision to go to war (though a majority expressed
concerns about how the war is going).
o Just 40 percent said they trusted Kerry to do a good
job handling the war on terrorism, compared with 58
percent who felt that way about the president.
The Bush campaign was able to persuade some voters who
supported Gore in 2000 to turn to Bush in 2004 on the
issues of terrorism, strength and leadership. Bush
bested Kerry among those who voted in 2000 by five
percentage points-Bush bested Gore in 2000 by three
points.
The other major factor was our side’s failure to win
the economic debate. Despite an economy that was not
delivering for many working people in Ohio, the exit
poll results show that voters in Ohio did not see
Kerry providing a clear alternative. Just 45 percent
expressed confidence that Kerry could handle the
economy, compared with Bush’s 49 percent.
The GOP put on a strong mobilization effort, but
that’s not what tipped the Ohio election. They did not
turn Gore voters into Bush voters by offering a ride
to the polls. Instead, it was skillful exploitation of
public concern over terrorism by the Bush team-coupled
with Democrats’ inability to draw clear, powerful
contrasts on the economy and health care-that pushed
Bush over the finish line.http://actforvictory.org/act.php/blog/index
Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?
By Steve Rosenthal
>From the Washington Post - Sunday, December 5, 2004
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
When it came to getting out the Democratic vote in
Ohio during the presidential election, we hit our
target numbers. My organization, America Coming
Together, along with our 32 America Votes partner
organizations, the Democratic National Committee and
the Kerry-Edwards campaign not only exceeded our
turnout goals for the Buckeye State, but far exceeded
anything the Democrats have done in the past.
And we still lost. President Bush won the election by
fewer than 130,000 votes out of 5.6 million cast in
Ohio, according to the state’s latest figures. We
added 554,000 votes to our totals, but the Republicans
countered with 508,000, enough to keep the state in
their column.
Since then my colleagues and I have gone back to
answer a nagging question: Who were all those Bush
voters? Though much has been made of the Republican
grass-roots effort in Ohio and elsewhere, we did not
see the sort of Republican organization that seems
necessary to produce that many new votes. Where did
they come from?
We’ve done a post-election poll of 1,400 rural and
exurban voters in Ohio counties that Bush won by an
average of 17 percentage points. Their answers, and a
closer look at other poll data, explode a few widely
held theories about what happened.
The first myth: Many more churchgoing voters flocked
to the polls this year, driven by the Bush “moral
values” and the gay marriage referendum.
Reality: The 2004 election brought no increase
whatsoever in the portion of the voting electorate who
attend church on a weekly basis or more often than
that, according to exit polls. In Ohio, the share of
the electorate represented by frequent churchgoers
actually declined from 45 percent in 2000 to 40
percent in 2004. Nationwide, Bush improved his vote
among weekly churchgoers by just one point over 2000,
while increasing his support among those who don’t go
to church by four points.
So how could religious voters have been the basis of
Bush’s victory, at least in Ohio? Answer: They
weren’t.
Second myth: The Bush campaign won by mobilizing GOP
strongholds and suppressing turnout in Democratic
areas.
Reality: Turnout in Democratic-leaning counties in
Ohio was up 8.7 percent while turnout in
Republican-leaning counties was up slightly less, at
6.3 percent. John Kerry bested Bush in Cuyahoga County
(home of Cleveland) by 218,000 votes-an increase of
42,497 over Gore’s 2000 effort. In Stark County
(Canton)-a bellwether lost by Gore –Kerry won by
4,354.
Third myth: A wave of newly registered Republican
voters in fast-growing rural and exurban areas carried
Bush to victory.
Reality: Among Ohio’s rural and exurban voters, Bush
beat Kerry by just five points among newly registered
voters and by a mere two points among infrequent
voters (those who did not vote in 2000).
Fourth myth: Republicans ran a superior,
volunteer-driven mobilization effort.
Reality: When we asked new voters in rural and exurban
areas who contacted them during this campaign, we
learned that they were just as likely to hear from the
Kerry campaign and its allies as from the Bush side.
(In contrast, regular voters reported more contact
from the GOP.)
Then perhaps it was conservative religious groups or
pro-life organizations or the National Rifle
Association that reached these new Republican voters?
No, according to our post-election polling; only 20
percent of exurban and rural Ohio voters reported that
they had been contacted by someone from their church,
and only slightly higher percentages were contacted by
conservative organizations. In contrast, these same
voters in the least unionized regions of Ohio were
more likely to have been contacted by a labor union.
Much has been made of the Republican effort to turn
out voters through personal contact. Yet our poll
shows that voters in these Republican counties were
just as likely to be visited by a Kerry supporter at
their homes as by a Bush supporter. Fewer than 2
percent were visited by a Bush supporter whom they
knew personally.
Among the voters the Republicans targeted, the
Democrats went toe-to-toe, knock-to-knock and phone
call-to-phone call with them. And rest assured, in
urban areas Republicans could not come close to
matching the Democratic ground effort.
Still, Kerry lost in Ohio, if narrowly, and that
tipped the Electoral College in Bush’s favor. If this
wasn’t a flood of “moral values” voters or a GOP
juggernaut, what was it?
The reason Kerry lost the election had much more to do
with the war in Iraq and terrorism than the political
ground war in Ohio. Terrorism trumped other issues at
the polls-including moral values-and anxious voters
tended to side with Bush.
o By 54 percent to 41 percent, voters decided that
Americans are now safer from terrorist threats than
four years ago, national exit polls said.
o By 55 percent to 42 percent, voters accepted Bush’s
view that Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism. By
51 percent to 45 percent, they still approved of the
decision to go to war (though a majority expressed
concerns about how the war is going).
o oll results show that voters in Ohio did not see
KJust 40 percent said they trusted Kerry to do a good
job handling the war on terrorism, compared with 58
percent who felt that way about the president.
The Bush campaign was able to persuade some voters who
supported Gore in 2000 to turn to Bush in 2004 on the
issues of terrorism, strength and leadership. Bush
bested Kerry among those who voted in 2000 by five
percentage points-Bush bested Gore in 2000 by three
points.
The other major factor was our side’s failure to win
the economic debate. Despite an economy that was not
delivering for many working people in Ohio, the exit
poll results show that voters in Ohio did not see
Kerry providing a clear alternative. Just 45 percent
expressed confidence that Kerry could handle the
economy, compared with Bush’s 49 percent.
The GOP put on a strong mobilization effort, but
that’s not what tipped the Ohio election. They did not
turn Gore voters into Bush voters by offering a ride
to the polls. Instead, it was skillful exploitation of
public concern over terrorism by the Bush team-coupled
with Democrats’ inability to draw clear, powerful
contrasts on the economy and health care-that pushed
Bush over the finish line.
