Campaigns to Target Specific Groups in Swing States

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:05:17 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

U.S. News and World Reports has a new series of articles on the primary target groups of voters for both the Obama and McCain campaigns in the swing states in November.

THE WEST

McCain is confident he'll grab the Western states with Republican tendencies, and instead plans to lay out serious campaign cash in places with big electoral troves like Ohio, Florida, and Michigan. Obama, parsing the electorate map, has sensed opportunity out west, and has a rich supply of private donations to go after those voters. And, with the Mountain West in transition, the long Democratic primary season helped the party register new and more enthusiastic voters.

More...

WORKING CLASS AND RURAL

Obama's problem is that the white working-class and rural voters who could make the difference are either openly opposed to him or deeply distrustful. Democrats think the county's economic ills should make most working-class and rural people receptive to Obama's call for change, but he hasn’t gotten much traction so far.

THE ACADEMICS

Students turned out in big numbers for Obama in the primaries, and have also flocked in mass numbers to his rallies. Faculty members, however, are a different story, since they long have been consistent in their political leanings and vote in droves. If the Presidential race remains close this fall, voting by so-called “academics” could be critical to the outcome of the election.

HISPANICS, EVANGELICALS, AFRICAN-AMERICANS, WOMEN, YOUTH

Obama seems to be running ahead of McCain with most of these groups. Even though McCain has greater support amongst evangelicals, they support him much less than they did Bush in 2004.

< A Sentencing Opinion Invoking Lord Denning and Dostoyevsky | Olympics Night Five Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Campaigns to Target Specific Groups in Swing States | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yes I just saw the latest Rasmusson poll in (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by athyrio on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:17:46 PM EST

Nevada, and McCain has taken the lead there this month for the first time....with that in mind, when the dirt really starts to fly from the Republicans (and it will after the nomination)that cannot bode well for Democratic chances in November and it certainly isn't a sure thing any longer...

I think McCain has a good chance to win (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:29:07 PM EST

check the latest electoral colleg map here
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

It will update tomorrow to reflect Nev if as you say Ras has it going McCain now. That would put McCain at 254, needing only 16 more to win. That can be done by taking two of these three IN, CO, NM. Or take MI or PA and McCain wins.

Remember now PA is full of those bitter racist voters. So, don't you suppose the polls there are probably not all that accurate? What about the "Bradley" effect? Remember NH, Obama was supposed to min and ended up losing?


plus if McCain chooses Tom Ridge as his VP (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by athyrio on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:41:24 PM EST

there goes Pa. IMO as he was an extremely popular governor there for years....plus he is pro-choice


Tom Ridge? The Homeland Security (none / 0) (#36)
by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:23:24 PM EST

guy?

I don't think that choice would be anything but bad for McCain AND the entire country should those guys win. Might as well just hand over all our freedoms.


Heard on Bill Kristol (none / 0) (#57)
by zfran on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:54:34 AM EST

say yesterday that McCain might pick a pro-choice (Lieberman or Ridge)as veep and that his admin. would be pro-life. It seemed to be okay with him. I think Ridge is an interesting choice.


: Lieberman only pretends he is pro choice (none / 0) (#61)
by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:29:06 AM EST

You can't oppose providing rape victims with the morning after pill and be "pro choice" not in my world. I rate actions, the rest is "just words." NARAL would do well to do the same rather than becoming the equivalent of the NRA as a fringe group that supports party over principle.

Already Unenthusiastic Religious Right WIng (none / 0) (#62)
by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:35:30 AM EST

of the Repub party would stay home in droves if McCain taps Ridge.

I doubt he could make it up with the few independents and disaffected Dems he might pick up.


Obama lost NH (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by ccpup on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:43:24 PM EST

because the Independents drifted into the McCain camp. A win for Barack was predicated on him getting those votes.

So, what's changed between then and now ... or, even better yet, November?

These independents are more firmly, I believe, in the McCain column as they've learned more about Obama and want little to nothing to do with him.

For such an historic candidacy, Obama is sure experiencing soft-to-middling support. Perhaps it's a bit of blow back for his scorched earth primary tactics? Seems to be the reason most of the people I know as well as myself won't be voting for him.

Just leaving the top of the ticket blank. That, in itself, will be newsworthy once Blank Top-of-the-tickets becomes a bit of an epidemic this November. Especially from Democratic voters.


wellyou know (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST

I originally thought that Obama lost NH because the undecideds in the pre-election polls broke heavily for Clinton. The pre-election polls had Obama at mid 30's. And the actual results had Obama getting 36%? So, silly me, I thought the polls were pretty accurate for Obama.

But, I soon learned from the media and Obama supporters that no, what the pre-election polls said was that Obama was AHEAD of Clinton. Even with a large percentage of undecided. So, if he lost, it must have been the "Bradley" effect.

It couldn't have been that all the people who said they were going to vote for him did. But, just most of the undecided, decided for Clinton? Nope, they told me it couldn't be that. Had to be "Bradley"


Don't undecideds historically break for (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:58:03 PM EST

experience . . . ?


: Yes. I.e., "the one they know" (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:11:38 PM EST

which is another way to say experience, someone who has been around and in the news for a while.
And the Bradley effect nonsense from Eugene Robinson and Donna Brazile and other fools who never read about it? It has been entirely discounted by the analyses since, for exactly the reasons cited above. Obama's voters didn't disappear. The media hyped the undecideds as undoubtedly heading toward him, when that would have been contrary to, as you say, the way that undecideds usually go.

I suggest you.. (none / 0) (#59)
by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:30 AM EST

read these articles MSM guy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/the-medias-problem-of-fal_b_118420.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/popular-vote-v-electoral_b_117525.html


This is one Nevadan who won't be voting (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:30:31 PM EST

for obama....would just as soon leave the top spot unmarked if obama is the nominee.


I practiced voting for an R or two today (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:31:39 PM EST

on my state primary ballot. I didn't risk practicing on my favorite Dem, Jay Inslee, strong HRC SD who is staying loyal to her, though. Just the state positions where the incumbent was the R and is doing a decent job. Not easy for this 40 year D only voter, but I stretched :)

For Pres, I'm writing in even though it won't count for real, it will count if the election boards decide to create a record of how many democrats did the protest vote...this way they can prove mine was one.


It won't do to the Dem in (none / 0) (#43)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:36:48 PM EST

your state? Some states the write in goes to the party Nom.


No, the rule in WA State is you cannot write in (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:42:47 PM EST

any candidate who lost in the primary. It will simply ignore my vote, but it will have my Clinton entry if they want to do a curiosity count of how many votes were obviously protests.


I voted for myself (none / 0) (#51)
by Little Fish on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:17:06 PM EST

in 04. Got to the polls just as they were closing, I wasn't on the voter rolls (I vote every year) and had to vote provisional. Figured my vote wouldn't count and I wasn't sold on Kerry, so what the hay!

Of course my vote did wind up counting in the Gov race. THAT was crizazy.

Also, I think I'm like the only person in King County who still goes to the polls. When do we go all vote by mail? I thought it was this year.


That's funny (none / 0) (#53)
by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:41:39 AM EST

I think about putting my name in for Judge on those who get to run unopposed, but never have :)

I've been absentee voting for almost 3 years, don't know where my polling place would be anymore. I think the entire state will be absentee only for 2010.

Comment below is correct, though, check the rules to make sure what you decide to do doesn't render your entire ballot garbage.


: In Texas, you cannot vote (none / 0) (#58)
by zfran on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:59:00 AM EST

absentee unless you can 'prove' you will be out of the city or state on election day. The powers that be would not send me an absentee ballot unless I could prove I wouldn't be here to vote. But then, that's Texas. I guess I should have stayed in CA where my brother always votes absentee!

Polls here too... (none / 0) (#55)
by NWHiker on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:29:01 AM EST

My spouse and I still go the polls, and we drag the kids alone. Let them witness us doing this, since they'll never vote that way.

Sims wanted to go to vote by mail 100% this time, but they finally told him it couldn't be done. Which is a good thing, since KC elections is so fraught with problems, a trial run on a smaller election is probably a better idea.

JavaCity, Inslee is my rep too. I like him.

I have to check out the primary stuff yet. Haven't had time.


can you explain how (none / 0) (#47)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST

that works? Do they give it to the nominee of the party of the name you write in?

If I write in Huckabee, does it go to McCain?

What if I write in a name not associated with any party?


I think if you write in a "known" party (none / 0) (#49)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:44:50 PM EST

name, it goes to the party nom. Mickey Mouse gets "tossed". Main thing is, you need to make sure it doesn't invalidate your ballot. Not sure of the rules, so check locally.


: not a problem (5.00 / 0) (#50)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:04:28 PM EST

i'm voting 4 mccain unless clinton is vp

Write-in votes go to the name you write-in (none / 0) (#54)
by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:46:50 AM EST

just like a vote for a 3rd party. Only in the MI primary does someone get the votes that couldn't be designated for all the others who might have been on the ballot. The write-in does not go to the party nominee. So, as long as your state allows write-ins without stipulations, your write-in for Huckabee will go to Huckabee. If your state rules that only write-ins can be for candidates who registered as a write-in candidate, and Huckabee didn't register, then your vote for Huckabee will be treated as though you had not voted. Every state has its own rules, so make sure you explore yours.

There is a web site WriteInHillary (or something close to that) that was posting the rules in every state.


: this isn't necessarily true (none / 0) (#60)
by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:08:28 AM EST

you need to check the specifics in the state where you vote.
Some states won't count the write-in unless that candidate is registered as a legitimate wrtie-in candidate.
And, as the poster here said, some states give write in votes to the party nominee of the person you write-in. This is the one I'm trying to find out more info about, because it seems rather difficult to adminsiter.
So, if you plan to write-in Clinton as a protest vote, you should check the rules in your state to make sure your vote won't end up going to Obama.

yay! (none / 0) (#56)
by maladroit on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:34:59 AM EST

sorry O/T, but where(ish) in Nevada?


speaking of polls (none / 0) (#7)
by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:27:42 PM EST

I'm having poll withdraw symptoms. Any pointers to some recent polls?


: Pew has a new g.e. poll... (none / 0) (#33)
by Dawn Davenport on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:14:05 PM EST

...with plenty of crosstab info here.

No doubt about it that this election is (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by athyrio on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:32:12 PM EST

Obama's to lose...He has had every advantage in this big world given to him and he still might lose it.....WOW.....In one of the previous threads, BTD said that what we need is a FDR type change like the new deal and IMO, Hillary was the only one that had the courage to give it to us...so sad, because the American people are more than willing to elect her but the Democratic party won't permit it...How absurd...(Pardon my rant)

Aren't there a considerable number of (none / 0) (#1)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:12:36 PM EST

dems considering voting for McCain. He has won over many, while obama winning over republicans, not so much.

I just don't believe this new map stuff (none / 0) (#2)
by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:16:39 PM EST

I hear from the Obama supporters. I think the states will kind of line up as they always have, with the same states as purple as before. Of course I'm very happy VA is turning more purple, thanks to me and others like me. Yay. But I'm not sure any previously red western states will become purple. Time will tell.

Of course having said that, if Obama has loads of money, of course he should spend it where he can. And who knows, money matters.

I expect there to be (none / 0) (#31)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:11:26 PM EST

a slightly different map. But massive change just isn't coming this season; the election is too close.


Right now, the differences between '04 and '08 (none / 0) (#37)
by BrianJ on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:31:30 PM EST

Appear to boil down to the following:

Indiana is in play, but favors McCain.
Iowa looks better for Obama than for Kerry.
Colorado and New Mexico are looking a bit better for Obama than for Kerry.
Obama is out of the running in Florida, and in every other Southern/ border state but Virginia.

But that's about it- it's Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania for all the marbles, again. As it seemingly always is. The claims of Obamaites that they could "expand the map"- we can win in Texas! Mississippi! Missouri! Uh, Montana?!- stand revealed as false.


: Well, I would generally agree (none / 0) (#44)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:39:21 PM EST

except that Montana and North Dakota do appear to be competitive. Mississippi, not so much.
I'm with Tom Schaller on the south, and other people just can't let go. . .

When they say White working class (none / 0) (#4)
by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:20:24 PM EST

What does that mean (is that defined by education, income, type of work)? I just find these categories too broad to be useful. There needs to be more in order to figure out how to target these people. For example, if the group is defined by income (for example, 2 working parents under 40 thousand) I would assume the approach is to talk about how bad the economy, how he can change it, and why you should be scared if McCain wins.

P.S.
I wonder if this group, depending out how US News defines them, is older or younger then the average white Obama supporter?

I'd bet the campaigns are narrowing those (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:25:14 PM EST

categories in order to more precisely target the groups better. I'm not surprised this media outlet is being a bit vague here. Even if the polling data is more precise why would they do extra work. snark.

I'm sure each campaign will figure out how best to scare each group into voting for them. Of course it would be nice if each side figured out how to convince those groups in reasonable positive ways, but that would be the first time ever in history, so I'm not holding my breath.


: No kidding. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by pie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:29:30 PM EST

Of course it would be nice if each side figured out how to convince those groups in reasonable positive ways
BTW, hope and change is not reasonable positive anything.
It's nebulous nothingness.

White working class (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:51:21 PM EST

seems to me Hispanics and AAs are classified as one group (each) and not broken out. I think they poll women the same way. So I'm guessing WWC is men. Goes back to traditional white and blue collar. Jobs, education and income. I think it's becoming clear they need to juggle the groups a bit. Especially this year since White working class is now un-politically correct ;) Perhaps do everything at income level and then breakout within the income levels. This year, I was old or young depending on if women my age went for Obama or Clinton in whatever primary state they were looking at, lol!~ In some states, women over 35 became "older women" in others it was 50+ and sometimes even older. It all depended on who was skewing the info.

I don't know if you could do working class by income only. The middle class is shrinking on the income level, but it really wouldn't change white collar jobs into blue or pink jobs. So you could have 2 working parents in "white collar" jobs that are just getting by but by definition of their job, they wouldn't be working class/blue collar. We do have the same issues though, so smart economic talk should appeal to both.

I think Obama's trouble is (and I've said this before) is connecting on a personal level. He did not grow up like the "average" middle/working American and his stateside adult experience is limited to SoCal, NYC and SS Chicago. He's also more of a thinker vs roll up your sleeves and work. He's getting a bit better, but he needs some fire in his belly for the people. And he needs to be less afraid of conflict. He needs to make it believable and about them. That's what Hillary achieved. She also asked to be held accountable and was straight forward and clear. I think if Obama dropped the over-branding and the hip act for the younger set, he might make greater inroads. He needs to drop the big speeches and get down on the street level. He may have gotten a bigger bounce out of his "tour" if it wasn't such a tour. If he had just gone to the ME and maybe a couple other places, but in a low key manner. His ME portion was playing well. Right now, he may just brand himself out of the WH. Oh, and it would really help if he quit trying to be a blank slate for everyone. How can people know him and trust him that way? Anyone who's not on board now, is not coming on board with his current routine that he's been doing for the past 18 mos. They would have hopped on by now if it worked for him. Now he needs to work for them.


Obama's campaign style is more the (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:07:31 PM EST

problem than the man, I think, from talking to those trusty older voters in my family and neighborhood. Interesting, as a recent event got me talking to many more than I have in months.

I'm getting the sense that they fear that the style -- rock-concert rallies, Obama girls gyrating, etc. -- does not project the dignity that the president ought to do. I've gotten the word "dignity" several times; it seems to be key. I hear that he's a "nice young man," "so smart," etc. -- but then I hear them say that what this country needs is to regain the respect of the world, and it comes down to the campaign style.

In sum, they know darn well that he made a decision to trade them off for younger voters. And they understand that need -- but a hip-hop president (or "hep hip," as one neighbor put it:-) worries them. It seems that they're worried for their grandchildren when they see a presidential candidate acting like their grandchildren!


: Exactly what my parents said (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:33:08 PM EST

He's nice. smart etc. Lack of resume was their issue. I had actually called them to beware of Huck, and that's when I got the rundown from my mom of what they thought of them all and learned they had been watching the Dem debates (they're mod Repubs). I was afraid my parents might buy into Huck's folksy but reasonable sounding style. Boy, did I get smacked down from mom, hehe. I shoulda known better . . . Of course, they already had more than enough of my opinion of Rudy from past years, lol!~

: Dignity - just what I was thinking today (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by lmv on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:30:22 PM EST

and I'm nowhere near retirement age. (Well, if a poll broke for Hillary I was in the "older voter" >40 group. If a poll broke for Obama, I was in the "young and cool" <45 group.)
The man came out in the ugliest black windbreaker I've ever seen and said, "thank YOU GUYS for coming" to the assembled press. Even in Hawaii, you need a nice jacket once and a while. Didn't he pack one? He was addressing the Georgia crisis!
The bad jacket. "You guys." He's like the kid who shows up for an interview snapping gum and putting his feet on the desk. Ugh!

When they divide people up like this (none / 0) (#24)
by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:03:15 PM EST

Does that result in double counting people?


: I tried to figure it out during (none / 0) (#35)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:22:12 PM EST

the primaries. When I looked at exits, they were men/women, then broken by age, then race, income, religion etc. So I think they start with the 2 groups and break out from there. You might want to look on CNN and see if you can still pull up some exit polls. Or go to SUSA and look at their poll break outs. I haven't looked at a poll for a couple months, so my brain is rusty.
I'm sure the campaigns are breaking it down by who they have and who they don't. Which would exclude double counting. Why count AAs, when Obama has 90% in with older women? Makes no sense as you need to see which older women you need to work on and what is unique about them. Just recently a client asked me to develop some tween girl product. I was like "which tween girls?". We have the girly girls, the athletic girls, the edgy girls etc. I needed to know where to target my energy ;)

I took it to mean (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:32:38 PM EST

now that Hillary isn't in the race, it's okay to say this out loud.


How old is the (none / 0) (#6)
by pie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:26:47 PM EST

"average white Obama supporter"?

What's average?


12 (snark) n/t (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:28:04 PM EST

: and (5.00 / 0) (#12)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:30:54 PM EST

what is their favorite flavor of Kool-Aid?

No idea (none / 0) (#16)
by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:45:43 PM EST

I am guessing from the media reports that it is probably mid to late 30s

Every candidate must pander to older Americans, as they consistently vote in large number, are more easily mobilized (assuming they live in retirement communities, old folk government housing etc), potentially have free time and volunteer in large numbers. This group is also going to have more internalized racial stereotypes, as they grew up in a different time. Convincing them to vote for Obama in large numbers will be hard. That being said every candidate has a group they need to win that us hard for them to get, it is just accentuated because he is black.


My retired white parents (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:07:31 PM EST

or "old people" who happen to live on their own but are retirement home age, just think he needs more experience. Smart, nice seeming etc. Nothing to do with race. Just lack of resume. They are in their 70's. I think the internalized racial thing will be more geographic than age. Yes, it may peak with age, but that would be in certain areas. Our parents who were raising us in the 60's are in their 70's now. I was actually surprised Hillary did as well as she did with men/older men. While Obama may be Black, when it gets down to it, he's still one of "them" ;) Of course, it may have helped the little lady had Bill standing behind her (snark!)


If so (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by tek on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:09:19 PM EST

then Obama has made a serious mistake in alienating the older voters, you know, those "unenlightened older generations" who need to be "tutored by the youth." (From his GREAT RACE speech). Nothing like alienating your own Party members.


I was talking about the election (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by Grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:46:20 AM EST

to an older neighbor. We were discussing when the candidates were going to name their running mates.

I mentioned to her that Obama would send her a text message to her cell phone, and she just rolled her eyes and laughed. She has no cell phone.

Really, seriously, he's not trying to reach these people at all.


: His ego (none / 0) (#63)
by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:43:35 AM EST

will cost him the election. He seriously thinks they will come to him instead of the other way around.

racial attitudes (none / 0) (#64)
by Molly Pitcher on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:54:13 AM EST

I was reading yesterday about a southern white guy in his 60's. Who is he planning to vote for? Obama. Why? "We are the people who got behind desegregation and equal rights. Obama's our success story."

"This group is also going to have more internalized racial stereotypes, as they grew up in a different time. Convincing them to vote for Obama in large numbers will be hard." I think you have some age/race stereotypes lurking around. And I, for one, am darn tired of being tarred!

(yes, tired and tarred can sound pretty much alike when I say them)


: So you found him (none / 0) (#66)
by RalphB on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:08:02 AM EST

I wondered where that guy was. Bet he's lonely as an Obama voter.

: Ah, Atticus Finch Lives! (none / 0) (#67)
by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:32:25 AM EST

Even if this man wasn't supporting Obama, I love to hear stories of stereotypes exploded.
As a lifelong northerner, it's always annoyed me that on any tv show or movie if there is a redneck sheriff in the plot--doesn't matter if it's SOUTHERN California or downeast Maine--you could almost always bet he'd have a southern drawl.
Randy Newman said it best.

But. but, the long primary season (none / 0) (#13)
by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:40:06 PM EST

was bad, bad, and all that woman's fault, wasn't it?

Yet lo and behold, I b'leeve some of us were saying just this: "the long Democratic primary season helped the party register new and more enthusiastic voters."

However, the Obamans have to be careful about this in my neck o' the woods with our ardently Rethug USAA going after "vote fraud." More reports today in the local paper of lots of folks who registered minority voters messing up. Guys, c'mon, go for the names of the recently deceased and maybe not in a lot of public records as such yet. Don't go with the name of a guy dead before Obama even began his political career. And about those addresses on nonexistent streets. . . .

There will be prosecutions. Won't affect the vote in my majority-minority city, but it will fuel all the fears of the conservatives across the state.

"3d worker fired 4 bringing in too few" (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Ben Masel on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:11:15 PM EST

Here's the problem. State law was changed last year to prohibit payment per registrant, but if you get fired for not hitting a quota, the pressure to cheat is even greater.

Workers from Community Voters Project implicated in voter fraud


: It's going to get us that #$%! voter ID law (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:16:23 PM EST

because this came up again already. These groups are going to end up achieving the exact opposite of what is needed to get more Milwaukeeans voting.
And we will be subjected to all that grandstanding by the Repubs again -- as if that 98% or something turnout in Waukesha County was real or even achievable. Arrgghh. Long months of media manipulation ahead.

oh man (2.00 / 0) (#17)
by ccpup on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:46:53 PM EST

if THAT ain't Chicago-style politics, I don't know what is!

Guess we'll have to wait for the inevitable 527 ads showing Joe Smith (who passed in 2002) proudly registering -- and voting for! -- Obama in 2008. Doesn't matter if the Republicans are masters of vote fraud.

Obama is the one selling himself as "New Politics" and is the one who will have to show himself to be the biggest of hypocrites.

And, NO!, his campaign staff who registered dead people are NOT welcome under this bus, thank you very much.


: I'm still laughing at (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:36:37 PM EST

Cream's term, "busunders"...perhaps that should be the definition of only those who are actually welcome to ride the underbelly of the bus.

Montana and the drawn out primary (none / 0) (#18)
by Little Fish on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:48:49 PM EST

I was in Montana for the primary. At one time Obama had 60 paid staff members there and had multiple offices in some cities. There were people all over registering voters, canvassing, phone banking and doing visibility. Bill Clinton was in the tiny of tiniest towns there, places that had never been visited by a president and he'd often spend time at local water holes chatting it up with the residents.

And yet some people think the long primary was a bad thing.


Bill can stop in my watering hole (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:56:25 PM EST

anytime. That is if I had one. D@mn that would be cool!


: Mine too! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Little Fish on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:05:15 PM EST

I didn't get to see him in Montana, but I saw him when I was in Oregon. It's the highlight of my year. I have videos from one of the events. And one of Chelsea saying her mom would be a better president than her dad. I should upload them.
Speaking of Oregon, some of the people I talked to were beyond excited that they counted for once and that their state was getting a little attention. Generating that kind of excitement to me is priceless.

Have you heard this one? (none / 0) (#21)
by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:54:52 PM EST

Can't remember where I saw it while clicking around, but the "tossing" of Repub registrations.


I read (none / 0) (#29)
by tek on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:10:09 PM EST

two days ago that Obama is still having trouble with Hispanics.

: In my majority Hispanic area (none / 0) (#45)
by stxabuela on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:42:01 PM EST

I would say it's 60-40 Obama, but the support is decidedly unenthusiastic, particularly among Latinas. In this part of the country (south of San Antonio,) lack of enthusiasm generally leads to depressed Hispanic voter turnout.

: He Looks Fine WIth Hispanics (none / 0) (#65)
by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:56:32 AM EST

U.S.News
Posted on the web site today (8-13):
snips:
"Hispanics
The difference was palpable. When John McCain and Barack Obama spoke in the same city at the same conference on the same day, McCain's speech was met with polite applause and the nodding of heads. Obama's appearance, to a larger audience a few hours later, received robust cheers as audience members waved "Latinos for Obama" signs. The candidates, appearing in July at the League of United Latin American Citizens' convention, were both trying to bolster support among a pivotal swing constituency."
"Earlier this year, there were some experts who thought Republicans could do well with Hispanic voters because of the divisiveness of the primary battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton, who had strong Hispanic support. But today, polls suggest that Demo-crats are pulling Latinos back into their ranks. In a recent survey from the Pew Research Center, Obama was leading McCain among Hispanics, 66 percent to 23 percent."