Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?

[rodeodance]

"http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34157-2004Dec3?language=printer"

Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?

By Steve Rosenthal

Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page B03


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?.....


"......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."

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. From another Blue Stater.... why are you promoting The Big Lie?

I have friends in Ohio, and people broke their asses to get out and vote. Little hint about Ohio, It was Stolen!!!!!!

[libmeayer]

15. I second what "realisticphish " just said.

How are you going to win any election if you call the people who did not vote for Kerry as idiots. How are you going to bring them on your side for the next election?

[izzie]

2. Because more people like what Bush is doing.

Do not yell at me. I hate what he is doing.

[righteous1]

30. Nobody should yell at you for an opinion

[RC]

3. Nothing about election fraud?

Why not?

[papau]

5. exactly - this is a repeat WP moveon post - not about election fraud

:-)

Indeed Steve Rosenthal does not discuss vote fraud - so why the post with with the original WP headline writers crap spin? The
headline implication is "move on" - if that is the poster's position - say it. This is not LBN where we must put into the post heading the original headline writers words/spin.

Steve Rosenthal
Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page B03

He concludes - after no discussion of fraud - that the Bushes votes - based on after election polls and exit polls - came from "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"
==============================================================
BUT Then he explains all the reasons that fraud is likely - without saying fraud is likely!

We did get out the Dem vote .. "not only exceeded our turnout goals for the Buckeye State, but far exceeded anything the Democrats have done in the past.

and "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 (APPARENTLY) increasing his support among those who don't go to church by four points."

BUSH did not out win by out-mobilizing Dems via huge turnout in GOP strongholds and suppressing turnout in Democratic areas - "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."

There was no huge Bush margin in newly registered Republican voters in fast-growing rural and exurban areas - the split was about same or less than Bush vote among old registertion folks in those areas -"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)".

Bush did not out volunteer/contact the Dems -"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.)"

Bush had the conservative religious groups, pro-life organizations, and the National Rifle Association reaching (per post election polling) only "only 20 percent of exurban and rural Ohio voters" -"In contrast, these same voters in the least unionized regions of Ohio were more likely to have been contacted by a labor union."

[bones_7672]

9. oops

[rodeodance]

14. no, I do not think we should move on. I am not from OHIO but I

worked many months canvessing for K/E in my own state and am down about the outcome to say the least.

Fact is--I posted the article because of the last paragraph--as I do think the Rove machine did a good job about instilling fear in Americans (our war on terriorism). Was it a deciding factor? I think yes.

[fliesincircles]

7. Three words...

Cuyahoga, Franklin, Blackwell

[Twist_U_Up]

8. Because They STOLE IT

AND I WANT MY VOTE BACK

[bones_7672]

10. Thank God it'll be over soon except for the whining

Then maybe we can actually do something productive. How long was the fight to elect Kerry? All that time and energy lost. How long will the fight to claim Bush didn't win go on? All that time and energy will be lost. Then, will people have time or energy to do something productive for a change, or will they just say "screw it, it's too hard". Jeez, let's get this election over so we can go from here.

[lwesty]

12. I Disagree

Using our time and energy to replace the leadership in this country was not a waste of energy and neither is spending our time and energy to make sure the votes are counted correctly. Fighting for democracy is a very constructive use of time and energy. What has been unproductive is using time and energy on promoting a negative message. Check yourself. Faith instead of fear. Hope not despair. Victor...NOT victim!!!!

[Chicago Lulu]

13. I don't agree

I'm proud of the time I spent working for Kerry. I'm proud of the minds I personally changed. And I'm glad that millions of people around the country voted for Kerry.

Time spent working on possible election fraud is not wasted either. If we manage to achieve any of our goals, that will be an accomplishment. What are our goals? Verified voting. An end to deliberate voter suppression. Above all, free and open elections. Do you oppose these goals?

Why would you consider work in this direction to be a waste of time? I suggest you read the letter from Rep Conyers et al. to Kenneth Blackwell, if you doubt the veracity of claims made here. There are serious problems with our election system, and regardless of their cause, we need to pay attention to them. Until they're fixed, or at least brought to light, there can be no "moving on."

If you're not interested, there appear to be numerous other forums at DU on which you can post. I'm very new here, but even I can see that.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi Chicago LuLu!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[reality_bites]

19. You are talking to a barn door.

[buddysmellgood]

31. If you can't answer the questions in Conyers' letter to Blackwell,

or give a satisfying reason for the exit polls being off to the extent that they are in three battleground states and all in favor of Bush, then I don't see any point in voting in national elections. If you consider searching for the truth, whining, then I don't want anything to do with you. I'm interested in living in a democracy.

[tngledwebb]

11. Oh at last,

the WaPo's SR speaks!
Here's my take: :puke:

[libmeayer]

17. This was Steve Rosenthal of ATC who spoke not the

Washington Post staff.

[tngledwebb]

22. Apologies

to Rosenthal and ACT and tho he made some points, he ignored the whole fraud issue. Why?

Re WaPo, for the record, I repeat: :puke:

[EMunster]

24. It's not been an issue, if you're not on here 24 hrs a day...

...that's been the problem.

[righteous1]

26. That's a good point, need to get out more.

Getting the same information only from people of like mind and agenda driven pubs tends to distort ones perspective

[tngledwebb]

28. Sorry, don't get your point.

Clarify?

[Snivi Yllom]

16. the question should not be limited to Ohio, but expanded

to included the entire US.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/05/DEMOCRATS.TMP

several key quotes and passages:

"I wouldn't call the party rudderless ... but our direction has not necessarily been defined,'' said newly elected San Francisco state Sen. Carole Migden, who as a longtime Democratic National Committee member will have a vote when the party selects its new chairman in early February. "It would behoove the party to begin to make inroads geographically to expand the blue states.''
--------------------------------------------------

"I do believe that the Democratic Party is not dead,'' said Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000. "But as my father recently put it, 'just gone fishin'.' "

"And I believe,'' Brazile said, "we may have to change bait.''

----------------------------------------------------
"It's time that the Democratic Party expands its base,'' said Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. "For too long we've been viewed as a Washington, D.C., party, and not a heartland party.''
----------------------------------------------------

"We are at a bleak period,'' said Rep. Brad Carson, a Democrat from Oklahoma who lost a Senate bid last month. "The systemic problems that the Democrat Party has are so profound, that a tactical orientation is not going to help us.''
--------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Jordan, who ran Kerry's campaign through the end of 2003 and helped organize Democratic grassroots efforts through election day, agreed that the party's problems were deeply embedded.

"We are too coastal," Jordan said. "We are too urban. We are too secular. And, most of all, we are too dovish. The public simply doesn't trust us to keep them safe.''
----------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry spokesman Mike McCurry said Friday that on election day, as Kerry was conducting four hours of local television interviews aimed at increasing last-minute turnout, McCurry and top aides John Sasso and Bob Schrum were receiving wildly positive reports from their state directors and encouraging exit polls on their Blackberrys.

McCurry said they didn't dare tell Kerry the good news, for fear he might stop the interviews, but Schrum could not contain his optimism the moment the candidate had finished.

"Let me be the first to call you Mr. President,'' Schrum said to Kerry.

Yet McCurry acknowledged that the giddiness, and indeed the campaign's central strategy, was based on a faulty presumption.

"We believed that we were the majority party,'' McCurry said, adding that had they known how many people would turn out to vote Nov. 2 -- the highest percentage of the voting-age population to cast ballots since the 1968 presidential election -- they would have assumed "we'd be home free."

"That strategy was fundamentally flawed,'' he said.

[BeFree]

21. Quotes from on High

Those quotes are all pretty much useless. Look at who spoke them... All people with reputations to protect. If anyone of them had mentioned fraud, they'd be blacklisted. In other words, they are all prisoners of the corrupt system.

DU, however, is filling up with the true voices of democracy and their words here are much more substantial than those who are bought and paid for.

Our quest to see that each and every vote carries the same weight, is the only quest worth working towards. We can not trust those who could have done something about the elections before now. They are nothing but hurdles to democracy.

[Snivi Yllom]

23. are you kidding me?

The professional DLC DNC types are the first who would be pushing for recounts if there was ANYTHING substantial to the fraud conspiracies being tossed about. You think they enjoy being in the minority party out of power. The only reason Kerry is tipping his foot back into the Ohio post election brouhaha is for political reasons, not because there is a chance he can actually win.

In their buisness its all about being in power. Are they all part of a stinking infested party that needs to be purged, you bet your ass.

There is a difference between making sure each vote is properly counted and claiming widespread fraud without being able to back it up.

[BeFree]

27. Kidding? No

Well, if all those bigshots took the time to listen to what the grassroots is saying, they'd be talking about fraud. But they're not listening, are they?

Spread across these pages the last few weeks are in-numerable stories of fraud. At least that's what I've been reading. It's just a matter of time before a whole lot of those stories are backed up.

There will be, in good time, proof, acceptable in a court of law, of widespread fraud. DU is just the first compilation, and if the bigshots would listen, we'd be a lot further along.

As it is, they are too afraid of losing power by speaking truth, hence they refuse to listen.

[goldengreek]

18. So that's the fable now?

Security? 'Cause this is, like, the third story I've heard so far. Strange -- last minute deciders went for Kerry by a large margin. Why should I believe normal Kerry voters suddenly got skittish and voted for Bush instead?

The gigantic youth vote slammed Bush. Wanna tell me where those "fear" constituents came from, such that they swamped that vote?

This is total bullshit.

[EMunster]

20. I'd respectuflly suggest we stop kicking this...if you'll notice...

...we have two of these same headlines floating up and down in the queue, seemingly all the time. These are like the billboards about giving up. The second one loses steam, they launch another one, again and again, until it'll be caught in your head like a bad song, "Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?"

Turn away from the dark.

[marions ghost]

25. Thanks for posting this, rodeodance

We do need to know what arguments are out there...esp when printed in the Washington Post (OK--it's columnist, not editorial, I know, but editors still make the choice to print). My thing is media coverage, so I am glad you put this up.

I agree with papau post #15 that Rosenthal "explains all the reasons why fraud is likely without saying fraud is likely." In that respect the writer does cast a shadow of doubt and maybe that won't be lost on a perceptive reader-- but in not stating the actual possiblity, IMO the reader will dismiss it.

That's the problem with the article to me. R speaks with such an air of certainty and is SO crystal clear on all the myths BUT ONE--that we have a fair and democratic election system. (I do buy the "myths," and the terrorism argument somewhat, but not the economic argument much). However all of his arguments are undermined by the assumption that the numbers add up in Ohio. Doesn't he know it ain't over?

Bottom line: The election system is a disaster and suppression and potential for fraud is obvious. Rosenthal should look at that before basing his conclusions on the numbers. Esp in a state so relatively "close" in the official tallies. Right, it's another
wimpy "move on" message...