Who lost Ohio..?

[The Vorlon]

From the NY Times...

One of the worst days of Steve Bouchard's 36 years on the planet began, as it would end, in a bleak, second-floor banquet room on Main Street in Columbus. Someone must have thought the exposed brick walls and copper piping would give the room a contemporary feel, but the effect was undone by a sad little mirror ball overhanging a miniature dance floor. ''This is what I'm talking about,'' Bouchard said, sipping from a takeout coffee cup and gesturing at the lights. ''Doesn't this just bring you back to your Studio 54 days?'' It was Election Day in Ohio, and a jumbo flat-screen TV had already been wheeled into place for the Democrats who would gather here, some 15 hours later, to watch the presidential returns come in.

Click for balance of article (long +/- 8 pages but a good read)

Here is an alternative text only link that does not require registration

Text Only Link

[Alcon]

Can you summarize the point of this article? It will not allow me to register.

[The Vorlon]

Can you summarize the point of this article? It will not allow me to register.

Essentially, the Dems and the GOP used fundementally different philosopohical approaches both to "get out the vote" and finding new voters in Ohio, and it contrasts the successes and failures on both sides.

The article is a little short on GOP "nuts and bolts" but is a good overview of what ACT, MOveOn, etc did correctly in Ohio in terms of new voter mobilzation and registration on the Dem side.


One of the worst days of Steve Bouchard's 36 years on the planet began, as it would end, in a bleak, second-floor banquet room on Main Street in Columbus. Someone must have thought the exposed brick walls and copper piping would give the room a contemporary feel, but the effect was undone by a sad little mirror ball overhanging a miniature dance floor. ''This is what I'm talking about,'' Bouchard said, sipping from a takeout coffee cup and gesturing at the lights. ''Doesn't this just bring you back to your Studio 54 days?'' It was Election Day in Ohio, and a jumbo flat-screen TV had already been wheeled into place for the Democrats who would gather here, some 15 hours later, to watch the presidential returns come in.

 Advertisement
 
 
There was always something torturous about Election Day, Bouchard said. After all the months of working more or less around the clock, suddenly it was a struggle to stay busy. Bouchard was the Ohio state director for America Coming Together, the most important and perhaps most controversial group to emerge from the new galaxy of independently financed organizations commonly known as 527's. As such, he presided over the most critical state operation in the largest get-out-the-vote effort ever undertaken to win a single presidential campaign. But once the voting commenced, his work was pretty much finished. ''By the time the clock hits 4 o'clock, what can I do?'' he asked. ''I know guys who will go get a big Delmonico steak on Election Day. I know a guy who actually goes into his office with a movie and a bottle of wine and closes down. Once the plan's been written and you have your field and regional people out there working, you're pretty much done. All I can do is go around and see how things are going.''

But still, he had risen in the dark -- who could sleep? -- and made his way downtown. Around the perimeter of the room, giddy volunteers lined up in pairs behind signs that read Team 1, Team 2 and so on, all the way up to Team 20. Each duo was handed a folder that contained MapQuest directions and a detailed map of a neighborhood with the team's specific street route outlined in Magic Marker, along with an armful of door-hangers reminding people to vote. The same scene was playing itself out in 64 other staging areas around the state. This was the first of three waves of canvassers who would hit the streets before the polls closed at 7:30 p.m.; all told, ACT and its sister organizations in a giant umbrella coalition of liberal groups known as America Votes would put hundreds of paid canvassers and some 20,000 volunteers on Ohio's streets before the day was out.

A year ago it had seemed to Bouchard that it would be impossible to get ordinary people to volunteer for a 527. (The name comes from the provision of the tax code that makes such groups legal.) After all, ACT represented a phenomenon that had never been seen in presidential politics: a campaign without a candidate. Much of its staggering $130 million haul came from wealthy liberals like George Soros and interest groups like the Service Employees International Union, which was ACT's single largest contributor of money and manpower. (The union kicked in more than $26million.) But legal restrictions in the 2002 campaign-finance law created a wall between ACT and both the Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign itself, so that ACT officials were barely allowed to speak to their longtime friends at the campaign. ACT existed separately as an enormous door-to-door campaign without anything like the star quality of an actual, breathing politician.

But ACT had nonetheless evolved into something glamorous, a kind of sleek new political vehicle for the Volvo-driving set. Perhaps because they supported other liberal groups aligned with ACT, like Emily's List or the Sierra Club, or perhaps because ACT had a certain outsider cachet, thousands of volunteers from New York, New England and California chose to work for the organization in Ohio instead of the Kerry campaign; among them, I met a book editor from Manhattan and a massage therapist from Santa Barbara. A few nights earlier, in Cleveland, Bouchard and I visited a basement-level phone bank where the ACT volunteers included the actors Matt Dillon and Timothy Hutton and the actress Eliza Dushku. (''Eliza who?'' I asked. ''Don't know,'' Bouchard shrugged, prompting the actress herself, apparently blessed with good hearing, to turn around and appraise us coldly.) Now, on election morning, he surveyed the ballroom. ''I don't care where these people are from,'' he said, ''as long as they're motivated.''

[CARLHAYDEN]

I refuse to register with the New York Times.

If you could post the article in segments (if its really good) it would be appreciated.

[The Vorlon]

I refuse to register with the New York Times.

If you could post the article in segments (if its really good) it would be appreciated.

Keep your friends close... and your enemies closer

[CARLHAYDEN]

I decline to give the New York Times information about myself.

BTW, did you ever set up the web site you mentioned about six months ago?

[Alcon]

I decline to give the New York Times information about myself.

BTW, did you ever set up the web site you mentioned about six months ago?

You know, you could fake the information. They're not going to send a guy in a suit to your house if you do.

[The Vorlon]

I decline to give the New York Times information about myself.

BTW, did you ever set up the web site you mentioned about six months ago?

Here is a text only link

Text Only Link

Yes I did - I limited it to 2000 subscribers - was too cheap to buy any more bandwidth

[KEmperor]

That was a facinating read.  I suppose the Democrats need to adjust to the new reality that they no longer outnumber Republicans, and simply increasing turnout isn't enough to tilt the election their way.

[12th Doctor]

I had dinner with Charlie Cook the other day.  He said that the funny thing about Ohio was that the Democrats acctually surpased the number of votes they thought they would need for a "sure win" in the state.

[muon2]

Cook is right, and the penultimate paragraph of the Times article is a good summary.

"Therein, perhaps, lies the real lesson from Ohio, and from the election as a whole. From the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and especially after the disputed election of 2000, Democrats operated on the premise that they were superior in numbers, if only because their supporters lived in such concentrated urban communities. If they could mobilize every Democratic vote in America's industrial centers -- and in its populist heartland as well -- then they would win on math alone. Not anymore. Republicans now have their own concentrated vote, and it will probably continue to swell. Turnout operations like ACT can be remarkably successful at corralling the votes that exist, but turnout alone is no longer enough to win a national election for Democrats. The next Democrat who wins will be the one who changes enough minds."

Will that last sentence be a significant requirement three years from now as the field of Democrats for President head into the primaries?

[A18]

I lost Ohio. But I'm sure once all the provisional ballots are counted I'll be ahead.

[12th Doctor]

Cook is right, and the penultimate paragraph of the Times article is a good summary.

"Therein, perhaps, lies the real lesson from Ohio, and from the election as a whole. From the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and especially after the disputed election of 2000, Democrats operated on the premise that they were superior in numbers, if only because their supporters lived in such concentrated urban communities. If they could mobilize every Democratic vote in America's industrial centers -- and in its populist heartland as well -- then they would win on math alone. Not anymore. Republicans now have their own concentrated vote, and it will probably continue to swell. Turnout operations like ACT can be remarkably successful at corralling the votes that exist, but turnout alone is no longer enough to win a national election for Democrats. The next Democrat who wins will be the one who changes enough minds."

Will that last sentence be a significant requirement three years from now as the field of Democrats for President head into the primaries?

You all realize that this means something.  The Deomcrats admit that, according to their turn-out models, they should have won easily.  The fact that the high turn-out no longer means a win for the Democrats means that, after 20 years of dealignment, we finally have a new, Republican realignment.  The majority of the American people now identify with the Republican Party.  

All hail the new Republican Age!

[12th Doctor]

I'm not pulling this out of my ass, by the way.  We have been discussing realignment since the class before the Charlie Cook visit.

[JNB]

 The article is quite accurate. Being in Franklin County myself, I saw how well the Democrats did register people in Franklin county, giving the Democrats their best electoral performance here since the 64 landslide, and that is no minor accomplishment. But where the election was lost was outside the large urban areas. Bush and Kerry broke even in the Dayton area, a poor performance for Kerry considering how hard it has been impacted economically. In Newark and Zanesville, Kerry got demolished. In hard luck areas such as SouthEast Ohio, Kerry outside of the university cityy of Athens also got demolished. The failure to connect with economically distressed workers, somthing that I was surprised to see, is why Kerry lost Ohio.

[danwxman]

 The article is quite accurate. Being in Franklin County myself, I saw how well the Democrats did register people in Franklin county, giving the Democrats their best electoral performance here since the 64 landslide, and that is no minor accomplishment. But where the election was lost was outside the large urban areas. Bush and Kerry broke even in the Dayton area, a poor performance for Kerry considering how hard it has been impacted economically. In Newark and Zanesville, Kerry got demolished. In hard luck areas such as SouthEast Ohio, Kerry outside of the university cityy of Athens also got demolished. The failure to connect with economically distressed workers, somthing that I was surprised to see, is why Kerry lost Ohio.

It is my impression that Franklin county (and probably all of Central Ohio in general) is trending Democrat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Blackwell won Ohio, just like Katherine Harris won Florida.

[J. J.]

George Bush won Ohio.

He did it because a number of people didn't blame him for the economy; they blamed 9-11.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I decline to give the New York Times information about myself.

BTW, did you ever set up the web site you mentioned about six months ago?

Here is a text only link
Text Only Link

Yes I did - I limited it to 2000 subscribers - was too cheap to buy any more bandwidth

If you have any subscriber space available, please let me know.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not good at maths, but I don't think that 37% is a majority...

Could both sides quit spinning? It's irritating...
---
As to why Kerry lost Ohio: I agree with JNB. I'll add that Kerry's last rally should have been in Dayton or Eastern Ohio (Portsmouth or Zanesville. Maybe Steubenville)

The Democrats need to learn the hard lesson that Labour learned in the '80's: when a large amount of you're natural supporters are not voting for you you need to find out why and do something about it... even if it means abandoning a smaller group of voters.
---
Re: Higher Turnout... I personally think that the higher turnout *did* help Kerry. If turnout was as low as it was in 2000, I'm pretty sure that Bush would have won big.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not good at maths, but I don't think that 37% is a majority...

Could both sides quit spinning? It's irritating...
---
As to why Kerry lost Ohio: I agree with JNB. I'll add that Kerry's last rally should have been in Dayton or Eastern Ohio (Portsmouth or Zanesville. Maybe Steubenville)

The Democrats need to learn the hard lesson that Labour learned in the '80's: when a large amount of you're natural supporters are not voting for you you need to find out why and do something about it... even if it means abandoning a smaller group of voters.
---
Re: Higher Turnout... I personally think that the higher turnout *did* help Kerry. If turnout was as low as it was in 2000, I'm pretty sure that Bush would have won big.

It is not spin Al.  First off, it is a fact that most people who are "Independent" in fact align themselves with one party or another.

Second, in the past, high turnout favored the Democrats because most people identified with that party.  This past year, highturnout benefited the Republicans.  In order to win, the Democrats are now in the possition that the Republicans were in all that year, they have to figure out a way to steal voters away from the other party, or depress turn-out.

You know what that means, Al?  Realignment.  I'm not the only one who is saying so either.  I hate to pull names, but my professor Dr. David Kozak, who is called the "John Madden of American Politics" by Charlie Cook, also believes that there has been a realignment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is not spin Al.  First off, it is a fact that most people who are "Independent" in fact align themselves with one party or another.

Yes and no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with that. Just because there was a higher turnout, doesn't actually mean that the people who voted this year but didn't in 2000 were responsible for the % increase in self ID'd Republicans (IIRC % of self ID'd Democrats was pretty static from 2000. Could be wrong).
There's a strong case that a lot of 2000 voters flipped instead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When? I don't see any evidence of most voters aligning themselves with either party.
I see a lot of evidence that both Parties are failing to please a very large section of the electorate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Isn't cynicism fun?

[12th Doctor]

It is not spin Al.  First off, it is a fact that most people who are "Independent" in fact align themselves with one party or another.

Yes and no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with that. Just because there was a higher turnout, doesn't actually mean that the people who voted this year but didn't in 2000 were responsible for the % increase in self ID'd Republicans (IIRC % of self ID'd Democrats was pretty static from 2000. Could be wrong).
There's a strong case that a lot of 2000 voters flipped instead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When? I don't see any evidence of most voters aligning themselves with either party.
I see a lot of evidence that both Parties are failing to please a very large section of the electorate.

It doesn't matter, Al.  If both parties play a game of maximum turnout and one party clear defeats the other and the defeated party admits they they turned-out every vote they could possibly have, as is the case here, then what we have is a clear alignment towards a party.

If you hadn't read earlier, we noted that many sources have said that that in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin and many other states, the Democrats admitted that their calculations showed that they had every vote they thought they needed for a clear victory and that they turned out every vote that they had.

If the Democrats turned out every vote they had and still lost, that means that the Republicans are the dominate party for the first time since the New Deal.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Except we're talking about Ohio, a state that's always been assumed to have a slight Republican tilt. Might I point out Ohio still voted more Democratic than the national average.

Using your logic supersoulty though, then will you at least admit Minnesota is a Dem-leaning state?