Colorado

Bumped. Thanks to Project Vote for two great and relevant diaries while I'm away for the holiday. --Mike

The United States saw dramatic increases in voting from traditionally underrepresented groups, including minorities and young voters, according to a new analysis released this week by Project Vote. If borne out by systematic analysis of the voter rolls, this change in the electorate is evidence of the power of successful voter registration drives and an indication of the strong inclination of voters to participate in the process when candidates address their issues.

Countering the conventional wisdom that the voting population on November 4 did not change as dramatically as predicted, the analysis, The Demographics of Voters in America’s 2008 General Election: A Preliminary Assessment, demonstrates that African-Americans, Latinos, and young voters cast millions more ballots in 2008 than in 2004.

“The analysis estimated that about 5.8 million more minorities voted in this year's presidential election than in 2004, while nearly 1.2 million fewer whites went to the polls,” wrote Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers. “The figures appear to reflect the success of Project Vote and other liberal voter registration groups in registering millions of young, poor, elderly and minority Americans to vote in recent election cycles.”

According to the analysis, African-Americans cast nearly three million more ballots nationwide in 2008 than in 2004—an increase of 21 percent. The total votes cast by Latinos went up by 16 percent—more than 1.5 million—and young Americans aged 18-29 cast 1.8 million more votes, a nine percent increase. That the overall totals did not increase significantly compared to 2004 was in part due to a decrease in voting by white voters.

In addition to presenting an analysis of ballots cast from the United States as a whole, the memo by Project Vote consultant and Ph.D. candidate Jody Herman and Barnard College political science professor Lorraine Minnite examines several key states in detail, including Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

The Project Vote data is preliminary, and does not speak to “turnout,” which is traditionally a measure of the percentage of the voting-eligible population that shows up to vote. Project Vote expects to release a full report on turnout in the 2008 election in 2009 when government survey data on the voting-eligible population comes available. Yet, this preliminary analysis indicates that a significant shift occurred this year.

“There is no doubt that this surge in voting by Americans of color and young people had a powerful impact on the outcome of the election,” said Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote, in a press release issued today.

“Separate opinion polls and election results themselves indicate that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans and Latinos backed Obama,” according to Gordon.

“Thus, the appearance of an African-American presidential candidate with a sympathetic message may have prompted the nation's minorities to vote at levels approaching white voters -- if final state vote counts do not upend Project Vote's figures,” wrote AlterNet's Steve Rosenfeld last week. “Its findings also suggest the U.S. electorate is not an inflexible assembly of voting constituencies, but has segments that are mobilized -- or demobilized -- depending on the year, candidate and message,”

In an email exchange with Rosenfeld, Frank Sharry, executive director of pro-immigration reform group, America's Voice, said “neither the turnout increase among Latinos -- nor the swing in support to Democrats -- were surprising.”

“Telling people you don't like them and don't want them is not a winning electoral strategy,” wrote Sharry. “But that is what the Republican Party has been saying to immigrants, Latino immigrants in particular, for the past four years. No surprise, then, that record numbers of Latinos turned out in 2008 and that the swing away from Republicans to Democrats among Latino immigrants in particular was dramatic.”

As you saw on the 2008 Youth Vote Map, Colorado is one of the states for which we have no exit poll data on young voters. Early in the evening on election night, CNN reported exit poll data showing Obama losing the Colorado youth vote 47 - 53%. Based on that data, the NY Post wrote:

Colorado was the only state that Obama flipped from Bush's 2004 result without winning the youth vote - he lost 47-53 among that age group there, perhaps due to the large military presence in that state.

The story was also picked up by Politicker.

Unfortunately (or, fortunately), the story turned out to be false. Something was dramatically wrong with the exit polling data, and before the night was through CNN replaced the 47 - 53% youth figures with "N/A." As of this writing, the exit poll still shows "N/A" for its 18 - 29 data.

No one seems to know what went wrong (though I've got a few inquiries out at the moment), however the folks at New Era Colorado were able to get a local pollster to go on record about state polls leading up to election day. Here's what they had to say about the Colorado youth vote:

RBI conducted a number of statewide surveys among likely voters over the course of the 2008 election season and Obama was never behind in the Colorado youth vote. In fact, RBI's last statewide survey just days before the election showed Obama receiving over 60% of the 18-34 vote.

Yes, RBI's numbers are for 18 - 34, not 18 - 29, but it seems unlikely that the numbers would be substantially off considering that the Gen Xers in the 30 - 34 category tended to be more conservative, rather than more liberal. Any bias they introduced into the data would likely swing in McCain's favor, not Obama's.

It always seemed fishy that Colorado youth would swing towards McCain. The state is trending blue for a while now, it's got a great progressive infrastructure, and a growing Hispanic population - all recipes for Democratic support. It's good to know that is likely still the case. I'll post more if I get a good explanation for why the exit polling was so flawed.

Some reading material when you have time to take a break from the craziness:

• Music for Democracy has launched its "Be the Change" project:
  

  Hip-hop stars Chingy, Q and MC Lyte have joined forces with two-time Rock and Roll Hall of Fame singer-songwriter Graham Nash in an innovative get-out-the-vote effort that aims to mobilize young voters for election 2008 by leveraging the power of social networks. On November 4, music fans who sign up for "Be the Change" will receive an automated call from the musician of their choice to remind them to go to the polls. A selected number of voters will receive calls from the musicians themselves.

• A recap of why Election 2008 deserves the "historic" label, especially given the generational tensions.
• A commentary on why youth will show up at the polls this year.
• Attention political junkies: Google has created an elections map complete with results since 1980 for each state.
  
• Andy Kroll writes a couple (#1 and #2) posts on pushback on the Hip Hop Republicans and what they're doing to change the culture and approach the contemporary GOP has taken over the last decade or two.
• Want to watch the election results with some fellow liberals? Living Liberally lets you know where you can go.
• 35,000 Colorado mail-in votes from newly-registered voters could be nullified, thanks to confusion over the need to include an ID.
• Obama's not the only politician popular among young voters.
• A public-private partnership to fix our ever-mounting problems. A Green New Deal. Sounds pretty good, huh? Read more.
• Anna Quindlen at Newsweek has her own commentary on the potential of Millennial voters on Election Day

Word is leaking out about more attempts to suppress the student vote, this time in Colorado and New Mexico, two battleground states that went for Bush in 2004 and look to be swinging blue this year:

Washington - Colorado Democrats accused a Republican county clerk Wednesday of falsely informing Colorado College that students from outside the state could not register to vote if their parents claimed them as a dependent on their tax returns.

At a news conference in Colorado Springs, Democrats also criticized Robert Balink, the El Paso County clerk and recorder, who was a delegate to the Republican National Convention, for taking other steps they said would dampen voting by college students, who are expected to heavily favor Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

"When election officials spread false information about who is eligible to vote and remove, not add, polling places, we need to be concerned that eligible voters will be denied their right to vote," said Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party.

Sujatha from the Student PIRGs did a little ninja work on this. Check out what she found:

Sujatha Jahagirdar, program director of the Student Public Interest Research Group's New Voters Project in Washington, said she encountered similar problems when she posed as a college freshman last week and called registrar's offices in Greenville County, S.C., home to Furman University, and York County, S.C., where Winthrop University is located.

Jahagirdar said a Greenville official asked if her parents listed her as a dependent, and when she replied in the affirmative, told her: "You should vote where your parents live." She said a York County representative asked if she was in town for school, and when she said yes, stated flatly: "You can't vote here."

This election is going to be won on the ground, and it's really a matter of whether or not the voter registration advantage Obama is building - particularly among young and first time voters - can hold up attempts to suppress the vote by Republicans, either through outright disenfranchisement, or by subtle discouragements such as long lines caused by a lack of polling places. If you encounter this in your neighborhood, remember to get in touch with the people at Student Voting Rights.

Hi,

I am online now. Happy to answer any questions on any topic.

Yesterday I announced my plan to reduce gas prices:

GAS PRICES: WHAT TO DO?

Yesterday I outlined some tough actions I will take if elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to lower gas prices and move our nation towards energy independence and green energy policies.

While big oil conglomerates are recording record profits, middle- and low-income families, consumers and businesses are struggling with staggering gas prices at the pump and the ‘oil tax,' which is increasing the price of everything from groceries to airline tickets. The American economy is gravely threatened.

I will stand up to the big oil and gas industry if I get to Congress. I will fight for solutions to bring down soaring gas prices and halt the price gouging. I will push to end the tax subsidies, the giveaways and the rollbacks of royalties that big oil and gas have extracted from taxpayers. Congress has been far too timid. These are solutions we desperately need today if we are to make the investments in a green future in America.

There’s a real difference in this campaign. In the State Senate, one of my opponents sponsored legislation that was called the ‘Oil and Gas Dream Bill’ by newspapers. Now she’s complaining about $4 per gallon gas prices, but what did she expect after doing the bidding of the oil and gas lobby? I'll take a different approach and stand up to the special interests added. My career has been based on bringing new solutions to old problems, and I will do that in Congress. Consumers have been held hostage by oil and gas companies for too long.

Some things that I support:

• Strategic Petroleum Reserve –release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to bring market prices down immediately, and maybe additional future releases to drive speculators out of the market.
• Tough anti-trust laws and enforcement – Congress must act forcefully to end market manipulation and illegal, anti-competitive practices in the oil industry. We need new antitrust legislation and enforcement to do it. There is too much concentration in the oil and gas industry today. I will push the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to look closely at gas prices, and conduct thorough investigations for illegal market manipulation by the oil and gas giants, and swift, tough enforcement of penalties. More competitive markets will bring lower gas prices.

Mergers – like that between Exxon and Mobil ten years ago — have created entities that are too big and too powerful, and have directly resulted in higher gas prices at the pump, as was confirmed by a 2004 Government Accountability Office report. These corporate giants produce the crude oil, own the refineries, and sell the gasoline at the pump. As the FTC itself admitted in 2001, when oil companies own the refineries, it makes it simple to manipulate market prices. We need old-fashioned trust busting. We need new a new generation of anti-trust legislation to deal with this new environment, and tough enforcement.
• End tax giveaways to big oil – I support the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2008, HR 5351, legislation to strip $18 billion in oil company tax breaks that were enacted in 2004. I will push for repeal of all existing oil company tax breaks. We should be putting that money into solar, wind, alternative fuels and energy efficiency.
• Regulating energy exchanges – We need tough new regulation, oversight and enforcement of OTC as well as regulated energy exchange markets. Financial speculators are driving up the price of oil. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) must be strengthened and criminal sanctions should be enforced on speculators who violate the law.
• Protect public lands from drilling – Further drilling, exploitation and despoliation of wilderness areas like the Roan Plateau and ANWR proposed by the oil industry is not the answer. I strongly oppose the Bureau of Land Management’s current plan to expand gas-drilling leases in the Roan Plateau. Instead, I want to strengthen environmental protection of our pristine public lands. The oil and gas industry is exploiting the gas price crisis to rush along leases on our federal lands and argue for additional exploitation. I believe that these are false solutions and only feed our reliance on fossil fuels.
• Get the special interest money out of politics – The price of gas and the neglect of clean energy policies in Congress is the direct result of too much special interest money in politics. The oil industry pours millions of dollars into political campaigns every year. Too many members of Congress fear them. I am not afraid to stand up to them. That is also why we need, and I will fight for, public financing of campaigns and ‘Clean Money Clean Elections’ legislation in Congress. I am the only candidate for the 2nd Congressional District not accepting money from Political Action Committees (PACs).

For too long, our country’s energy policy has been written by and for the oil and gas industry. That must end. I will work with allies in and out Congress, like Public Citizen, and with citizens across the 2nd District to accomplish these urgent goals.

At The Washington Post, Chris Cillizza takes a look at the new top ten swing states. This idea of a "swing state" is a little dated, especially since the Democrats adopted the "50 State Strategy" and saw positive results in 2006. But at the end of the day, even if we do compete in all states, a few will be more competitive than others, and it is inevitable that these states will receive an inordinate amount of attention from the media, the campaigns, and 527 organizations looking to influence the outcome.

That said, here are your new swing states. Learn them well.

This looks somewhat familiar. Remember this from November 2004? These are the states where John Kerry would have won the election if only voters under 30 had cast their ballots:

I can't prove any direct connection or major demographic shift in these states at this point, but it definitely bears more looking into. It's also nice to see some states with active youth organizing making the list of "new" swing states (Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico).