Democrats post big gains in voter registration

[MattusMaximus]

This is one of the major reasons why I've been saying on so many threads that McCain and the GOP is in trouble...

Democrats post big gains in voter registration

Five days a week, Linda Graham trolls tattered neighborhoods of this once thriving steel city outside Pittsburgh for unregistered voters she can sign up as Democrats — one of thousands of unknown volunteers whose work outside the limelight has already altered the basic arithmetic of the November election.

The epic nomination battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton helped put millions more Democrats on the voter rolls while Republican registration declined. Now Graham, 45, has taken three months of unpaid leave from her job at Pittsburgh's Central Blood Bank in the hope of adding to those gains before the presidential vote. ...

... Since the last federal election in 2006, volunteers like Graham combined with the enthusiasm generated by the Obama-Clinton struggle to add more than 2 million Democrats to voter rolls in the 28 states that register voters according to party affiliation. The Republicans have lost nearly 344,000 thousand voters in the same states. ...

And I would also point out that most polls are only polling previously registered or likely voters. Most of these newly registered voters will not be taken into account, since they haven't yet voted in a general election.

It is likely one of the reasons we see such a disparity between polls and prediction markets (all such markets give Obama a big advantage).

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[leftysergeant]

totally valid point.

I would, however, give it at least the weekend to see if the rate of new D registrations goes up.

After the big audience that Grampa and Caribou Barbie drew, if the Ds register people at a higher rate, it means the speeches, though widely viewed, bombed.

 

[Pookster]

It is likely one of the reasons we see such a disparity between polls and prediction markets (all such markets give Obama a big advantage).

Thoughts? Comments?

I don't understand what you mean by disparity in the polls and prediction markets. If you're comparing the closeness of the scores, then you're comparing apples and oranges. The prediction market isn't supposed to be a guess on the percentage of the vote.

Also, I wouldn't call a 57-60% prediction of winning a big advantage. Yes, it's better than a tossup, but not by a whole lot.

 

[Wangler]

totally valid point.

I would, however, give it at least the weekend to see if the rate of new D registrations goes up.

After the big audience that Grampa and Caribou Barbie drew, if the Ds register people at a higher rate, it means the speeches, though widely viewed, bombed.

Or, it could mean the BO crowd are worried, and have renewed voter registration efforts in order to forestall the ever-growing snowball of Republican voters.

 

[leftysergeant]

Or, it could mean the BO crowd are worried, and have renewed voter registration efforts in order to forestall the ever-growing snowball of Republican voters.

Care to show some evidence of a significant bump for M/P after the convention and their speeches, in fund-raising or registration?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I don't understand what you mean by disparity in the polls and prediction markets. If you're comparing the closeness of the scores, then you're comparing apples and oranges. The prediction market isn't supposed to be a guess on the percentage of the vote.

Actually, yes it can be. There are two things to look at in a prediction market. One is what most people on these threads have been discussing - winner-take-all. That is basically betting on who will win. All markets currently favor Obama as the winner (that is, most people are betting he'll win).

The other thing to look at is called the vote-share-market. This is essentially a prediction of the popular vote on Election Day. The only market that I've seen which works on this is the Iowa Electronic Market, and their current numbers are Obama/McCain 54/46. This is a significant difference from all polls so far.

Incidentally, you can also track the history of the vote-share-market on the IEM here.

If anyone else knows where there is another vote-share-market, please let me know. I'm interested in tracking as many as possible.

Also, I wouldn't call a 57-60% prediction of winning a big advantage. Yes, it's better than a tossup, but not by a whole lot.

Again, look at the IEM or even Wikipedia and read up on the difference between winner-take-all and vote-share-markets. Either way, all markets show that McCain is at a disadvantage.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Or, it could mean the BO crowd are worried, and have renewed voter registration efforts in order to forestall the ever-growing snowball of Republican voters.

Did you even read the article? It is totally at odds with what you wrote.

I, too, would like to see some evidence of your claim.

 

[Wangler]

Did you even read the article? It is totally at odds with what you wrote.

I, too, would like to see some evidence of your claim.

Mattus, sorry did not read the article yet.

My post was in response to leftysergeants post alone.

 

[geni]

Eh not that significant. The great youth vote and the like have had the potential to win it for the dems a number of times. So far when the final results came in they didn't vote.

 

[gdnp]

The other trend I am hoping for is that for the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country I think the young voters may actually show up.

 

[Wangler]

Care to show some evidence of a significant bump for M/P after the convention and their speeches, in fund-raising or registration?

Leftysergeant, I did not mean to imply that there was a large surge in Repub. registration. What I meant was that there is more than one possible reason for increases in Democratic registrations after the RNC.

One of those reasons would be an astute, strategically minded Dem. party reacting to keep abreast of any potential rise in Rep. party registrations.

 

[Wangler]

Eh not that significant. The great youth vote and the like have had the potential to win it for the dems a number of times. So far when the final results came in they didn't vote.

True, but they didn't have a McCain/Palin ticket back then, did they?

 

[geni]

The other trend I am hoping for is that for the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country I think the young voters may actually show up.

If they were going to vote they would have done so in 2004. Turnout was up but not that much.

 

[geni]

True, but they didn't have a McCain/Palin ticket back then, did they?

McCain/Palin probably isn't too relivant to the youth vote. Obama might just be but if I was a dem stratergist I wouldn't have them built into my election stratergy on any significant level.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Leftysergeant, I did not mean to imply that there was a large surge in Repub. registration. What I meant was that there is more than one possible reason for increases in Democratic registrations after the RNC.

One of those reasons would be an astute, strategically minded Dem. party reacting to keep abreast of any potential rise in Rep. party registrations.

Wangler, read the article. The surge in Democratic voter registration hasn't taken place since the RNC, it's been going all year. One of the reasons is because the Democratic primaries went on so long, and voter registration kept pace with them.

 

[MattusMaximus]

McCain/Palin probably isn't too relivant to the youth vote. Obama might just be but if I was a dem stratergist I wouldn't have them built into my election stratergy on any significant level.

It's called get-out-the-vote (GOTV). When you have more people registered with your party, you have a greater potential to GOTV. The Republicans certainly take such things into account, so why not the Democrats? It's basic election strategy: register more people for your side, then GOTV on Election Day.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

McCain/Palin probably isn't too relivant to the youth vote.

OK, I'll bite...what makes Obama more "relevant" to the youth?

 

[MattusMaximus]

If they were going to vote they would have done so in 2004. Turnout was up but not that much.

Kerry in 2004 was a tool. I was barely inspired enough to vote for him.

Obama is no Kerry.

 

[gdnp]

If they were going to vote they would have done so in 2004. Turnout was up but not that much.

I don't think Kerry energized them the way Obama has. Not even close.

 

[geni]

OK, I'll bite...what makes Obama more "relevant" to the youth?

McCain/palin are from the POV of the youth vote just another set of republican politicians. They don't really offer or threaten anything that Bush didn't. Obama seems to be better at pulling crowds of young people than both kerry and gore. So we have no reason to expect the youth vote to change due to McCain/palin (which is probably a good thing for them since a large republican youth vote is unlikely) but there is the posibility that there might be a change due to obama. Not however something the dems can rely on.