Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rise in GOP Numbers May Impact Elections / AP

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:21 PM
Original message
Rise in GOP Numbers May Impact Elections / AP
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Voters in recent surveys are more frequently describing themselves as Republicans, a shift that could affect November elections up and down the ticket if it continues.

"In some measure, it's a reflection of the great success of the Republican campaign in late August and early September," said Andrew Kohut, a director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "Many of the people who considered themselves independents may be feeling better about the Republican Party."


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040924/ap_on_el_pr/leaning_gop


OKAY... Look at the url I've posted for this before you click it. Look at the extension: ap_on_el_pr/leaning_gop. Now, if I was a paranoid person, I'd say that this story came from a press release, rather than a real, investigated story. ap=assoc. press. on_el= on the election. pr/leaning_gop= PRESS RELEASE. I always look at the urls for clues. This came from the GOP... guaranteed.

I don't really buy their reasoning.. because what's TRULY happening is that the "INDEPENDENTS" who were mostly disgrunted Republicans that fell for Ross Perot's ultra-republican, almost libertarian jive, are now moving back to the GOP, where they were before, because there is NO LONGER AN INDEPENDENT party to speak of. After Perot, and except for the 2000 season primaries, most Independents voted Republican. Those that saw themselves as independent of the Democrats, usually went Green..

Why, oh WHY can't these so-called political writers do their homework, rather than print these stupid ass press releases.

AND!! Oh.. notice on the end of the article, if it's still there: (SUBS second graf to correct word in quote to 'campaign,' sted 'gains') That is a note to the typist or person that input it. It's NOT dealing with a typo, it's someone CHANGING the quote to look better for the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
salib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. In Texas
We are seeing the reverse trend recently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Chronicler Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Could we run a Texas Dem in '08/'12?
Could we run a Texas Dem for prez in '08 if Kerry doesn't win? Or '12 if he does? It'd be great to make inroads in that state. Last Dem to win it was Carter. It is rich in EC votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Maybe
But to be honest, I do not think there is a very strong enough one right now. We need to concentrate on rebuilding the party here so those who are moving our way have people to vote for. Also, I want to see Hillary run. First woman President and first First Lady President (well, except for Wilson's wife, maybe).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Chronicler Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Would running Hillary hurt us in the South/midwest?
I sometimes think we need to go in a different direction. We keep getting killed in the middle of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Nope. She it great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chomskyite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. She'd pick up not one state
They hate her here. Blame talk radio, Fox and her rather tone-deaf political style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Chronicler Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I agree. I think we would get slaughtered through there.
I'm sick of being totally non-competitive in vast regions of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. I like HIllary a lot
Edited on Fri Sep-24-04 09:05 PM by janeaustin
but I don't think she would win many states.

We need to win, rebuild, win again, rebuild and win again.




(left out a word.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. Please don't believe every stupid line you're fed.
WHERE are these new Republicans coming from? What group suddenly decided that George is dandy? White men? He already had 'em. White women? Somebody is lying to you.

WHO are these new voters? WHO hasn't been screwed by BushCo?

WHAT made them decide? The bursting economy? The plethora of jobs? The feelings of peace and prosperity radiating from Washington?

WHEN did this radical change occur?

WHY did they decide that more of the same or worse was a good idea?

HOW were they convinced?

Who do you know who didn't vote for George last time, who IS voting for him this time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. my guess is
it is a reworked press release from Rove. Lazy reporters do this all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
36. WHERE are these new Republicans coming from? What group suddenly decided t
The white men I know can't stand Bush.

I'm talking about an engineer, an ex-Marine photographer, an underemployed MBA, an accountant (ex-Navy), and a gun-toting small business owner.

These are all Texans, incidentally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. The Lazy Press
often cops their stories from press releases or someone else's research. these days "investigative reporter" means someone else does the "investigating."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. This is certainly true. I worked in one newsroom where the executive
producer used to talk derisively about "the Cincinatti rewrite." WHY he called it that, I don't know. But that was his put-down name for a lazy newswriting job, wherein somebody did exactly what you describe - merely regurgitating some press release or piece of wire copy, not digging into it, at all, not bothering to read past the first three paragraphs (LOTS of good, relevant, sometimes juicy nuggets down at the bottom of a long a-wire story), or even use the contact number to try and collect more information or a broader perspective. And heaven forbid they make an extra call to seek out a detailed balancing view from another side. My apologies to anybody here from Cincinatti - he probably worked there at some point in his life, and spotted a lazy writer there, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. This reminds me of the NPR "undecided voter"
who has been commenting on Morning Edition recently. Today I find out the fellow voted for Reagan and Bush I previously. They didn't say who he voted for in '96. And we're supposed to believe that this guy is 'undecided', that is, in the middle on things? That he might not have a tad bit of prejudice towards conservative causes?

They should have me on, if they want a voting record. I've voted Dem, third party, and even for a Republican (John Anderson) once.

But this is the sort of slanting I've come to expect from all media outlets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. Plus the first thing I looked at was "AP"..
so I know right away that the sucker is doctored!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. If the race is tide and the Repubs have such control on the media
You have to say that we do pretty good with what we've got. They have 24/7 talk radio bashing Kerry, they have faux news and cnn, they have the ap doing stories for them. If they didn't control the message chimpy would really be in the tank since the truth would be told more often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlemingsGhost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. Smoke and mirrors, folks.
Nothing at the core but anger, fear and the fanatical grip of denial. Illusions and delusions is all they ever had. Shame on us all for allowing it to fester so long.

Smoke and mirrors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. did they get this from sinclair too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. hooey. they're blowing smoke up their own @$$es.
i don't believe a word of it. good puppy! good puppy press! sit! roll over! play dead! oooh, that's my good boy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shockingelk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. polls say most like Dem congress:
3 out of the four generic congress polls this month favor dems. Garbade article, it just coincides with people saying they'll vote for Bush.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2004.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. If Im any measure
Edited on Fri Sep-24-04 06:33 PM by Ksec
Ive personally signed up seven people who are strong Dems. They have never voted before despite the fact that they are in their 30s and 40s. They are typical of this area . Blue collar limited education, and too busy trying to pay bills to worry about voting. I simply explained what is happening and then had them fill out registration papers. Before my talk they told me they believed that there was no difference in the two. A common myth I hear alot around here. btw I live in eastern Ohio. Northern reaches of the Appalachias.

Thats seven people who never voted before nor have ever been polled who will be voting for Kerry.

I wonder how many more like me out there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
37. You go! Congratulations on your registration results!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. It's an RNC press release alright
I got it yesterday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. You're kidding! I was right???
It PAYS to look at those urls.. you learn a lot. I wonder.. did your press release use the word: gains or campaign in that "2nd graf" as noted on the bottom?? Just curious who changed the quote?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
15. I call BS
crock of sh*t story designed to allow the election to be stolen through BBV.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
childslibrarian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
18. All time most idiotic article I have ever read
Edited on Fri Sep-24-04 06:42 PM by childslibrarian
The lack of logic in it suggests the author was hallucinating when he wrote it. Rated it a 1. Would have given it a zero if given the option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
19. I'm not clear on something...
Aren't the voter registration rolls public records? Wouldn't it be better for an AP writer to find out what the actual registrations are for each party instead of quoting the results of a poll? This sounds about as stupid as polling people as to what they think the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at today and then publish that number instead of the real number. I know that some people can switch parties and not change their registration, but it seems to me the most scientific way to find out if the GOP really is gaining in numbers is to check recent voter registrations.

"There's a hidden Republican vote that came out after Sept. 11, faded and appears in the weeks since the Republican National Convention to have emerged again," said Thomas Riehle, president of Ipsos-Public Affairs.

So did the election happen already? Last I checked it was November 2nd.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. Yah.. no kidding...
The RNC are regular psychics, aren't they? Just more lazy journalism, quoting press releases. Trying to demoralize the Democrats... not working!! That which does not push us over the edge, makes us stronger.. or something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
22. Do they mean those Dems who found they'd been registered as Republicans
During the primaries?

That happened to a lotta people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sonicx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
23. Party Affliation is not that fluid
Edited on Fri Sep-24-04 06:59 PM by sonicx
The only recent time there was a major shift in party affiation was about a 2 year period after 9/11. the number of dems and reps evened out a bit back them, but dems have regained almost all their lead since.

The fact that the late 2004 election polls have more republicans surveryed is no proof they've ahead of us. These polls are 2/3 day, 1000 person, telephone polls. you can't get a real look at party affliation with like that. Pew does seperate carefully crafted surveys for this issue...

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

we are ahead by 4%. the sample size of that survey is nearly 20,000. the recent election polls are about 700-1,000 each.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
24. Yeah. Right. They must really be scared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
28. Funny that this comes out
a few days after the story about the huge numbers of 18-24 year olds registering in key battleground states.

Lets stack up the numbers of 'more people identifying themsleves as republican' to the actual number of people REGISTERING as democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
29. Statistics don't lie, but polls do. Nationwide, far more new voters have
registered as Democrats than republicans.

Here is an example of one state, Oregon, which Gore only won by 6,700 votes in 2000:

New registration figures from the Oregon Elections Division show that 74,403 people have added their names to the voter rolls from January to Sept. 1. And of those new voters, 33,667 are Democrats, while 16,801 have signed on as Republicans. The rest have registered as independents or minor-party members.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/16/d1.cr.voters.0916.html

That's a 2 to 1 margin of Dems over thugs.

I think that PEW poll is FOS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_arbusto Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. 2 to 1 Dem in MD too
The most recent figures are from June but they still say Dem/GOP 2:1. I smell Bushit.
http://www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/vrar/0004_06.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
30. Ho-Hum.. more crap to justify a Diebolded Election
just like the bogus poll numbers and all the spinners on TV..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
31. I remember studying imaginary numbers in college! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
32. GOP
The only way to weaken the GOP is to destroy the Nazi Karl Hitler Rove. He owns the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
33. went over to the PEW website, and they were mis-quoted
www.people-press.org

"The responsiveness of partisanship in the current political environment can also be seen across multiple national surveys conducted over the past month. In early August, on the heels of the Democratic convention in Boston, more voters identified themselves as Democrats than Republicans in five major national polls (see chart). However, a month later, in the wake of the Republican convention, each of these polls registered a net shift toward the GOP in partisan identification."
I think the quote referred to in the quote was from an interview but again, I suspect part of it was taken out of context and cut to fit the intent of this GOP press release

copyright from people and press website

Party Affiliation: What it is and What it Isn't

Released: September 23, 2004

During every presidential election, questions arise over the results of political polls and how those surveys are conducted. This year's hot topic is the partisan composition of the leading national polls. Politicians and pundits alike now scrutinize a survey sample's partisan split as closely as the horse-race results. Surveys that are deemed to have "too many" Republican or Democratic respondents are widely viewed as biased in favor of George Bush or John Kerry.

These assertions reflect fundamental misunderstanding of party affiliation and how it is measured by polling organizations. Party affiliation is derived from a question typically found at the end of a survey questionnaire, in which respondents are asked how they regard themselves in politics at the moment. In Pew Research Center surveys, the question asks: "In politics today, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat or Independent?"

This question is not intended to measure how respondents are registered, how they have voted in the past, or how they have thought of themselves throughout most of their lives. Like most other questions on public opinion surveys, it is intended to measure current feelings about politics ­ in this case, their feelings of affiliation or disaffection with the major political parties.

Given that it is an attitude and not a personal characteristic, it is not at all comparable to race, ethnicity, gender, age, education, or other demographic markers that are routinely used to check on the representativeness of surveys. Further, long-term tracking and analysis of party identification finds that, for a number of reasons, it varies a good deal from survey to survey.

Party identification is not a particularly stable attitude ­ many people go back and forth on how they regard themselves. When respondents are surveyed and then re-interviewed at a later date, substantial minorities give different answers. In November 2000, after the presidential election, Pew re-interviewed 1,113 voters who had participated in a survey in September of that year. In the period between the surveys, 18% of voters answered the party affiliation question differently than they had just two months earlier. And not much time needs to pass in order to see this sort of instability. In the 1988 post-election study, voters were called back less than three weeks after the initial contact, and fully 16% changed party labels in that time.

Second, party affiliation can and often does vary in response to major events. Surveys by the Gallup Organization since the beginning of last year show considerable fluctuation from poll to poll in party affiliation. There is no clear pattern in many of these changes, but Republicans made a decided, though short-lived, gain in party affiliation in December 2003, following the capture of Saddam Hussein. By early January, the partisan composition of Gallup's sample had returned to about the same proportions as in early December (see chart, pg. 3). There also are indications that the percentage identifying with the GOP declined last spring, as the situation in Iraq worsened, but recovered somewhat over the summer.

While many of the bumps and bounces in party identification are short-lived responses to events, there also are longer term trends that reflect broader changes in public sentiment. For example, Pew's analysis of party identification trends for the period September 2001-October 2003 found that the Republicans had erased the Democrats' long-term advantage in party affiliation.

However, by the middle of this year, the Democrats had once again gained a slight edge in partisan identification (based on Pew polls conducted between January and July), again highlighting the inherent fluidity of this measure. A similar pattern was evident in 1994, after the GOP gained control of Congress for the first time in four decades. After the Republicans' mid-term victory, the percentage of people whoe identified with the GOP rose steadily in the early months of 1995. But the trend came to a fairly abrupt halt in the fall of that year, as the Newt Gingrich-led Congress fell from public favor with the government shutdown.

The responsiveness of partisanship in the current political environment can also be seen across multiple national surveys conducted over the past month. In early August, on the heels of the Democratic convention in Boston, more voters identified themselves as Democrats than Republicans in five major national polls (see chart). However, a month later, in the wake of the Republican convention, each of these polls registered a net shift toward the GOP in partisan identification.

The consistency of the movement across each of these major surveys in this time period suggests that partisanship was not a constant factor this summer, and any efforts to "fix" the partisan balance would be misreading the flow of public opinion.

Partisan identification is a useful concept and a valuable tool for political analysis. However, it is not a hard-and-fast personal characteristic that can be used to judge the representativeness of surveys. Adhering to a preconceived notion of partisan distribution can result in underestimating important shifts in voter sentiment.



The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
1150 18th Street, NW Suite 975 Washington, DC 20036
p 202.293.3126 f 202.293.2569 e mailprc@people-press.org

The Pew Research Center is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. Just informed them
e-mailed Pew at the address provided to tell them this is going on and asked them to see about getting it retracted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
34. GOP Propaganda and nothing else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
38. Actually, Colorado, though still heavily Republican, has seen a
considerable surge in Democratic and Independent registrations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
42. IMPACT IS NOT A VERB!!!!!
Just my 2 cents...

The decline and fall of grammar in our society really bothers me. What happened to saying 'effect'??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky Luciano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I think you mean 'affect.' nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC