Erik Iverson is leaving his post at the top of the Montana Republican Party. There's a lot that I disagree with Erik on, but it should be clear that this is the departure of a fierce, smart, capable, and thoughtful adversary.
Erik managed to largely turn around Burns' campaign in 2006, nearly winning a race that some people were starting to take as a given Tester victory. It ended up being a squeaker.
In 2008, up against one of the biggest wave years for Democrats in decades and some extremely difficult underlying demographic changes in the state, the Montana GOP appears to have pulled the only possible rabbit out of a hat by securing what can only be called victories in both chambers.
To some extent, Erik has also functioned as a bit of a bulwark against some of the further right members of his own party. My understanding is that the Koopman crowd wasn't fond of Erik (or of his former boss Dennis Rehberg). Iverson's relative moderation (that either Iverson or Rehberg could ever be considered a moderate is, I believe, only a sign of how far right the GOP currently is) will need to resurface even more strongly in new leadership in the party.
The demographic changes that decimated Republicans at the land board are going to become only more pronounced. Republicans lost voters under the age of 30 by a nearly 2-to-1 margin this election cycle, according to both pre-election and exit polling. More of these voters will be joining the electorate in the coming years -- both as some become eligible to vote upon turning 18 and others as they start voting for the first time in their lives (despite record turnout for youth, many of these folks won't start voting until their late 20s or early-mid 30s).
One other thought -- in large part because of Iverson's own decisions, the new chair of the Republican Party is a Blackfoot woman, marking the first time a major political party in Montana has been chaired by a woman of color (to the best of my knowledge). That's a cool piece of history.
Obvious disclaimer: There's a lot of stuff I disagree with these folks on.
Chuck Johnson has a story this morning on the oddness of Democrats winning the land board unanimously while losing control of the legislature.
The explanation offered in the article -- that leg race outcomes don't correlate with upticket support or statewide candidates -- is a pretty incomplete argument. It is offered both by our Governor and by a poli sci professor from UM. Bottom line, they say that because of the small size of Montana's House districts1, voters make their decisions differently.
Looking at the data, though, this is a stretch. Down-ballot voting closely tracks up-ballot voting in every county I've looked at so far. Dem performance typically runs a few points ahead of Obama's performance. I'm not looking at Baucus's or Schweitzer's numbers (or Rehberg's for that matter), because those races were just in their own categories this year. Now, this isn't because Steve Bullock convinced people to vote for their local Democrat. It is because most people vote a straight ticket or something very close to a straight ticket, breaking only very infrequently (and my early analysis suggests split ticket voting declined this year).
Also worth noting for a variety of reasons: Democrats won the popular vote statewide in House races. The count is 228,888 to 219,490, with a hair over 4,000 scattered to third party, independent, and write-in candidates.
Note that this means that Dems in the legislature outperformed Linda McCulloch's statewide numbers (but also pretty solidly underperformed the rest of the Dem Tier B candidates).
Now, this doesn't mean that Democrats win the Montana House. Legislative races are the World Series, not the Super Bowl. You don't just have to get the votes -- you also have to get them in the right places.
Perhaps ironically, the more local races get, the less information voters are using to make their decisions and the more likely they appear to be to revert to partisan inclinations. That appears to be an especially strong impulse this year.
1 Note, though that Montana's house districts aren't the smallest in the nation. That prize belongs to NH, where its 400 House members each represent roughly 3,000 people apiece.
So I think Dems are going to win big in Montana tonight. I'm getting pretty confident based on all the numbers.
But there's a big reason I'm confident -- it's because I have faith that a lot people all over the state are doing the hard work necessary to turn people out to the polls.
Phone calls, door knocks, free car rides to polling places, answering questions about ID forms, connecting people with their polling location, answering questions about Election Day registration, etc.
More good news for Dems in the crosstabs of the PPP numbers. Among people who have already voted, Obama leads 61-35; Schweitzer 72-27; Baucus 78-19; Rehberg only 50-47 (!); Bullock 62-34; Lindeen 61-33; McCulloch 60-36; and Juneau 61-31.
Obama's age demographics closely mirror Tester's from two years ago. Basically, he is drawing almost even among voters over the age of 30 and winning by a nice margin among voters under the age of 30.
PPP's numbers don't just look good for Dems in the Presidential race in Montana. Here's the rest of the races:
Bullock 49%
Fox 44%
Undecided 7%
Lindeen 50%
Grimes 42%
Undecided 9%
McCulloch 47%
Johnson 46%
Undecided 7%
Juneau 49%
Herman 40%
That's not all. Schweitzer is polling above 60%. Baucus is polling above 70% (!) (!!!!). Those numbers are huge.
One big cautionary note -- these races are close with large numbers of undecideds. And the partisan breakdown is far more favorable to Dems than exit polls have shown in recent years.
So this poll may be D biased. I'm not saying that it definitely is -- the fundamental partisan numbers of Montana could very well be shifting. Just don't take one poll as a sign from the heavens.
Final point -- that secretary of state's race is damn close. If Linda McCulloch pulls this one off, my guess is it will have a lot to do with the Secretary of State Project, which has put a lot of resources into that race, backed by polling from Celinda Lake. If McCulloch pulls off what may be the closest race in the state, it will probably be in large part due to SOS Project's work.
Among their efforts -- a radio ad featuring Sue Furey, Kevin's mother, talking about the voter challenges.
With polls closing in Montana in under 36 hours, I wanted to provide a snapshot of what I'll be watching for after the polls close to evaluate what is happening in the state.
Note: This is little more than ill-informed speculation based on my admittedly hazy recollections of past election years, when counties report out numbers, and my assumptions about voting this year. Take it with a grain of salt and provide your own thoughts in comments.
Early Returns -- Shortly after 8pm, Yellowstone County and a couple other locations (Missoula County is likely) will post their early returns, which they'll be tallying behind locked doors tomorrow. These numbers should be favorable to Obama given the vaunted ground game. My own analysis of where the early vote has occurred indicates that Montana's early vote should be favoring Democrats. If Obama isn't up by a fairly healthy margin -- 5-10 percent in Yellowstone County -- his odds of winning Montana's electoral votes is slim in my estimation.
Down Ballot Drop Off and Performance -- The next big question for Dems is whether their voters are completing the ballot. Early returns should provide interesting data here, so on the early returns -- do the math. Two questions here -- what percent of voters participating in the Presidential race are participating in the Attorney General race and in state legislative races? Also, are these down ballot Dems running ahead or behind of Obama? It is possible that down ballot Dems are picking up McCain voters but they'll still be in trouble because Obama voters only plugged the Presidential race. It is unlikely that Obama voters are plugging too many down ballot Republicans (although some of this will happen).
Where Goes the Legislature -- Keeping in mind that Dems should be running strong in early returns, Missoula County and Yellowstone County have some good battleground legislative races to evaluate where the legislature is headed. Keep your eyes on the following:
HD 100 -- Incumbent Bill Nooney faces Willis Curdy in this rural Missoula County district. Early returns may favor Willis less than other Dems, simply because he was appointed to fill a vacancy in the race (he also had run in the primary, losing very narrowly). This district went for Nooney fairly heavily in '06 and narrowly for Burns in the Tester/Burns race. If Dems win it, they're likely to have a very good night.
HD 50 -- A heart of Billings district that has steadily reelected Republican Tom McGilvray. If McGilvray ends up losing reelection, the state GOP will have a very long night -- and it will be a clear sign that the Obama field operation is every bit as good (or better) than its reputation.
SD 27 -- One of the few Republican-held Senate seats in Montana targeted by Democrats this cycle, numbers from Yellowstone County will show early on whether Dems will see any good news in the Montana Senate.
The Missoula Margin and the Yellowstone Win -- Missoula County and Yellowstone County will provide key clues throughout the night. Yellowstone is the Ohio of Montana. If Obama wins Yellowstone County, he has a really good chance of winning the state. In Missoula County, Schweitzer ran up a 13,000 vote margin in '04 and Tester went with a 14,000 vote margin in '06. The question for Obama in Missoula County is less the percentage victory (it should be large) and more the margin. My guess is that Obama runs weaker in rural Montana than either Tester or Schweitzer, meaning Obama needs a 15,000+ vote margin out of Missoula County. Again, we'll see the impact of his massive registration and turnout machine.
So those are the key things I'll be looking for to get a sense of the state. So, please -- tell me what I'm missing. I'll update this list based on feedback in the comments thread.
One final thing for Obama fans -- latest poll shows him up by 1 in Montana. 538 now gives him nearly a 20% chance of winning the state -- the best shot they've evaluated in recent weeks.
Just came off the doors, back at the office, prepping for the next two days.
We're at 50 hours 'til the clock runs out -- and less than two days until polls start to close in some states.
Polls show McCain may be tightening the race up a bit nationally. We'll see. I'm still very optimistic, but now would be a stupid time for anyone to rest on their laurels.
It was about an hour later than this time four years ago that I realized John Kerry was definitely going to lose. The networks weren't calling states that were supposed to be landslides per exit polls. Something was wrong. I was running a phone bank in downtown Missoula and by the time I was done at 7:45, I knew the White House was Bush's for four more years.
I don't know for certain what will happen in the next 48 hours, but I know that anyone who cares about the country will wish they had done something if things go wrong and will be full of pride if they help and things go right.
Doors are where it is at, people. I haven't given the Obama campaign a minute of my time cause I'm focused elsewhere, but they've got a damn good operation and will be easy for any supporter to get linked in with.
There's a simply unbelievable story in USA Today about Dan Cooper, a Bitterroot gunsmith, whose livelihood came under fire from nutjobs across the country because he had the audacity to contribute to Barack Obama's campaign for President.
Cooper had a chance to talk one-on-one with Obama regarding gun ownership and is confident that his gun rights are safe under an Obama Presidency. But it seems pretty clear that as long as the lunatic fringe is as powerful on gun issues as it is that this talented gunsmith will have to look for other work.
The irony here is that this is happening at the same time that Obama's campaign is being attacked for not supporting freedom of speech.
In Missoula, I considered for some time not spending my money at businesses that I knew were owned by local Republicans. A political boycott had a certain schoolyard appeal. I ended up rejecting the idea, concluding that for all my disagreements with those folks, that they weren't a fundamental threat to my way of life and I'd be silly to treat them as though they were.
As time has gone on, I've become increasingly convinced that the ratcheted up nonsense coming from the far right over the insane dangers of electing Barack Obama will boil over soon as some surrogate goes on TV and ends up spewing, "But...but...but he's black!" Alternate possibility -- on election night, about 7 million far-right conservatives will have the first collective aneurysm in the known history of humanity when the networks call it for Obama.
There's a really bizarre paranoid fear out there regarding Obama that I just can't figure out. It's pretty hard to believe that it isn't racial. It's kind of like if the entire grassroots left was convinced not only that we didn't especially like John McCain and Sarah Palin but that John McCain is a Manchurian candidate and that Sarah Palin is a robot sent from the future with an accent programmed after watching Fargo. Or something. Crazy. Ya know?
I just don't get it.
I don't know what can be done for Dan Cooper. Maybe he'll find some way to keep making rifles and maybe some of those numerous sane hunters and shooters on the left, right, and center can buy his rifles to show respect for his right to his completely mainstream political beliefs.
Or maybe we should all just fucking hate eachother.
While everyone else polls McCain/Obama and finds a close race, Daily Kos goes the extra mile to find McCain is vulnerable in 2010 to a challenge from Janet Napolitano. By "vulnerable," I mean he'd be lucky to survive.
Honestly, that in a nutshell is why Daily Kos is the site that it is. A lot of smart political writers out there. Markos pulls himself out of the meta and does brilliant crap like this.
I'd be real surprised if that poll doesn't work its way into a narrative of whether -- with an impending loss in the Presidential race and a tough re-elect ahead -- McCain's political career is about to come to an end.
Nothing like a death narrative for the last four days of a campaign.
Update -- This is good news for McCain's team, though. They've got some form of job security. While everyone else in GOP politics will be scrambling for pay soon, they'll have a difficult re-elect campaign to work.
This is it. The final stretch from Halloween to Election Day -- two of my favorite days of the year (God, I'm a nerd).
Jay already covered this, but late yesterday, Rasmussen put out some new numbers showing McCain +4 in Montana. That comes on the heels of the Mason-Dixon numbers showing the same margin even as MSU-B recently showed the state +4 for Obama.
So what's happening?
A few possibilities:
MSU-B seems to have a Democratic bias in their polls. 538's Nate Silver detects a mild Republican bias in Mason-Dixon's polling this year. Maybe all the numbers are a bit off due to some minor polling errors and natural MoE. The race is somewhere between +4 Obama and +4 McCain.
MSU-B included Paul while Mason-Dixon and Rasmussen excluded him. Rasmussen even notes that more McCain voters than Obama voters are expressing interest in potentially voting third party (and if polling continues to predict an Obama blowout come Election Day, more of those voters are likely to defect). That would say the race is more narrowly pro-McCain than M-D or Ras indicate right now.
The youth vote. Unfortunately, neither Mason-Dixon nor MSU-B have made crosstabs available. I've seen the Rasmussen crosstabs and they have McCain winning the youth vote significantly. That is, um, unlikely to happen, especially in a situation where McCain is only up by four. Democracy Corps -- a respect Dem polling firm -- shows Obama winning white youth 51-38. Montana's under 30 vote is basically 90% white, 8% Indian, and 2% everyone else. So you can use the 51-38 as a baseline and then tweak it a few more points toward Obama. Long story short -- McCain probably isn't winning the youth vote in Montana.
Bottom line -- looking at all the polling right now, it looks like we've got ourselves a race here in Montana.
And elections are not decided by some mystical deciphering of the will of the electorate. They're decided by people who vote. That's why casting those ballots is so crucial and also why last minute field efforts make a big difference. Here's some numbers based on rough field math:
On doors, for every 10 people you talk to -- an additional person will vote.
On phones, for every 20 people you talk to -- an additional person will vote.
On text messages, for every 20 people you text -- an additional person will vote.
On yard signs, for every 100 yard signs you put up -- there is no evidence that a single additional person will vote.
On robo-calls, for every 100,000 made by the campaign -- there is no evidence that a single additional person will vote.
GOTV is called a ground game for a reason. It is ultimately won and lost by large numbers of volunteers -- an army so to speak.
In other words, this race will now be decided by the actions of every day Montanans who choose (or choose not) to get involved.
So, yeah, no bitching if you don't knock doors. Voting ain't enough.
Update -- Just to be clear, the numbers above apply to mobilization of voters. Persuasion, name ID, volunteer motivation, and other things are also important to campaigns.
But we're in mobilizing mode now where what matters is how many people get turned out to the polls. Spending time election weekend asking for yard signs is a waste of time. Hell, lit dropping isn't very effective right now (especially in the Presidential race since everyone in America knows the names Barack Obama and John McCain right now).
Months ago, a lot of things could make a difference. Right now, basically three things do:
Door to door canvassing
Phone calls
Personal outreach to your own network of folks, especially folks you know who may not be planning to vote.
Dear Precinct Captains and other Republicans of BV: You have probably heard people already declare that Obama has won the election, even Reps and Christians are saying it! Some are even voting for Obama. Maybe even you said or thought of it too. No wonder with all we hear from the mainstream news. Please remember parts in the Bible when God's people were few BUT God was with them? Like in Joshua? They won, Supernaturally. And it says that Life and Death are in the power of the Tongue...what we SAY has power. Just look at hypochondriacs. A year and a half ago it looked realllly bad for us financially, like we'd lose our dream home and property and 2 days before it happened...it came to me....and I yelled out to the kids, "Kids, let's clean house!" They wanted to know why. I told them, "Because we need to get ready for many parties we'll be having soon." We did not lose our home or property afterall. God made an out for us. I could go on but just will say now that, no matter what it looks like or how you feel, immediately dismiss any negative thoughts about losing, and only SPEAK words that declare that all Republicans WIN. OK? Just do it and you WILL see an immediate difference in our social and spiritual climate. Not a Christian? Doesn't matter, it still works. But yes, you still DO need to know God in a personal way. Just ask Him to make Himself real to you. Don't worry, I won't be preaching any more. It is just that I care about you too much to not say what I just did. We are in a Civil War here in America, but we are not fighting man to man, but this war is a spiritual one. Just observe the face and body language of those who hate us without even knowing us.
OK, God interupted me, ha.....back to my original plan to tell you....
At this point, the email goes on to ask the recipient to make phone calls -- and how to get their list of voters if they can't handle their voter file.
Impressive stuff.
Update -- Another GOP reader writes:
Subject: Could be the best vote I cast
Denise Juneau. And I did it gladly.
When ESH ran in 2000, she was referred to as 'Elaine Holy Sermon' by the other campaigns. Her campaign floundered when she advocated lining up students and shooting them.
A good friend of mine noted her billboard signs are the same color scheme as the 'Teasers' sign near Three Forks. No irony there.
Update 2 -- Just to clarify, after looking more closely at the first email, it appears not to come from Elaine, but from a strong supporter of hers. Still a very bizarre email.
Wow. Too weird for words. I find myself agreeing with these words from today's article on Elaine Sollie Herman:
Herman's Web site lists one child, a daughter born in 1976.
"It's not appropriate to bring up my daughter in this campaign," she said. "If you bring my daughter into this election, I will really, really be upset. No one wants their daughter brought into an election for dirty campaigning."
That's true. What kind of outrageous stunt is this? Dragging the woman's family into the campaign through dirty tricks? Who would do such a thing?
Herman said the Web page is not hers.
"That was my daughter who wrote that - she lives in Seattle," said Herman. "I didn't do it. I had nothing to do with it. I am not a young girl looking for meet-ups in Puyallup."
Wait, you mean Herman brought her daughter into the campaign?
Crazy.
Also, apparently it isn't a big deal that she/her daughter/someone just described Denise Juneau as "a young Indian" since that clearly means that those darn libruls see "Indian" as an insult. Meanwhile, Dave Rye is calling Denise Juneau a "professional Indian." I suppose anyone taking offense at that would have to have a problem with professionals or Indians.
Dave Rye is a professional aggrieved white man and a an amateur douchebag (although he silver medaled in the event at the Olympics, I think).
It really is fascinating how the right loves to inject race into this shit and then get all whiny when they get called on it. I talked to Denise a while ago about her campaign and how people seem to always reduce her campaign to Indian Education for All.
Look, Indian Education for All is a good thing. I support it. I'm glad that Denise has been administering it and learning executive skills in the process, but it isn't exactly central to the campaign that she has been running.
The front page of her campaign web site doesn't mention "Indian" or "Native" once. It does mention, however, her high marks from both the Great Falls Tribune (which compares her favorably with two decades worth of candidates) and the Billings Gazette.
The Gazette goes so far as to note her "excellent resume," a pretty good indication for people who listen to Dave Rye that the resume probably reads more than "Professional Indian, 1995-Present."
She's also praised by both for her intelligence.
Meanwhile, Elaine Sollie Herman (or her daughter) can't even spell "conservative." That's edacution we can beleie in, my fiends!
Joan Borneman
ADLC County Attorney
800 South Main
Anaconda, MT 59711
October 24, 2008
Dear Joan,
I'm writing to ask that you begin a formal investigation of voter coercion perpetrated against the people and voters of Deer Lodge County. Specifically, I request you investigate the actions of the Montana Republican Party, Mr. Jake Eaton, and Mr. Max Hunsaker regarding the attached "Affidavits of Challenger".
I respectfully request you investigate violations of the following MCA statutes:
13-35-203, Interference with Officials;
13-35-207 Deceptive Election Practices;
13-35-208, Deceiving an Elector; and
13-35-218, Coercion/Undue Influence of Voters
177 citizens' right to vote were called into question in a premeditated, coordinated, and unprecedented voter suppression tactic in Deer Lodge County perpetrated by the aforementioned. Nearly 6,000 other voters in heavily Democratic areas were also targeted by this Republican campaign of deceit. Additionally, numerous innocent bystanders in these areas were inevitably impacted by the ensuing confusion and chaos which resulted from these false affidavits and their subsequent withdrawal.
The voters of Anaconda were targets of an extraordinary and deliberate voter suppression scheme. This cannot and should not be tolerated. Following your investigation, please prosecute these actions to the full extent of the law, thus sending a message that tactics like these will not be tolerated.
Let's hope that the voters of Montana are never victims of such a dishonorable plot.
Everyone spending time on doors or phones, what are your stories?
We're still finding some hard R's out there, but surprisingly, we're finding a ton of crossovers. Traditional Rs who are voting D, sometimes in a lot of races.
The Republican National Committee has purchased ads in the Presidential race here in Montana, a sure sign that some folks in DC are sweating the state's three electoral votes.
Marc Ambinder's take:
The ads begin Wednesday.
In 2004, George W. Bush won Montana by 20 points.
Ron Paul is on the ballot. And Ron Paul supporters aren't happy with John McCain...
A Republican congressman from Texas could throw the state to Barack Obama.
Ouch. This could very easily be too little too late.
Over 80,000 votes have already been cast in Montana.
My sense from demographic numbers and the counties where voter registration rolls are growing is that McCain is being massively out-organized.
Back to work.
Update -- The more I think about this, the weirder it is. It isn't even that strange that the GOP is playing defense here. It's that this is the best place for them to spend money. Most polling indicates that Montana is only competitive if Obama is winning in such a landslide that the game is already over. The Republican Party nationally is facing a real ass-whooping in the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House.
So why move cash into Montana? And why move the $300k-400k I'm seeing get mentioned? That's a very significant media buy in this state and in a competitive national environment, it is a serious piece of change to deploy.
All of that says to me that either:
Internal GOP polling shows Montana to be basically a firewall state for them -- that it has become a must-win. OR
The RNC is giving up on a lot of stuff, but is trying to help their down-ballot folks in Montana by sowing significant doubts around the Democratic brand. OR
The MSU-B poll is out and shows Obama leading McCain 44-40.
Wow, right. Well, hold your horses. This is good news, but a few observations:
While the MSU-B poll has a good track record of predicting winners, its margins are off. In '06, it pegged Tester up by 11. I don't think Tester was ever leading Burns by 11. In '04, it once gave Schweitzer a double digit lead over Bob Brown. That also wasn't a double digit race.
As in those races, part of the problem seems to be a high undecided rate. My guess is that if undecideds are pushed, they come home.
Major caveat: MSU-B got the numbers wrong, but the outcomes right, in both '04 and '06. So maybe Obama really is up. Damn.
Update -- Complete release of the poll is here (PDF).
Max Baucus hosted a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee today in Missoula on the subject of health care reform.
A few thoughts:
Max did an admirable job outlining the scope of the problem, the position of the U.S. relative to other countries, and the potential direction to take with regards to a fix. He at one point talked about building a solution that builds upon employer-provided health care. I'm a fan of that direction.
Several times, Max emphasized that he was interested in working with the next President, whether that is McCain or Obama. While Max's rhetoric on the question tracks much more closely with Obama's proposal, this is smart. It may also explain some progressive frustration. If McCain pulls this out, it doesn't doom health care reform if Max is able to cut a deal. McCain's health care plan is disastrous, but a condemnation from Max's lips doesn't improve the plan, it just destroys the chances of getting a decent bill signed next year if McCain wins the White House.
The President of St. Pat's who spoke was great -- talking a lot about realigning incentives to focus on health maintenance instead of on sick care. His name was Jeff Fee. I thought he was super sharp.
The guy from BCBS who spoke got a bit harsher reception from Max than I anticipated. He also was in a bit of a predicament, talking about BCBS's dominance of the health insurance market (apparently 50% of the consumer-based insurance market in Montana is insured by BCBS) while proclaiming his own company's powerlessness over the health care market. He did come out in favor of an insurance mandate. Surprise, surprise. Note: I also favor a mandate, but it's no surprise that insurance companies want to require that individuals purchase their products. He also admitted that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance from an administrative perspective, even with the rise of privatization of Medicare.
Before opening the room up to the public's comments, Max took a moment to ask folks to go Rawlsian, for lack of a better term. He specifically asked for people to step out of their own situation and address the system's needs. It was a nice calling for a higher good. More of that, please.
The owner of Le Petit did a nice job describing the issues his operation has faced. Forward Montana has insurance through a small group policy and we've faced similar difficulties -- double-digit premium increases every year and questions of whether to cut back on the benefit, raise the deductible, etc., etc.
The uninsured woman on stage had an unhappy, but thankfully not tragic, story. A local cosmetologist and mother, she's always made too little to pay for health insurance and too much to qualify for public assistance.
The question is where from here. We'll know a lot more after the election, but here's my prediction for now. No fight will be as intense next year as the fight over health care. Other issues may inflame more passion from different loud sectors of society, but health care is where we will watch the true knock-down drag-out in the Senate. On these sorts of economic questions, neither side is going to quiet down without a fight. So expect to see organized labor double-down and the organized, ideological right get entrenched and push for a filibuster of the plan at any cost. When the Democrats manage to fix our health care system, what will follow will be a restored faith in the ability of government to solve problems.
That said, the likely solution is neither a British-style NHS or a Canadian style single-payer insurance system. After we win this reform fight, Blue Cross Blue Shield will still exist. So will New West and Allegiance. They'll face public sector competition for non-poor, non-elderly, non-veteran Americans. But no industries are being eliminated at the stroke of a pen.
CQ reports this morning that election administrators nationwide are awash in new registrations and that voters are likely to face long lines at polling places, despite record levels of participation through early voting.
If there is a year that even more than 2000 and 2004 makes the case for increased funding for election administration in America, it will be this one.
Just note the numbers:
A number of key swing states around the country are reporting significant increases in voter registrations, an early indicator of how many people are likely to vote come Election Day. Among battleground states with the biggest gains in voter registration are Nevada, up 30 percent, Virginia, up 11 percent and North Carolina, up 9 percent.
[...]
Ohio's Cuyahoga County, home to Cleveland and its suburbs that has a history of election problems, has seen a 10 percent increase in registered voters compared to 2004 and St. Louis, Missouri is seeing the highest registration levels in a quarter century.
Overall, 13 battleground states have already received 3.4 million new registrations as of Oct. 14, compared to 1.8 million new registrations in 2004, according to Laura Quinn, chief executive of Catalist, which tracks voter registration for progressive organizations.
This is certainly an issue in Montana. Since the primary in June, 31,000 net new voters have been added to the rolls. But this burden isn't shared equally among counties. Missoula and Gallatin each saw a 5,500 increase, while the larger Yellowstone County saw a 4,000 increase.
This was one of the major problems with the scurrilous voter challenges from the Montana GOP that caused a number of local Republicans who have some understanding of election administration upset -- they know that these hard-working county officials are already deluged and that dumping new work on their plates for ridiculous reasons was just mean in its effect if not in intent.
So here's the question -- why can't we effectively fund election administration in this country? It's a line item that not a ton of groups fight to increase, but after seeing these sorts of problems election after election, surely we can agree that funding upfront to avoid the problems later is worth it.
Consider it this way, both liberals and conservatives by their own arguments have pretty good reasons to support increased funding of election administration:
For conservatives who worry about both voter fraud and voter registration fraud, increased administrative capacity increases the chances of oddities being caught. That includes everything from Mickey Mouse being registered to vote to having time to make sure individuals' former election jurisdictions are notified when they move their registrations. At this point, many of these problems are capacity problems.
It's also no amazing feat of logic to think through the fact that election fraud of any sort is the sort of thing we're better off preventing than responding to. Some things, like larceny, can be handled just fine with reactive measures to provide restitution to victims and penalties to criminals. But with election fraud, you want to prevent the act from ever taking place because you can't provide restitution in almost any case. Additionally, a heightened chance of getting caught is a better disincentive to committing a crime than is a stiffer penalty, according to sociology research. So the focus should be on catching perpetrators, not simply on extending jail sentences.
Note: I write all of this believing both that voter registration fraud is very rare and that out-and-out voter fraud is exceptionally rare in this country.
For liberals the key concerns with voting right now is that sometimes counties just can't process the deluge of information. If a county can't process your voter registration by Election Day, you can't vote in many states. If your polling location gets short changed on voting machines and turnout surges, you get to wait in line for an extra hour. You want to increase election participation? Increase election appropriations.
