MyDD :: Surge of voter rolls in New Mexico

Surge of voter rolls in New Mexico

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:55:47 PM EST

Zogby and Mason-Dixon agree that New Mexico is tilting to Bush, yet ARG today released a poll showing Kerry leading by a 48-47 percent margin in the state. Whenever I get these conflicting results, I head to the local in-state online newspapers to find out what's up.

I don't know who in the heck Zogby & M-D are polling, because the news looks good for Kerry, as New Mexico's voter rolls have surged by 12% since 2000-- an increase of over 119,000 newly registered voters, mostly among 18-34 year-olds. Here's the facts I culled:

Party ID of NM:

Democrats     51% 
Republicans   32%
Independents  14%

119,000 newly registered:

Democrats     43%
Independents  31%
Republicans   26%

Percent of those newly registered:  (D - I - R) 

18 to 24 year-olds         36%      39  38  23
25 to 34 year-olds         19%	  
With Spanish surnames      31%

The 527 organizations like ACT, Moving America Forward (Richardson's group), New Voters Project, & ACORN have been working like crazy, Richardson is a popular Democratic Governor, the issue of the War in Iraq is driving young people to register & vote like never before, the demographics that lean Democratic are those registering to vote, and Republicans are trailing Independents in those newly registered!

I think we'll just have to chalk this up to the pollsters not being able to reach the actual voters for their polls; because the facts on the ground point toward a Kerry victory in New Mexico.

Tags: Demographics (all tags)

Permalink :: 33 Comments :: Post a Comment

Kerry the next President (none / 0)

As I stated in the previous article in the comments section, KERRY'S
GOT THE MOMENTUM!! Despite what Newsweek says!

by Undertow on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:05:51 PM EST

Think Native (none / 0)

The one thing that everyone is missing in New Mexico is the Native vote. Navajo Nation has huge potential turnout, in the tens of thousands. 18 of 19 new mexico pueblos have endorsed Kerry. If its close, and Kerry wins, its the native vote. Also true for Minnesota, Dakotas (state races), WA, OK...that will be a surprise.

I hope election watchers will look out for native people who have been harrassed by repugs looking for ID and not telling them about their options, i.e., provisional ballots

by Kate on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:16:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Think Native (none / 0)

I believe the Navajo Nation has their tribal presidential vote this year, and that boosts Democratic performance considerably in the Farmington area - an otherwise strong Republican area.

by ectn on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 11:49:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New Mexico voting (3.00 / 1)

My wife, son, and I have been phone-banking & canvassing in southern New Mexico for 2 and a half months. Recently, wwe have targetted new registrants, infrequent voters, etc. Lots of time spent in Mexican American working class/farmworker areas south of Las Cruces. On the basis of this, I do think New Mexico is unusually hard to poll. Now, let me say that I take the polls seriously and I am concerned. But New Mexico has populations that are hard to contact much more than the average. I don't know how well pollsters deal with Spanish (we speak it). Many households don't have phones or if the phone is at home, a non-citizen parent will answer it. Lots of 18-24 year old new registrants are the children of non-citizen parents. It's never been made clear to me if pollsters call totally random numbers or off of residential number lists, but if it is the latter, I can testify from experience that immigrant-heavy neighborhoods in New Mexico have many disconnected or shared numbers (an interesting phenomenon--one phone, say of a mother, may serve two or three households of children also, some of whom are more likely to vote than the mother). Then there are Native American areas of the state. I've only phoned there a few times but the bad connection/wrong people at address rate was enormous, and phones were listed as being shared by 8, 10, 12 voters at a time. Some of the reservation country in New Mexico is extremely remote by most U.S. standards, and people travel distances to use phones. There are Republican parts of the state (southeast: "Little Texas") that are very slowly changing small towns and cities that I suspect have higher rates of phone answering and lower cell phone rates, etc. So any effort to estimate voting in New Mexico has larger selectivity errors than, say, Iowa. However, before we read too much hope into these new voter numbers, I need to say that our experience also demonstrates that they are not very sophisticated about the election act and may not vote at a sufficiently high rate to take the state. Finally, let me say that the K-E office in Las Cruces has been excellent and we have all busted our you-know-whats to get out the vote in low turnout areas of southern New Mexico. And we got to see Kerry, who was inspiring.

by JoeElPaso on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:23:06 PM EST

Re: New Mexico voting (3.00 / 1)

I live in New Mexico, but I live in Albuquerque (which most everyone in the other continental 47 states would say is the closest thing we have to a real city) and it's really hard to tell what's going on here; from what I can tell this county seems fairly evenly split (but if anyone has more Albuquerque experience than I do, feel free to correct me. I don't get out much.)

Kerry was here a few days ago, and allegedly had a pretty good turnout (I wish I could have seen it, but I worked that day.) I heard a rumor that Clinton was going to hit Santa Fe, which would draw a huge crowd but probably just preach to the choir, as Santa Fe is pretty Democratic. But as JoeElPaso pointed out, the voting effort isn't quite as organized here, so there's nothing wrong with lighting a fire under the base.

by Kjorteo on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Mexico voting (none / 0)

I'm from AZ and a lot of the same factors appply. I am going to make my rash prediction and say that AZ will be turning blue... For a lot of the same reasons you are citing...

by wynter on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:14:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Mexico voting (none / 0)

Let me first say that i am a Deomcrat living in Albuquerque, NM. Yesterday i went out to canvass with the KE campaign, and there were hundreds of people there to volunteer. Every door that answered my knock was enthusiastically for Kerry, and many had already voted. LCV, MoveOn, ACT, and the KE campaign are everywhere in this town.

Also Clinton was here in Albuquerque at the National Hispanic Cultural Center this morning.

Another thing, we have such a high democratic majority here that i question those polls. The only Bush supporters i have found here are either military, evangelical christian, or neo-con white men. Young people, women, elderly, all Kerry supporters. His rallies are turning out thousands. And the difference this time is that those thousands are helping out. We all know how important this is. GOTV

No matter what the polls say, i wouldnt count NM out. Plus, we have a democratic majority in our legislature.

PS. What are the party distributions in all these polls showing bush ahead? Do they have dems above 50%?

by phemfrog on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Mexico voting (none / 0)

Really? I was told Albuquerque was a Republican stronghold while the rest of the state is more Democratic (and I know from experience that Santa Fe is one of the most liberal places you can go that isn't in California,) and since Albuquerque is the huge city, Albuquerque vs. everyone else is what makes New Mexico so statistically close.

I always did find that claim rather odd though, as it's supposed to generally be the small rural-area Republicans vs. the big-city Democrats, not the other way around.

Now I'm just confused....

by Kjorteo on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

November Surprise for Pollsters? (3.00 / 1)

There is no way to tell who has it right. The pollsters who see this as a close election with Bush slightly ahead, or those of us working on the ground, checking the signs and portents, and believing that John Kerry is headed for victory by a significant margin.

If it's the pollsters, we could still win. The late surge and incumbent factor and all that.

But if it's we who are right, and the polls are way off, or even as far off as they were in 2000, then the pollsters are going to get a November Surprise. Their credibility and methods are going to come under serious scrutiny.

I believe this is long overdue. I think that if the truth were known, the pollsters have been misrepresenting George W. Bush's popularity for the last two years.

by James Earl on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:30:47 PM EST

re: misrepresenting George W. Bush's popularity (none / 0)

Hear hear. I go nuts when I hear the media say Bush is more likeable. Most of the people I meet would prefer he walk out in front of a bus.

by Cleveland John on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you Jerome (none / 0)

If you look at the ARG party id, it is spot on with the NM registration data.

This is why I believe ARG to be the most accurate in their likely voter model.

by Coldblue on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:44:11 PM EST

Good article from Washington Post on NM politics (none / 0)

From the October 19 edition: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46232-2004Oct19.html

Here are some of the key paragraphs:

Republicans have their "Viva Bush" campaign, an effort in which field campaigners in all 33 counties try to engage Hispanic voters on the issues. They have also been deluging the airwaves with ads since March, in Spanish and English. The Democrats, whose ad blitz is more recent, have field offices geared for Hispanic volunteers to court Hispanic voters, with bilingual door-to-door canvassers and phone bankers.

"Everything that this campaign is doing in New Mexico takes the Hispanic vote into account," said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

The reason is obvious. New Mexico has the highest proportion of Hispanics in the country -- 43 percent of its 1.8 million residents, or about 30 percent of the vote.

But Hispanics here are a tricky voting bloc, if they can even be called a voting bloc. Unlike in California, where the majority of Hispanics, or Latinos, are fairly recent immigrants, two-thirds of New Mexico's Hispanic population traces its heritage to the Spanish explorers who ventured to the New World before the Mayflower landed on Plymouth Rock. So while Democrats hold a distinct advantage among Hispanics here -- with 58 percent supporting Kerry, according to the latest Albuquerque Journal poll -- the Hispanic vote is swingy, fickle.

New Mexico's Hispanic voters do not call themselves "Latino," do not consider immigration a pressing issue and tend to side with the GOP on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. A great majority of them were born in the United States. Both parties believe that Democrats will win a majority of the Hispanic vote. But both sides also believe that if Republicans win 40 percent of the Hispanic vote -- 5 percent more than the 35 percent Bush garnered in 2000 -- the president will win the state and, hence, the country.

New Mexico's popular Democratic governor, Bill Richardson, a bilingual Hispanic, calls the 40 percent mark "crucial." "Our objective is to maximize turnout and bring the new voters to the polls," said Richardson, who last week taped television commercials in Spanish and English to help Kerry. Voter registration rolls have swelled by 106,000 -- and counting. When all are counted, the total could be 140,000, said Brian Sanderoff, an independent pollster here. "We've isolated all the Hispanic surnames in our list of 106,000 and it comes out to 30.1 percent -- the same percentage as in the overall voting population," he said. Democrats have a registration advantage of 52 to 32 percent, or 1.6 to 1. But with Democrats less loyal than their GOP counterparts, Sanderoff said the governor is right to say Kerry needs a majority of the Hispanic vote to win the state.

Early voting began Saturday, with county clerks throughout the state describing turnout as heavy.
Republicans say they have more than 14,000 volunteers, have knocked on 40,000 doors, made almost half a million phone calls and registered 50,000 GOP voters for their effort. The Democrats will not reveal their numbers, but say they have far outdistanced the Republicans in their ground-troop efforts.

by jagakid on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:46:49 PM EST

A Serious Mistake (none / 0)

Hispano (not Hispanic, please) last names in New Mexico are not indicative of ethnic group. Ned Chavez, for example, is a Navaho Code-Talker but look at his last name.

by ATinNM on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It may have been mentioned (none / 0)

but certainly in the 18-34 category, especially under 30, cell phone/ no land lines are an issue in polling.

by jp2 on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:54:40 AM EST

New ABQ Journal poll (none / 0)

http://www.abqjournal.com/north/251327north_news10-31-04.htm?tease

Bush 47
Kerry 44
Nader 1
Badnarik 1
Undecided 7

MOE: 4%, dates ?

by leftish on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:05:34 AM EST

Re: New ABQ Journal poll (none / 0)

Oops. MOE is 3%.

by leftish on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:07:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New ABQ Journal poll (none / 0)

That's the M-D poll.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 08:33:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New ABQ Journal poll (none / 0)

It was hard to tell from that tease. The full article is now here. It is the paper's own poll, not the M-D poll.

In '00, the polls had Gore down by two to five points in NM, iirc, and to top it off, it had snowed overnight and that morning all across the highlands of D-rich northern NM. And we still won. So take heart, and don't give up entirely on Nuevo Mexico's five electoral votes.

by leftish on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 10:01:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New ABQ Journal poll (none / 0)

Right, I was confusing it for the Sante Fe newspaper, which had partnered for the M-D poll.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 10:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

GOP After-Election Fight (3.00 / 1)

For what it's worth, I spoke with a writer at the Albequerque Alibi (An alternative weekly) several weeks ago, in the aftermath of their big voting rights suit--which went all the way to the state Supreme Court. His take was that the GOP knew they were going to lose on election day--Richardson's organizing was just too much for them--but they were preparing for an after-election challenge, essentially reopening the cases they'd already lost, but from a somewhat different perspective, so they could get a rehearing.

Again, for what it's worth. The after-election fight scenario seems quite plausible to me, and probably not just in NM. How better to poison the atmosphere to kill off Kerry's hojneymoon? (Remember Bill Clinton's honeymoon? It lasted about 3 weeks in December 1992.)

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:41:19 AM EST

Re: GOP After-Election Fight in Ohio & Florida (none / 0)

I've been waiting for someone to bring up the obvious. Isn't it likely that the Repugs are planning on gumming up both Ohio and Florida enough to throw both states into the Legislature?

If that happens, Republican legislatures in both states give the electoral delegates to Bush. Now it looks like they are planning the same strategy in New Mexico.

Is it possible for Kerry to win without Ohio and Forida?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:00:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP After-Election Fight in Ohio & Florida (none / 0)

Its my opinion that Kerry must win at least one of the two. Good news though, early reports indicate Kerry has taken a substantial lead in Florida in the early voting polls.

by agpc on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:04:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP After-Election Fight in Ohio & Florida (none / 0)

But if the Repugs gum up the election it goes to the Republican legislature and they give the electors to Bush. Same for Ohio. Republican legislature, therefore a disputed election goes to Bush.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP After-Election Fight (none / 0)

As pointed out often in 2000, when Florida's legislature considered the same thing, the Constitution says quite explicitly that electors are chosen on a specific day, nationally, that is determined by Congress. That day is November 2nd. An attempted "coup" by the legislature would not stand.

by feynman on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 08:18:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This would lead to civil war (none / 0)

I hope that's not how they try to play it.

by Geotpf on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 08:35:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP After-Election Fight in Ohio/Florida (none / 0)

Screwing around with this site's map, I get that Kerry can win without Florida or Ohio if he keeps Pennsylvania, keeps EVERY upper mid-west state that's currently in contestion (ie Michigan, Wisconsin,) keeps every east-coast state that some people think are still in play for some reason (ie New Hampshire, New Jersey,) keeps New Mexico, and steals Colorado while he's at it. That gives him 274.

That will be almost impossible to do, but at least Kerry has a plan B and C. Bush can win if he loses either one of Ohio or Florida, but he has to do some major upper mid-west stealing (taking Michigan and Wisconsin would do it.) If he loses both Ohio and Florida, it's over, unless he somehow manages to steal Pennsylvania.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Neither side has it yet, both candidates still have to keep up the fight, but right now it looks like it will be a lot harder for Bush to win than Kerry.

by Kjorteo on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 04:02:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Word (none / 0)

I agree with all of that. And I'm confident that all the Dem GOTV efforts will make it even harder for Bush.

by Haggai on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 04:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP After-Election Fight (none / 0)

I certainly hope so.

This would kill the GOP in the next several election cycles. We have long memories - I know some people who are still fighting the Lincoln County War - so any attempt to stifle a person's vote will be viewed as an attack and remembered by that person AND their family unto the n-th generation.

Revenge is a dish best served with green chili sauce.

by ATinNM on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What the media is telling the unwashed masses ... (none / 0)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20041031/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_ 27

Poll Shows Bush Moving Ahead of Kerry

1 hour, 41 minutes ago

Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - AP

By RON FOURNIER and NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writers

APPLETON, Wis. - As President Bush (news - web sites) and John Kerry (news - web sites) crisscrossed Midwest battleground states Saturday, a new poll showed the incumbent moving ahead of the Massachusetts senator in the popular vote, and Democrats said their private surveys also hinted at momentum for the president.

...

by leschwartz on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:26:58 AM EST

New Mexico (none / 0)

I don't feel good about NM right now. Say what you want, but if I had to bet money, I'd bet on NM going for Bush. The polls have been consistently kind to him there for months. On the other hand, I think we have a really good shot at Ohio, and a pretty good shot at Florida.

by alhill on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 05:41:31 AM EST

Re: New Mexico (none / 0)

I'll take that bet. If BC04 believed NM was in the bag, they wouldn't be sending Bush and Cheney back in here.

Remember:

undersampling of significant sub-groups of the electorate
Nader 2000 voters, thousands & thousands are going Kerry this year
unprecedented ground game by ACT, MoveOn, and the Democratic Coordinated Campaign
great Spanish language TV and radio from NDN

by ectn on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:11:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NM Polls (none / 0)

Look at these for a look at the NM polls recently. Not all so kind for bush. It is up and down like everywhere else.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/new-mexico.html

http://www.nowchannel.com/state/?s=New+Mexico

by phemfrog on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:34:11 PM EST

Zogby state tracking polls "random" (none / 0)

Alan Abramovitz says that the Zogby state tracking polls are wild and random, have no value. Why are they being used at all as a measure of trending in
the battleground states.

He says:
"Conclusion--there is nothing going on here. The day-to-day shifts in the Zogby state tracking polls, like the day-to-day shifts in the national tracking polls are basically random. So stop obsessing. Do something useful. Go carve a pumpkin and make sure that everyone you know who hasn't already voted gets to the polls on Tuesday."
Bill from Oregon

by cmpnwtr on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:22:00 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.