In the past, Republicans generally had an early advantage with early voting. Democratic strength was shown on election day. Now, several conservative-leaning papers and the national online website Politico are burying contrary early voting result data within pro-GOP titled articles in order to continue Republican wave narratives.
NOTE: Now with letter and response from one of the reporters. (Forgot to add before.)
#1) Apparently, the pattern originated from the Raleigh / Durham News & Observer (with an updated-version only available) highlighting white male Republican turnout, but burying the information about Democrats actually leading in early voting (when nationally early voting is now 70% of the total vote):
"Early Vote brings out in the GOP in force" - by Jim Morrill
http://www.newsobserver.com/...
#2) Then, repeated in the Las Vegas
Review-Journal (where Democratic early voting still outpaces Republicans statewide):
"Early voting trends suggest good news for GOP Candidates" by Benjamin Spillman
http://www.lvrj.com/...
Well, after reading this distortion of statewide voting patterns in Nevada, (under a pseudonym) I wrote him this letter:
Subject: False Headline Regarding Early Voting Trends Article
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:27:41 -0500
Mr. Spillman,
You buried your lede in the story: Dems are outperforming the GOP in early voting.
In national elections, *[in some states] up to 70% of the total vote from 2004 [in 2008] occurred during early voting. Registered Nevada democrats are outpacing GOP voters during the early voting period which the GOP normally builds the numerical voter advantage.
But what really bothers me is the false equivalency you give between Clark County and Washoe County, (in terms of percentages vs. raw numbers) Clark County is the voting behemoth vs much smaller Washoe County. A 9% GOP voter increase in Washoe does not nearly equal in numerical votes to the 9% DEM increase of Clark County voters.
In short, you are leaving a flat-out 'false' impression of the state of the Nevada early voting.
As a seasoned reporter, what I am telling you I know you are already aware of. However, with the disintegration of non-biased media. True depictions of events have been harder for the public to obtain. To spin surprising early voting news for the Dems -bury it within the article, but dangle the headline for the GOP is very dishonest and disingenuous for readers. I'm shocked at the lack of journalistic integrity. You cannot be proud of this article, meant to please conservatives against the actual truth of voting trends, whose effects may be to discourage Democratic early voting.
You ought to be ashamed.
Sincerely,
xoxo
*Statistics corrected by commenter and sourced from United States Elections Project website
Mr. Spillman replied that the article's headline and content was meant to only highlight the GOP advantage in certain areas of the state (like Reno and Sparks, NV). Funny, because that's not how the headline reads or what the 1st third of the article was illustrating:
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:23:21 -0700
Thanks for the note.
The term "outperform" is referring to turnout relative to registration.
In Washoe, for example, D and R rege are each 39 percent of the total.
But through Sunday actual turnout was something like 48 percent R and 39 percent D.
Therefore, D turnout matched expectation based on registration levels. R turnout "outperformed" registration by 9 percentage points.
In Clark -- as the article stated -- the so-called "enthusiasm gap" was narrower. Yet Rs still "outperformed" their registration level at a greater rate than Ds.
The article also noted the votes represented less than 4 percent of total active, registered voters in Nevada and more than once reminded readers not to draw too sweeping of conclusions.
The 9 percent Dem advantage you note in Clark County is also mostly concentrated in CD1. The concentration of D voters in CD1 can still help Ds in statewide races. But it won't help them in CD3, where the ratio is strikingly similar to the ratio of 2006, when Rs took that seat.
If the turnout breakdown is similar to 2006 -- and early indications suggest it is -- that would be a slight R advantage. In 2006 then-Sen. Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, won Clark County by getting 49 percent of the vote. But she lost statewide to then-Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., by about 4 percentage points. Gibbons got 57 percent of the vote in Washoe and won handily in the rurals. Gibbons got 42 percent of the vote in Clark in 2006.
So, at least in 2006, pulling 42 percent in Clark and winning Washoe and the rurals was enough for an R to win statewide office.
We've quoted a Democratic expert in the past saying -- in general -- Democratic candidates for statewide office need to win Clark by about 12 percent or more and be competitive in Washoe. If they lose Clark or don't win by enough they lose the state. -- bjs
This section of the letter bears repeating. Notice the line Mr. Spillman writes, clarifying a warning about interpreting any false conclusions based on the article:
The article also noted the votes represented less than 4 percent of total active, registered voters in Nevada and more than once reminded readers not to draw too sweeping of conclusions.
Well, on that point, I think he failed with me as a reader; however, not to the rapid GOP horde of commenters on the site who gleefully lapped up the 'news' about the Republican Nevadans' soon-to-be gotten gains.[Though, through his letter, he was really talking about local congressional district candidates.]
Unfortunately, a reporter from a national outlet might have also 'misunderstood' which helped launch (and give the MSM permission) for the false Republican narrative to now go
viral through the
national media...
#3) Similar article structure (GOP headline with buried Dem-leading data), narrower subject (from NV candidates in general to Sen. Harry Reid). Beltway-wisdom online outlet
Politico then lent its conservative-leaning view of the Reid-Angle race with an
eerily-similar rehash of the Review-Journal article ominously titled:
"Early vote a bad omen for Harry Reid" by Molly Ball
http://www.politico.com/...
Even though (like the other articles) the factual information about registered Democratic leads in early voting are buried deep within the article.
Now, these early voting distortions are being repeated in
The Miami Herald and elsewhere across the country (advancing the Republican narrative):
Google Results
Together, these print articles paint a very false and disingenuous picture of 2010 early voting results in these areas. I ask that you please investigate and look deeper into this disturbing phenomena of marketing Republican narratives over the actual facts (and the real story) of
Democratic early voting leads against the MSM / Republican narrative of the 2010 election cycle.
Update: Wow..you guys top rec'd me. I'm honored by your response. Thanks!
Update #2: Overnight, overall Dem lead in Clark County early voting numbers (for Tuesday, Oct. 19th) more than doubled from previous day (on Monday, Oct 18th). From around 1,200 raw votes daily lead to 3,600+ (also "No Party" voters increased a whopping 4,000 to 7,000+ Monday to Tuesday).
Is it an accident, these dramatic increases occurred yesterday 1 full day after Sharron Angle's now infamous remarks about Hispanics looking like 'asians'? Could these increase from 'No Party' voters be a sign they are leaning more towards the Dems and Sen. Harry Reid, than NV Governor challenger Brian Sandoval, Sharron Angle and the GOP?
Here is the Clark County (Las Vegas metro) early voting raw data for Tuesday, October 19th:
Clark County Election Department