Timm writes: "Voter registrations fell sharply amid the early months of the coronavirus pandemic, but shot up in June amid nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd, according to a new analysis."
Residents keep their distance while waiting in line for same-day voter registration or amendments to their voting status outside of the City of Detroit Department of Elections during the Michigan Primary Election in Detroit, Michigan, Aug. 4, 2020. (photo: Brittany Greeson/Getty Images)
Voter Registration Surged During BLM Protests, Study Finds
11 August 20
The rise, largely among Democrats and independents, came after a steep decline amid the coronavirus pandemic.
oter registrations fell sharply amid the early months of the coronavirus pandemic, but shot up in June amid nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd, according to a new analysis.
TargetSmart, a Democratic political data firm, analyzed local election officials' registration data against their voter file and found a surge of Democratic and unaffiliated voter registrations in June, amid the large Black Lives Matter protests across the country.
"Despite a full or partial lockdown in large swaths of the country for much of the month, voter registration began to rebound as people took to the streets to protest," the firm said in its analysis.
In the first half of June, 1.1 million voters registered. By comparison, 1.5 million voters registered in the entire month of June 2016. Not all states have reported the entire month of June's registration data, hence the partial national data.
Some of June's registration surge likely happened at the protests: Local reports from Los Angeles, California, to Kalamazoo, Michigan, detail voter registration efforts. Some activists posted QR codes on protest signs, so protesters could scan the code and begin the registration process on their phones.
In Minnesota, the heart of the demonstrations, there was a large spike that appears to have continued into July.
"Voter registration for Democrats nearly doubled in June from 17,000 in 2016 to 32,000 in 2020. Meanwhile, Republican registration essentially flat-lined at 17,000," TargetSmart wrote.
The spring before a presidential election is typically marked by an increase in voter registrations ahead of the primaries, but after the coronavirus' rapid spread prompted statewide shutdowns and delayed primaries, voter registration plummeted across the country. In March and April, registration fell 32 percent compared with 2016's numbers. In May, the decline accelerated and voter registrations fell 54 percent compared with 2016�s numbers.
Historically, most voters register outside the home: 52 percent of 2016 voters registered at government offices like the Department of Motor Vehicles or on school campuses, at hospitals or registration drives, according to Census data. Many of those offices and drives were curbed or closed down amid the pandemic, contributing to the decline in voter registrations.
Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart, also pointed to growing voter frustration over President Donald Trump's handling of the pandemic, which polls indicate grew through June.
"There's this level of intensity, people are feeling like this situation is being very much mishandled, and if they have the opportunity to go and cast a ballot and put different people in charge," Bonier told NBC News last month while preparing the analysis. "I think we're seeing that in the vote registrations."
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
We of the National Optimists Party are thus distinguished as the only party advocating elevated powers of cerebration.
Not sure who Taibbi means when he says "the rest of us." I and other progressives I know have been communicating until our fingers fall off to spread truth and motivate progressives/De ms to engage. I have written to Obama and other elected officials, pleading with them to fight the bullies. For two years, I have been sounding the warning bell about Repubs stealing their 3rd election and criticizing the Dem Party for their lack of defense of our Democracy as well as their poor messaging.
If Taibbi means the "media" in reference to spreading truth, again, who in the mainstream media is going to do that? Mother Jones broke through with the scathing 47% video, but within a week and one debate, that traction has all but evaporated.
As many experienced political careerists have said: campaigns are not to educate. Sorry, but if Obama and the DNC haven't figured out how to reach Americans with their positive message abotu the role government plays in our lives and if they haven't learned from Clinton's war room that they must combat the BS like they're at war, then I don't hold out much hope for the next four weeks making a difference.
The main reason for this is the Dems tendency to listen to all viewpoints vs. the Repubs ability to all promote a single viewpoint, reading off the same script (as shown so many times by Stewart and Colbert). The Dems really need to have a strategy developed by a specialist in personality types like Myers/Briggs and then stick to it in order to make the independents/pr ogressives truly think about what the Repubs are proposing.
If they're smart, they will take Romney's tendency to change his positions based on what way the wind is blowing (much as Clinton did today) and point out this man will do and say anything to become President because he believes it's his destiny and his turn, not because of what will be good for America or the world.
But I still think they have his tax returns in their back pocket and it will be the October surprise.
He let Bill Clinton give his speech at the DNC.
He let Bill Clinton defend him after his bad debate showing.
What is wrong with Obama, and what is wrong with American progressives?
He wasn't invited...curio us isn't it?
Next...
Now Twit's the man they'll hang all their hopes on for further destroying this country and this planet.
Once the ugly face of conservative ideology makes itself know again (as soon as his real agenda becomes apparent), they'll just toss him aside like rush limb-blow has done to so many buckets of chicken.
Cheney is experiencing, subject to an over whelming number of death threats as compared to a less violent, less treacherous "normal" retiring public figure. Several countries have outstanding arrest warrents for Cheney. Check your computer-there are some U.S. eastern states which have outstanding arrest warrents for Cheney-if he sets foot down in those states. And why, if we know the facts, do we wonder why the murdering Bush/Cheney and the rest of the "gang" were not invited to or asked to participate in the RNC? Another 9-11?
You would like George Lakoff, if you haven't read him - he talks about the diversity of liberals. He advised the DNCon messaging, but I see no indication they listened to him.
However, I firmly believe as you, that we must stop looking toward elected officials for fundamental, transformationa l change. It is not currently in their own self-interests, and with our current system, the only thing driving them is that - their own interests. We will not get publicly-funded elections from an Obama administration, nor any other part of the progressive agenda, unless we fight for it. It's really the progressives who dropped the ball and cannot do so any longer - it is up to us to hold our own candidates accountable.
I jumped on the bandwagon when there was no choice, because an unknown seemed better than what I was seeing in the Democratic/Repu blican debates of 2008.
I can understand taking time to get up to speed, but I don't see Obama getting up to speed, I see him pretty much putt-putting along - maybe even in reverse.
No universal health care, a lie that gives record money to the insurance industry which is most of the health care problem.
Then the financial crisis - not one corporate criminal indicted and convicted still and no sign of Obama doing that. Put the same guys in charge of the fix as the ones who brought about the crisis in the first place, and too big to fail is bigger.
Last election Obama told us if the economy did not recover he would be a one-term President, and he should have kept his word. At least we would have had Democrats debating all the last year along with the nutso Republicans that seem to have confused Americans too much.
OK, all of that would be understandable if Obama had learned, gotten up to speed and done something, but he just has not. He is still just playing the I'm not Bush card. I want more I expect more.
If only they would.
As for the fear mongering: Many of the fears about a Romney rule are entirely justified. Their economic ideas are proven wrong, their anti-women agenda is horrific, they want to let neo-con war criminals add to their global crimes and stack the Supreme court with right wing ideologues, roll back environmental legislation, including CAFE standards - the list is endless.
Plus their figureheads are an extreme ideologue and an extreme lier. You better be afraid.
One thing he said. He has a sign on his desk that says if the fact don't fit the ideology, you need to change the ideology. That should be required for every politician's desk.
Of course, then you'd have those politicians who believe their opinions to be facts, even though they can't prove them.
I agree whole-heartedly . I wish we could get away from the idea of political advertising as protected free speech. It doesn't shed any light on the decisions we need to make as citizens.
Someone told me recently that in France, there are hundreds of candidates for the highest office (President or Prime Minister?) who get media time to present their ideas. Then the voters choose which ones are the best to consider for a final vote. I'm not sure how it is done, but I wonder if it might provide an alternative to the way advertising money narrows done the slate of candidates in this country. He seemed to think that in France, it was all about the candidates' ideas and qualifications, not how they get packaged by advertising firms.
You CHOOSE to stay glued to the screen, so they CHOOSE to keep feeding you the Kool Aid.
They will only stop when you stop.
I personally don't depend on TV programing for my info. Never the less, every survey says the over whelming majority of people get the majority of their info from the tube. I agree with your basic premise that people should expand their sources for info. For instance, participating in stimulating exchanges of thought, especially because it exposes you to ideas you may not agree with, like this blog. Keep it up!
Matt,isn't that hype too. The big todo about Obama's debate performance that night has been spun out via the media precisely because it hit at something important unconsciously.
I'm not voting AGAINST ROMNEY more than FOR OBAMA, but the debate made them look roughly equivalent, and I am fully partisan for a Democrat. Obama again did not look like a Democrat.
I know that Romney played the 'move to the center' card - like Bush, denying policies that he will pick up post-election, and no mentions of specifics because he is going to come in with Republican interests like Cheney with energy and "decide" how the future is going to look. Or we get Obama and its more of the last 4 years. Nothing good here.
Through having too many too big to fail giant corporations we now have a too big to influence government where only those on the level of hundreds of millions of dollars has any say about anything.
Obama has no way to explain his agenda or , and neither does Romney, they both are just there to speak to some vaguely defined marginal majority of media watchers that are what makes up political reality for the people.
There is nothing but hype anymore!
I am pretty unhappy that we have really no choice this election cycle, not even that, we cannot know what we have because both candidates are really jerking the American people around.
Obama talks his talk, but he did not make a stand over the Bush tax cut issue and deep inside my not really believe letting taxes go us will help anything.
How are you going to feel if Obama is re-elected and then blames the Republicans again for keeping the Bush tax cuts in place while the deficit continues to rise?
They say it's hard to prove a negative, that is, the recession would have been worse if Obama had not been in office. I believe that because I do think the stimulus worked, but there is no money or support for another one, and the first one was not targeted right anyway.
All these guys are puppets, not just Romney. Obama is just as much pro-military industrial complex as Romney.
Are you happy about that?
I don't think the facts support this assessment. if anything, we've more clearly broken into 2 economies: one at the top that's well into recovery, and one at the bottom that's still in a depression.
besides, we may have been on a sinking ship 4 years ago, but remember the titanic, it nosed down until its keel broke, then settled down level in the water (and some people thought it was going to be ok), but it started to flood, and quickly went down.
as a country, we're right about the part where the keel has broken (is breaking).
with either hello mitty or bo, we're going down and the lifeboats have already left, filled with the rich.
fear, hype, fact? we'll just have to wait and see.
No, in fact there is no such thing as unbiased news.
I'll settle for honest news and competent reporting. I think PBS does a pretty good job on must stuff, Democracy Now! on anything except the Middle East.
The capitalist everything is money vision of the world makes it impossible to get disinterested news let alone unbiased news. Most of the books we see are marketing material in some way. Titles are there to sell books that do not live up to the titles because the publishing company knows if they leave things open you will buy another book.
Ironically the capitalist money economy has made competition less instead of more.
Since the GOP acts like they're in a parliamentary system maybe we should just slide over. Our friends to the north have done pretty well with theirs.
But, no matter. It's hard to disagree with your points -- you are getting boring, you know. You and Krugman ....
That is the point. I agree. Hence, the low voter turnout.
In a couple of days research, we pretty much know who we will and won't vote for. TV and the rest become superfluous after that. So why bother with keeping up with the horse-races the media has reduced election season to? Even the televised farces, so-called "debates," sink into irrelevance.
"The Nation"--on a weekly basis--makes the same point; as did Hellinger and Judd in their early 90's classic, _The Democratic Facade_.
Moving on.
Think about it: the longer the election season lasts, the more it plays into the hands of the big media, big corporate interests, their lobbyists and patsies who can afford to pay the costs of truth-twisting, oblige the attacked to respond in kind and in cost, and the less it concerns those of us who are just trying to keep the lights on and food on the table.
The US electoral season begins just after inauguration day, especially when you have a congress so dedicated to unseating and disgracing the incumbent. -And it really doesn't work does it (every incumbent since Nixon has had two terms except for Carter and Bush senior)?
But there seems to be no will to change this from any perspective.
One other stinking but obvious side effect that the jockeying for power and the loudest voice (but which is never recognized as such), is that the seemingly requisite fluff, tinsel and jingoism of electionism (my term) prevents the elected "Law makers" from thoroughly examining each issue presented to them in depth and really doing the jobs you sent them to D.C. to do, so intent are they on covering their carefully orchestrated and choreographed rear ends.
What to do about it -I haven't a clue, given the entrenched attitudes of all involved!
You might start by RECOGNIZING the problem instead of numbly perpetrating it!
Wealthy politicians - like Romney - would tour the country for a year, to "discuss the issues with Americans." Like Reagan, the wealthy and influential politicians would find hundreds of opportunities to grab the public's attention. They would be asked, "Are you running for President?" Response: "Not yet."
Meanwhile, the Rush Limbaugh-types would continue to stir up trouble. Limbaugh started his attacks on President-elect Obama a few days after the 2008 election!
Obama wasn't even in the White House.
So it's possible that the national campaigns will ALWAYS be in motion. We may never see any significant pauses. Already, the political parties are planning for the 2016 elections.
Billions and billions of dollars wasted for selfish self-interests, where the money could be used to better society, create safe environments for children, the abused and downtrodden. But this Samaritan approach doesn't benefit the Koch's, Wall Street and the other high-powered and monied crooks among us.
But democracy is great, isn't it?
It's the audience's choice to view this crap and purchase the products that pay for it. You don't really have to watch TV to get the news; and in fact, TV is the least efficient way there is to get news. The same goes for entertainment. The problem is that many people have gotten too lazy to read and some are too lazy to think.
A professor if mine, many years ago, claimed that Life Magazine was for people who can't read and Time Magazine was for people who can't think. Modern American TV is for people who can do neither.
I never heard of "citizenship skills" in my previous 16 or 17 years of school. This was not taught in high school. Very little critical thinking was taught in my schools. Very little support for curiosity or creativity. I think a lot of this may go back to the "dumbing down" of students. The "don't rock the boat, status quo, be seen and not heard" priorities of many schools. Can't say "all" because I don't know.
In the process of the classes I took for my human relations minor, I believe I developed a "b.s. detector." How do we go about developing b.s. detectors in kids, without turning them into cynics?
The way I figure it, if my priority is to get to the truth, and the person I'm dealing with has the same priority, we'll eventually get to it.
It's those with the "my way or highway" attitude that I find hardest to deal with. Rush Limaugh comes immediately to mind.
I don't have a tv, so it's either public radio, or RSN.
Yes, Matt, Yes!
2. This is the result of capitalism in its purest (Ryan) form.....corpor atios own the media. Corporations want profit without responsibility. Fear, trauma, panic are the things that get the most viewing and thus the most advertisig, i.e. profit. I believe the media is actually running this country, not the president, congressmen, et. al.