Jackson Free Press

Remarkably, even in the light of day, Clarion-Ledger reporter Natalie Chandler is still repeating an abysmally off turnout prediction by Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann as if it were accurate, and she as yet has not corrected or apologized for a massive error about party turnout that she posted on the Ledger site last evening. (Click here for last night's discussion of those errors as they unfolded.)

On Monday, Hosemann told media that Mississippi's primary turnout would be "light to moderate" with 125,000 to 150,000 people turning out to vote Tuesday. That prediction, which Chandler and fellow reporter Leah Rupp characterized in a story yesterday as "so-so" turnout, was remarkably low: CNN's Mississippi election returns page shows that around 550,000 Mississippians turned out to vote, 400,000 more than Hosemann's top number, and with more than 400,000 voting for Democrats (even as Chandler reported last night that the two parties had turned out about the same number of voters, a story that was still leading the Ledger site at 1 a.m.)

Then this morning, Chandler still parrots Hosemann's Monday statement as fact in her news story, even as he was 400,000 voters short:

"Turnout was light to moderate in a state with 1.78 million voters."

Previous Commentsshow

I think 1/3 turn out is good - no? !!

Izzy

Mar 12 2008

Yes (although it's not quite a third, but it's more than a quarter of registered voters, in a primary that Hosemann said would be "moderate" turnout if it drew 150,000!). And the truly amazing part is the Democratic turnout, especially the black turnout, in a state where Democratic apathy has reigned for so long. The Clarion-Ledger seems to be going to great lengths to hide this in their news "reporting." And bless these reporters' hearts, but can't they find some journalists who can do basic math? The Ledger needs to get out in front of this and prominently correct and apologize for these errors at the top of its front page; if not, their credibility is going to slip even further into the toilet. This is pretty 101 stuff to screw up.

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

that's reprehensible. you would think that a state paper would want to adequately research to ensure they had the correct statistics before disseminating information that makes our state look bad. considering most of the state's voters are republican, i'd say 400,000 voting democrats is phenomenal, 22.5% of total voters. How many democrats normally vote in presidential elections? I'd assume this is close to that amount?

Lindsey

Mar 12 2008

33% of registered voters in a primary election where one party has sewn up its contest is extraordinary. In 2003, with Barbour ran against the incumbent Musgrove in a highly contested election, about 850,000 Mississippians went to the polls. In 2004, the Democrats turned out 76,000 voters in the Kerry primary...again, it's worth noting that it was not as meaningful then as now, although there were certainly down-ticket races as usual. (The Republican report is a hand-scrawled chicken scratch that I can't quite decipher. In 2006, a non-presidential year (but after Katrina and with Lott running for his seat), a little over 600,000 Mississippians voted in the *general* election, and we got close to that total last night for a *primary* election. In 2008, we're looking at 99% reporting and 543,594 votes in the *primary*.

Todd Stauffer

Mar 12 2008

The C-L Desoto County turnout report is especially interesting; why that high? And was it Republicans? And was it white people voting against Obama, or black people voting for Obama? Since I'm not there, I don't know - but was it the race card that was the decider in various Mississippi counties? The statewide statistics by race of the voter are more significant than in many other states - was that because this is Mississippi, or because the campaigns have got increasingly vitriolic?

footsy

Mar 12 2008

Turnout was high in DeSoto due to the First District congressional race having a local man in the Republican primary. Also, I believe a lot of "Republicans" voted on the Democratic side for Hillary or Obama, as there was not much drama in pulling the lever for McCain this time around.

QB

Mar 12 2008

But those two explanations run counter to each other! Turnout was high on the Democratic side in Desoto County. The Republican primary contest should have decreased Democratic votes...

footsy

Mar 12 2008

Now, if the republicans had had an interesting primary, it would have been even better where I was. As it happened, one button push isn't too thrilling. I mean, no one bothers to run against bennie anymore so what's the point?

Ironghost

Mar 12 2008

We keep hearing stories about black precincts that were swamped from early morning, and white ones where you could hear crickets chirping. Folks, the story last night was *not* racial polarization (that's been the story for a couple centuries, give or take); it was turnout and what Obama managed to do Let's recap, now that the numbers are a bit more clear: Of just less than 1.8 million registered voters in the state, some 550,000 turned out last night (400,000 more than the deaf-and-dumb secretary of state predicted, and about that number voting for Democrats). It is becoming clearer and clearer from exit polls that even of Hillary's cut of those voters, a good number of them probably turned out to vote for her because they want McCain to win and believe Obama has the best shot against him (and that may or may not be racist, national media; probably a mixture). As Todd points out above, this is far and beyond the Democratic turnout in previous primaries. And that doesn't mean that (except for the Republican squatters) Obama is suddenly turning off white Democrats who will likely vote for him in November if he is the nominiee. What he is doing is igniting black and young voters who may well not turn out to vote for Clinton and her marital and DLC baggage. That is the story, if anyone cares.

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

Donna, my numbers show that there is a +447% turnout. Basically there was roughly 75k in both 2000 and 2004. This was just plain crazy! There were over 400k voting Democratic last night. Todd is dead right on his numbers. Sen. Obama gained 61% of the vote—roughly 253,441 of the total 417,428 votes cast in the Democratic primary were for him. Recall that only 458,094 votes were cast for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in the general election in 2004. Further, in the 2004 Democratic primary for president, Kerry won at 78.4%, gaining 59,815 of the 76,298 votes cast. Better candidates, better ideas, and competition in 2008 combined to create a 447% increase in Democratic presidential primary voters over 2004. In 2000, Al Gore got 89.62%, with only 79,408 votes of the total 114,979 cast. The 2008 primary turnout boasts a 263% increase over 2000. Even Senator Clinton alone got almost as many votes last night (154,852) as were cast total for Democrats in the 2004 or 2008 primaries combined (155,706). The Democrats have “found” 300,000 new voters in the primary. I do not believe this is from crossover voting because the Republicans had a decent turnout, no doubt assisted from a big race in the Third with lots of interest (county totals aren't up on the SOS yet to verify this), and of course the Third is gerrymandered white and Republican. In the 2000 presidential primary—the last time there was one for Republicans, as Pres. Bush ran uncontested in 2004—the surging popularity of the former Texas governor brought him 101,042 votes, 87.88% of the total 114,979 votes cast. Contrast that last night with Sen. John McCain, who won 111,953 votes last night, 79% of the 141,814 cast. This is an increase over those folks claiming to be Republican and voting for then-Gov. Bush. This is a 23% increase. Even with these (comparably modest) gains, the Republicans are performing to their historical scale. Total votes cast last night in both presidential primaries: 559,242 Total votes cast in 2000 in both presidential primaries: 203, 581 A 175% increase.

David McCarty

Mar 12 2008

Plain crazy, indeed. Thanks, David, for the numbers follow-up. This is the story, as you point out: The Democrats have “found” 300,000 new voters in the primary. Indeed they did. There is the news if anyone cares.

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

Ledger is starting to figure out that something big happened last night—they've discovered that a whole lot of non-Ledger readers voted yesterday (meaning the under-30 crowd; tee, hee).

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

Based on the number of votes cast, it was a great turn out, but the 3 different polls I drove by yesterday here in Clinton, 4 different times were ghost towns each time I passed.

BubbaT

Mar 12 2008

I still don't see any corrections on the Ledger site about the reporting that the Dems and Repubs drew about the same number of voters yesterday, and Chandler's story saying that it was a "low to moderate turnout" is still sitting out there looking really stupid, even as she is now writing stories about the big youth voter turnout.

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

The Ledge will continue to push the idea of "crossover voting," which the Republicans are going to desperately foist on us in the next few days and weeks. Otherwise, they look like they're going to get killed. Again, this is neutered by demonstrating how strong their turnout was on its own merits--23% over what it was in 2000 for the Republican presidential primary. For instance, when Haley ascended to the throne in the primary against Mitch Tyner in 2003, he received 158,284 votes of 190,046. In 2007, there were 197,647 votes cast in the gubernatorial primary, and Haley got 184,036 of them. These total numbers are remarkably consistent, with only a 4% increase over four years. There's only a certain amount of people that vote in primaries, and there's only very specific reasons to do so. The incentive to vote is obviously lessened when there is already a candidate--i.e., McCain in 2008, Kerry and Gore in 2004 and 2000, respectively. There's nothing to drive people out to vote, and only the most hardcore vote. This is just one of those years, and we're going to be shocked by the new wave of voters. I keeping seeing when the county totals pop up, but the most interesting will be what happens in Hinds.

David McCarty

Mar 12 2008

This is the moment we've been predicting and waiting for. Of course, we needed a decent candidate to make it happen, and the damn Democratic Party in the state better start taking notice. The Republican Party already knew this was possible; thus all the goofy voter ID maneuvering (not that that will negate this if it continues). They can't get traction with the crossover notion—I think it's obvious that a number of Clinton's voters (probably white males) were Republicans who want her against McCain and not Obama because they see the writing on the wall. But that in no counts for the 400,000 extra voters that Dilbert-man didn't see coming.

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

Bubba, I was at one in Clinton. Compared with other times I've been there, they had a reasonable day, even for a No-Choice Republican side.

Ironghost

Mar 12 2008

Could just have been the times I was passing them, taking kids to school and picking them up. Knew by the numbers it had to more voting than I saw.

BubbaT

Mar 12 2008

As was cited on another thread, over 90% of the black vote yesterday went for Obama, while 70% of the white vote went to Clinton. I think it might be more of blacks voting for Obama as it was white voting for Clinton. However, keep in mind that a good number of white voters are probably McCain supporters who crossed over to vote for Clinton because she is perceived to have a better chance at losing to McCain. I do believe the vast majority of Clinton supporters are truly her supporters, but those who crossed over from the Republican side to vote in the Democratic primary could be skewing the white vote she received.

golden eagle

Mar 12 2008

I think they're called Limbaugh Republicans or Hillary's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Huckleberry

Mar 12 2008

This is the 2nd straight time the SoS has been way off on estimates (Clark was off significantly in Novemeber). Since it is different secretarys, I wonder if the problem is with staff or is systemic?

Droite

Mar 12 2008

I don't know. I wasn't much more impressed with Eric Clark than I am with Hosemann. However, I don't think Eric Clark ever tried to evict felons convicted of "purjery" or "bigotry." Giggle. It is funny that Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" (which did exist) would be crossing over now to vote for her in order to keep a black man out of office. There's something so Republican about that. Or at least Atwater.

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

I thought the purpose of the Limbaugh ploy was to help Hillary win, who Republicans perceive as more beatable in November--NOT to keep a black man from winning. Do you disagree? It appears to me that Hillary is the only presidential candidate encouraging racial division lately. I am surprised there is no Ferraro comment backlash here today, and why did Hillary only campaign in rural white areas in Mississippi?

Huckleberry

Mar 12 2008

Still not convinced about the racial disparity. I'll run the numbers when they come in in terms of counties--but I for one have never participated in an exit poll, and they can grossly distort the actual truth. I have no doubt that Sen. Obama had huge support from white folks and black folks (for the record, I'm white, and I know tons of folks voting for him across the color spectrum). This ain't racial, and I want to start looking into it.

David McCarty

Mar 12 2008

Almost everyone I know voted for Obama- of the two that didn't, one just wanted to vote for Hillary, and the other voted for Guiliani on the Republican side- she just wanted to vote Republican so she could vote against David Lambert- that's where too damn many TV ads will get you...

Rico

Mar 12 2008

I thought the purpose of the Limbaugh ploy was to help Hillary win, who Republicans perceive as more beatable in November--NOT to keep a black man from winning. Do you disagree? Well, my guess would be both, considering Limbaugh's past history on racial comments. However, I do think that unifying theme for people who would do that must be to keep Obama from being the nominee (for one or more reasons) because they believe he will win. Then, they not only have a Democratic president and Congress, but a black president to boot. So I think it's a variety of factors, none of them impressive. And David, I don't believe that last night was about "racial polarization" as the media spun it. But I've said that already. ;-) It was clear to me ahead of time that we would see an amazing turnout—I made fun of Hosemann's announcement in the office when we got the press release (I believe my word was "dumba$$")—but I had no idea it would be *this* explosive. But the truth is that people all around us were very, very excited. Everywhere I went people were excited. And most of them were for Obama, black and white. I think Hosemann was blindsided by this. I heard someone say that maybe he under-predicted it on purpose to try to squelch turnout, but had he had any sense it would be this kind of turnout, I can't imagine that he would have put himself out there to look like such a fool. He had to have known he couldn't squelch 400,000, or even 300,000, unexpected voters. I just think he's way out of touch with what's going on now in Mississippi, and has been building for the last few years. From where we sit, it's not hard to see because our readership is made up of frustrated independents and progressives, young voters, people of color. We know what they're thinking because they tell us. We also know they will turn out if given a good candidate. I've tried to tell some high-ranking state Democrats that for years, but they treat this sleeping giant with contempt because they don't know how to shape and control it for their own limited partisan purposes. What kills me, though, is that the Ledger was so slow to get what was happening under their noses yesterday, and how their reporter continued to parrot Hosemann's "light to moderate turnout" meme today even though he was clearly so wrong. Meantime, the national media were missing the real story about the turnout. If it's not the Ledger's job to tell the world what is happening here in Mississippi, then whose role is it? Gannett needs to use its vast resources to get some reporters on the political beat who have an idea of how to do political reporting. That's no slap on the women in those roles; they could probably learn to be decent reporters. This is about Ledger leadership, or the lack of it. I feel sorry for those young women being thrust out there to make a fool of themselves. The Ledger ought to protect them better than that with good editing and mentoring. But who is going to do that? And MPB could do a better job as well, I'm sad to say.

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

BTW, Rico, I think you meet Landrum. And as Adam just pointed out to me, all the Repubs who crossed over to vote for Hillary in the contested congressional district now cannot show up to vote in their runoffs. Oops. Wonder if they thought that through.

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

Yeah, I did mean Landrum- you would think that with all the signs and all the ads, I could remember the guys name! Talk about tuning out... And by the way- I hope that you keep reminding those high ranking state Democrats about this forever- I've never seen anything as dysfunctional as the state Democratic Party, but it is followed pretty closely by the national Democratic Party. This election will be theirs to lose if Hillary hurries up and bows out- let's hope that they don't blow it!

Rico

Mar 12 2008

I hope that you keep reminding those high ranking state Democrats about this forever- Do I look like the type who would shut up!?! ;-D Seriously, we've been saying it over and over again. I got into a big argument a few years back with a certain official of a certain state agency who is now a certain state senator because he did not believe we should try to get the Democratic Party to try to reach out to new voters instead of scrap over the ones who already voted (and, often, Republican). I've posted that link over and over again about how people under 30 voted here in 2004. I've told national media that pass through (including The Nation's Bob Moser, who gets it, and the Le Monde and al Jazeera reporters last week) for years that Mississippi has the capacity to change faster than some other states if candidates would take us seriously and the Dems (or whomever can be progressive) would not treat us like flyover country. I've told people for months now that Mississippians, especially young ones and people of color, are on fire over Obama. I have a sticky over my desk with the projected percentage of how many white Mississippians need to vote progressive in order to swing this state (that a very wise long-time politico calculated for me weeks after the JFP launched, and he saw what our potential readership was stacking up to be and asked me to have lunch). And that figure, by the way, may drop if the black turnout keeps this trend up. That is, the state could need ever fewer whites to go "blue." I've also said that the first political party that figures this out about Mississippi and goes progressive (it's not like the Repubs have been the New Dixiecrats for that long; they could switch back about as easily as the coots in the state Democratic Party could get off their arses and do something) can own the New Mississippi politically. At this point, I really don't know how else to say it. But I'll keep saying it. And hopefully people may finally start listening after last night.

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

It appears to me that Hillary is the only presidential candidate encouraging racial division lately. I am surprised there is no Ferraro comment backlash here today, and why did Hillary only campaign in rural white areas in Mississippi? You can find some comments about Ferraro on this thread.

LatashaWillis

Mar 12 2008

Re Ferraro backlash: I personally am beat today to engage too much on the Ferraro front because it's essentially the same argument I have with people who do drive-bys here on race issues. However, I am composting a column that gets into it. And anyone is welcome to talk about Gerry on this site as they wish (obeying usual rules, of course).

DonnaLadd

Mar 12 2008

Has anyone seen this article, Hillary and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy - The strange case of conservative pundits and their love for Barack Obama? It is a very interesting read. See here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html

blu_n_a_redstate

Mar 12 2008

blu, I can't thank you enough for that link. Y'all have GOT to read it. Wayne Barrett and his contributors really break down how the pundit puppetmasters have been at work to help stir up trouble during this campaign. Here's an example: Novak tried to poison the well by suggesting that the Clintons were dumping negative innuendos about Obama on donors and journalists like himself. "I have not talked to a single Republican in my reporting of attacks on Obama," he wrote, effectively outing his anonymous Clinton sources. He called Hillary's comments about the complementary roles of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson a "race debate." Declaring that "Obamania reigns supreme," Novak said that the Clintons' tactics against Obama in late February had "yielded derisive laughter" among political professionals. But by March 1 and 3, his columns were decrying Obama's "horrible gaffe" on Louis Farrakhan and even discussing questions of merit regarding the Rezko relationship, citing suggestions that a controversial Iraqi billionaire had helped Obama buy his Chicago mansion, funneling the cash through friend and donor Rezko. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Obama had something to do with 9/11 - if they're not already saying it.

LatashaWillis

Mar 13 2008

The C-L has an article today showing voter turnout tripled Hosemann's estimates.

QB

Mar 13 2008

Yeah i called Natalie yesterday, she got mad and told me to call the editors not her. i see if you start holding people accountable they might do the right thing.

NewJackson

Mar 13 2008

Good to hear the CL is catching up with the actual news that was very clear the night of the primary: turnout, turnout, turnout. We also woke today to MPB making up for missing the story yesterday morning with an interview with Hosemann (who ended screaming for voter reform, and the reporter not asking him *why* it was needed), as well as a story about the huge young voter turnout in Mississippi, includuing a good interview with an expert on youth voting. Better late than never, I 'spose.

DonnaLadd

Mar 13 2008

I gotta admit--I give SOS Hosemann for props for admitting he's wrong, and noting that there was record turnout. http://www.sunherald.com/278/story/429234.html

David McCarty

Mar 13 2008

Yeah i called Natalie yesterday, she got mad and told me to call the editors not her. Then why do they put their phone numbers under the articles, NewJack??? Just for compliments? I hope you weren't rude to her, though. It was a couple of big errors in stories of national interest, but she clearly has no real editor watching what she is putting into print. The editor could have even introduced the error; we hear those stories all the time out of the Ledger from frustrated reporters. My complaint there has never been with the young reporters; it's always with the lack of guidance and leadership from the editors. However, that doesn't mean these reporters should be patronized and patted on the heads like they did nothing wrong (which I noticed that the sexists among us like to do to female journalists here). That's not holding them to high standards, which will ultimately hurt their careers. Any any reporter/editor who isn't willing to work hard, factcheck, openly correct your errors and apologize for mistakes should go into another line of work. I had the sh!t kicked out of me in graduate school for my own lazy writing/reporting habits, and the lessons stuck.

DonnaLadd

Mar 13 2008

Ladd why you figure i was rude to her, i guess you think you know me by now huh, i wasn't rude tho i just asked and she got irritated thats her problem she might was getting calls all day that my call finally ticked her off.

NewJackson

Mar 13 2008

I don't know. I wasn't much more impressed with Eric Clark than I am with Hosemann. The "Estimating the Vote" press conference is a waste of the people's resources and the media's time.

Droite

Mar 13 2008

True, David, but it's not like he really had a choice. ;-) The numbers are the numbers. What I think is most significant about his prediction is that he was so incredibly out of touch with what's going on in the state. I don't think he purposefully under-estimated the vote; I think he just does not talk to the same people you and I and many of the rest of us here do. We know how excited younger and African Americans voters are. I mean, I can't walk into Cups without watching barristas bubble over with excitement over the presidential election. They didn't used to talk politics when we ordered our coffee; now they do. Progressivism is on fire in Mississippi because people are beginning to believe that they matter, and that it is possible. This didn't just happen overnight. We've watched it happening for several years now. But this week the lion roared. Now, will the state Democratic Party (which is deaf and dumb enough not to have seen this coming, either) respond to this in a significant way by stopping the faux-Republican game-playing? I wish I could say I was optimistic.

DonnaLadd

Mar 13 2008

Donna, what are you referring to, here (inquiring minds want to know): "However, I don't think Eric Clark ever tried to evict felons convicted of "purjery" or "bigotry." I didn't see this by Hoseman, and I'd love to have it in context. And I agree with you about Clark. I didn't vote for either one of these two in past elections, for different reasons, maybe.

C.W.

Mar 13 2008

I pretty much agree with that, Droite. We didn't bother to go. For one thing, it's not like I thought Hosemann would have particular insight. No, NewJack, I don't assume you were rude to her. You have to admit that we see you get a little sassy here, but you know I like your passion. So please don't take what I said wrong. Right, and I believe you that she was getting calls all day. She should have been, especially once the pieces came out yesterday morning without corrections and repeating Hosemann's "light to moderate" meme, which by then was utterly wrong, and anyone could see it based on raw number turnouts. Anyone know if the Ledger ever corrected her Monday night assertion that about the same number of Dems and Republicans turned out?

DonnaLadd

Mar 13 2008

Sorry, C.W. Click here for explanation.

DonnaLadd

Mar 13 2008

BTW, to our knowledge, neither the Ledger or any other media outlet in Mississippi ever reported on the 2004 under-30 turnout in Mississippi, which was a hint of things to come should young people here ever get a decent candidate to vote for. Read our Nov. 11, 2004, story.

DonnaLadd

Mar 13 2008

I do get sassy but its just passion. But you showing me how to tone down my passion, and i tried when i called Natalie Yesterday.

NewJackson

Mar 13 2008

I believe you, NewJack. You have so much to offer friend. I remember being in my early 20s in Mississippi and being so angry at the box people wanted me to live in: to conform or leave. I left. You, on the other hand, are a fighter and are passionate about your city and your state. It is you who will bring us to a new day. Just breathe now and then and pick your battles. Challenging the media to get it right is a good battle to pick. Just remember that Ms. Chandler is not getting the guidance she needs to meet high st andards, which will hurt her if people do not challenge her to do better, and be compassionate about that even as you're challenging her. Better yet, call her editors. They're the problem. And they don't have the excuse of inexperience to fall back on.

DonnaLadd

Mar 13 2008

Shall we all not lose sight of the real success in Mississippi. The people choice in Secretary of State was obvious and it should why he was elected to look over businesses and elections. Delbert Horseman in his first effort as Secretary of State in charge of election, was with the 2 to 3 or 4 (depending on the actual amount and the number he predicted that keeps fluctuating) times the turnout. I mean he was only off by a few HUNDRED THOUSAND. By the way, I have paid my fees to maintain my business for the next 607 years... I am sure that is within his range of error Again, the reason his nickname around the capital was Dumba** not Dilbert is obvious. I can't wait for the presidential election I can see it now "I project 39 people will vote... where did every else come from?" and the one I fear "what is an LLC" shouldn't I create a business court (damn my real powers) to rule on these cases? AGamma627

AGamm627

Mar 13 2008

How did this Hoseman guy get elected? i hope it wasn't those cheesy commercials...

eyerah

Mar 14 2008