Muslim Americans the Most Racially Diverse Religious Group in the U.S.

The Gallup Center for Muslim Studies has published results from "the first-ever nationally representative study of a randomly selected sample of Muslim Americans." The study covers numerous subject areas, including Religion, Politics, Ethnicity, Education, Economic Levels, Gender Equality, and Social Participation. Some of the more fascinating results:

Muslims are the most racially diverse religious group in the United States, with 35% African-Americans, 28% White, 18% Asian, another 18% "Other" and 1% Hispanic.





In comparison, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Mormons are all at least 76% White.






Muslim Americans have the highest levels of education after Jewish Americans, with 40% holding a college degree or higher. The other percentages are: Jews 61%, Protestants 35%, Mormons 32%, Catholics 29% and the U.S. General Population 29%.

Muslim American Women also have the second highest level of education, with 42% holding college degrees or higher. Jewish women were at 58%, Protestants 33%, U.S. General Population 29%, Mormons 28% and Catholics 28%.

"In addition, as a group, Muslim Americans have the highest degree of economic gender parity at the high and low ends of the income spectrum."

Politically, 49% of Muslim Americans identify themselves as Democrats, 37% as Independents and only 8% as Republicans. Looks like the Cheney-Bush efforts to woo Muslims over the last eight years really paid off.

Unfortunately, young Muslim Americans between 18 and 29 are the least likely to be registered to vote. Only 51% are registered. Compare that to young Protestants 78%, Jews 73%, Mormons 69%, Catholics 56% and the U.S. General Population 65%.

The Full Report of the survey has a lot more interesting information.

Mystery in Alaska

Strange things brewing up in Alaska. . .

Though the popular Governor of the state is on the Republican ticket, and though turnout during the primary in August was up by 12% over 2004, and though turnout nationwide on Tuesday was the highest in 100 years, Alaskans appear not to have voted very much.

In fact, as things stand now, the turnout percentage would be the lowest in Alaska's history.

And it gets more interesting.

Convicted felon and Republican senator Ted Stevens was trailing Democrat Mark Begich by 12.9 points in the final poll before the election on Tuesday. And that was a poll done by Nate Silver at 538.com, who wound up with the most accurate pre-election polling results this year. With 98% of the results in, Stevens is currently leading Begich by 1.5%, a positive switch for the Republican of 14.4%.

Well, perhaps the polls were simply wrong. To give you some context, however, think back to Hillary Clinton's upset in New Hampshire. In that case, Hillary was behind 9 points and won by 2, a turnaround of 11%, which was considered one of the greatest comebacks of all time. So convicted felon Ted Stevens surpassed that incredible accomplishment.

But that's not the end of it! Criminal Ted Stevens wasn't the only one to show a 14% turnaround. Republican Rep. Don Young, currently under Federal investigation for taking bribes, illegal gratuities and unreported gifts, was trailing Democrat Ethan Berkowitz by 6.4% in Nate Silver's final poll and is currently winning by 7.7%, a 14.2% turnaround! So Nate Silver, Mr. Accurate, totally screw up two polls in Alaska?

But that's not the end of it! The McCain-Palin ticket also wound up getting 12.4% more than expected in the final poll. So Silver and all of the other pollsters, though they did very well in the rest of the country, missed three races by historic margins. Make sense to you?

Silver posits three "possible explanations" for the results:
1) Democrats became complacent because the election was basically over by 4 pm local time.
2) The 49,000 outstanding absentee and early voting ballots yet to be counted will be heavily Democratic.
3) There are an undisclosed number of "questionable" ballots yet to be counted, and those may be heavily Democratic.

Convicted Felon and Republican Senator Ted Stevens

But looking at Alaskan presidential results since 1960 seems to disprove explanation #1. In Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide, when he won every state but one (Mondale's home state), and everyone knew the election was over the moment the first results came out that evening, Alaskans still turned out in record numbers. 200,384 voters cast their ballots that year, compared to only 127,954 in 1980. Turnout in Alaska also increased to an historic number in 1964, despite Lyndon Johnson's Democratic landslide. Obama's success this year, though impressive, was nowhere near those overwhelming victories, so why would the good people of Alaska show up for two landslides but not this time?

Also, the Senate and House races were highly publicized affairs, thanks to Stevens' seven felony convictions and Young's own legal troubles. Energized Democrats in the state had a great chance to capture a vitally important Senate seat and another seat in the House. Why would they stay home for those races?

As far as explanations #2 and #3: Though the outstanding ballots may be heavily Democratic and swing at least the Senate race back to Begich, the total numbers still don't add up. It would mean that in this historic election, with their own governor on the ticket, turnout in Alaska would still be 14% less this year than in 2004.

According to Shannyn Moore, that means "54,304 Alaskans got off their sofas and voted for Bush [in 2004], but decided to sit home and not vote for Palin in 2008. In turn, I have to ignore the 30,520 Alaskans who felt progressive enough in 2004 to vote for John Kerry, but weren't inspired to vote for Barack Obama."

And that despite 20,991 newly registered voters.

While it is possible that turnout simply fell off for various reasons this year, I certainly hope that Democratic officials in Alaska are looking into this.

The Washington Post is: "Alaska Turnout, Results Raise Questions."

UPDATE: I did a little digging in Lexis-Nexis and found an article on Reagan's 1984 landslide: "TV NETWORKS CALL THE RACE EARLY, RENEWING DEBATE ON USE OF PROJECTIONS." Sally Bedell Smith. New York Times. November 7, 1984. Section A; Page 21, Column 1.

As I suspected, the TV Networks called the election very early that year. CBS News at 8:01 PM EST, which would've been 4:01 PM in Alaska. ABC and NBC called it a few minutes later. And that doesn't take into consideration the fact that an hour earlier, at 7 PM EST, when the first results came in, Reagan won every single state and was obviously on his way to a landslide victory.

So people in Alaska knew three or four hours earlier in 1984 than they did this year that the election was already decided. Yet they shattered the turnout record for the state in 1984. Why, then, would turnout fall so dramatically this time?

The Richardson Surge?

John Nichols has an article in the October 8, 2007 issue of The Nation entitled, "The Richardson Surge." Here's the first part:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was supposed to be the cautious candidate Democrats respected but never got excited about. With his extensive diplomatic experience and his hunger for a return to the national stage--if not as a realistic candidate for the presidency then as a top vice presidential prospect or the next Secretary of State--the man who served as Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary and United Nations ambassador was tagged at the time of his January announcement as a deliberate, capable but almost certainly inconsequential contender for the 2008 nomination. But Richardson has refused to play his assigned role, and with an unexpectedly resolute antiwar stance and a freewheeling campaign style that distinguishes him from the field's punch-pulling frontrunners, he is the first member of the race's "also-ran" pack to elbow his way from the margin of error to the verge of serious competition.

Richardson's edgy, opinionated and at times risky high-wire campaign has gained him double-digit poll numbers in the first primary state, New Hampshire, where he has begun to attract endorsements from key local Democrats and favorable reviews from the state's influential newspapers. One recent New Hampshire poll put him ahead of John Edwards. A summer survey of Democrats in the first caucus state by Iowa's Des Moines Register had Richardson in front of Barack Obama and just five points behind Hillary Clinton as the choice of the most likely caucusgoers. In Nevada, another early caucus state, Richardson's support has grown from 2 percent in March polling to 11 percent in August.

To getter a better sense of what Nichols is talking about in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, let's look at some pictures. Pollster.com aggregates all of the various political polls and displays the overall results graphically. The site was developed by Mark Blumenthal, a longtime political pollster, and Charles Franklin, Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who specializes in the statistical analysis of polling and election results. Here are the graphs for Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada:

Nichols continues:

Why is Richardson clicking? Against a field of first-tier candidates (Clinton, Obama and John Edwards) who don't mind savaging the Bush Administration's management of the Iraq imbroglio but who regularly fall short of proposing clear exit strategies, Richardson offers not just a résumé but specifics--and a sense of urgency. His TV ads in the early caucus and primary states identify him as the candidate with "the only plan that pulls every single soldier out of Iraq." As the contender with the most international experience--save, perhaps, hapless Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden--Richardson says it is not merely possible but necessary to end the US military presence in Iraq and to replace it with diplomacy and targeted aid initiatives. Rejecting all the dodges of the frontrunners, Richardson argues, "If we are going to get out, we need to do it now."

Richardson's strategy, and his new ad featuring several well-known Netroots figures, also received coverage this week in The Washington Post, in a piece entitled, "Richardson Speaks to the Base." Chris Cillizza talks about Richardson distinguishing himself from the other candidates via his withdrawal plan, shows the new ad, and then discusses its possible affect:

The three voices in the ad -- Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers and Christine Siun O'Connell -- are all prominent members of the so-called "netroots", the loose coalition of bloggers and online activists that has rapidly emerged as a new (and vocal) constituency within the Democratic party over the last several years.

By putting these three individuals in an ad focused on his Iraq proposal, Richardson is hoping to generate buzz among activists, who pay close attention to the personalities of the netroots, not just in New Hampshire but nationwide. The netroots have proven to be a cash cow for candidates they unite behind, and Richardson -- like anyone in the field not named Clinton or Obama -- can use the money. But, more than money, Richardson's ad is a wink of sorts to the netroots; "I'm one of you," Richardson is subtly saying. . . .

Richardson is an underdog in the race and has to take chances if he wants to topple the big boys (and girl). Running an inside-the-box campaign ensures defeat for Richardson. These sorts of unorthodox moves might not get him where he needs to be either, but at least they show his campaign is thinking creatively.

Richardson's website features the full four-minute video from which the ad is culled. For those concerned about ending the war, I think it's an effective piece of campaign propaganda.

But does Bill Richardson really have any chance in this race?

The more reading and research I do, the more I think he does. It may be a slim chance, but there are several favorable signs. I've been going back and forth between Edwards, Richardson and (to some degree) Obama, but I recently decided to concentrate my financial support (which isn't much, to be honest) on Richardson alone. So I need to make that clear. Unlike previous posts, where I tried to refrain from pushing any of the candidates, this one can be seen as an endorsement. I'll continue to try and maintain objectivity when talking about the 2008 race, but at least you know where my money's going. It's still early, and I may change my mind, but until further notice, I'm supporting Richardson.

Richardson speaks with women in a refugee camp in the Darfur region, Janaury 2007

In my last post, I talked about the 1992 and 2004 campaigns for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, and where things stood in October-November of the previous year. Bill Clinton and John Kerry were both running in fifth place in the national polls, and were far behind in the early caucus and primary states. Richardson is actually in a better position in some ways than either of them were at the time, with strong, upward-trending numbers. Clinton and Kerry's numbers were much more up and down than Richardson's have been. Granted, though, the field of contenders this time is probably stronger than it was in 1991 or 2003. Richardson will probably need some help.

If Edwards and/or Obama falters, and Hillary struggles in Iowa, Richardson is well-positioned to take advantage of the situation. Hillary has huge expectations on her, so she needs to win in Iowa or at least come in a strong second place. At this point, Iowa is very close, though 2004 proved how useless looking at Iowa's numbers in October can be. Still, Hillary has the added disadvantage of her high unfavorability numbers - up to 48% in some polls. A lot of people seem to dismiss this aspect of her campaign, and I don't know why. How many times does it have to be proven that voters want to like the person they're choosing as President? Do we need to watch the first Gore-Bush debate again? We're in Iraq today in part because George W. Bush knew how to come off as a likable fellow, while Al Gore looked uptight and arrogant. JFK was cool and calm while Dick Nixon sweat like it was mid-summer under those huge television lamps. It's not rocket science. As silly as it sounds, the question about who you would rather have a beer with really does matter. I still believe this is Hillary's biggest weakness. A lot of people just don't like her - a lot of Democratic voters don't like her. She may raise huge amounts of money from major donors and party insiders, and she may lead in national polls, but that has always been based more on name recognition than anything else. Hell, Jerry Brown was running first in some national polls in late 1991, because he'd been in the public eye long enough. All that insider money and name recognition won't help Hillary at all if folks in Iowa don't think she's likeable enough or they're still angry about the war.

As far as Edwards and Obama, Edwards is already in trouble, with his poll numbers falling across the board and the SEIU, one of the most important labor unions, unexpectedly withholding its endorsement for him this week, which was a big blow to his campaign. He's done everything to court the labor vote - and they basically told him, "Uh, well, we're not so sure, John." Evidently they like Hillary's poll numbers better. And, of course there's the Clinton family tradition of supporting labor unions to consider. (NAFTA? what's NAFTA?!) Meanwhile, Obama has been the superstar fund-raiser, but his poll numbers haven't really moved much, which may mean he's reached a plateau level of support. I can see one of them, probably Edwards, being out of the race after Iowa. If Richardson can make a strong showing there, at least coming in third, he'll be in a great position.

Richardson won seven elections as a U.S. Representative and two as Governor. He won his first election as an unknown newcomer to New Mexico, against a popular opponent who was supported by Party insiders. The man knows how to campaign. He likes "retail campaigning" -getting out in the crowds, shaking hands, kissing babies, talking to folks - in much the way that Bill Clinton did. It energizes him. And it's worked for him well in the past.

Also, his extensive resume serves as a kind of deeply-planted foundation. Over the past nine months, I've talked about Edwards, Richardson and Obama to various people who weren't really sure who to support. I've noticed that most people don't know much about Richardson, but when I start talking about him, they respond quite favorably, mostly, I think because of his resume. He's not a hard sell. I'm especially thinking of the over-30 crowd. On the other hand, mention John Edwards, and if people don't like him, there's absolutely nothing you can do to persuade them otherwise. I think, in part, because he just doesn't have much to fall back on. What can you point to? His concern about poverty, which I think is genuine, is discounted by his detractors because of his giant house, or his hedge funds, or his $400 haircuts, etc. And if you don't believe in or care about his views on poverty, what broad political experience does he offer? I and others may distrust and dislike Hillary, but there's a grudging awareness that she does have experience and other necessary qualifications to be president. I don't think Edwards has that kind of solidity. And while people don't seem to dislike Obama, I've noticed he can also be a hard sell to people, primarily because of his inexperience. He's got a lot of vocal supporters, it's true, especially among younger voters. (And Oprah, of course.) But he seems more and more like the Howard Dean of this election. A lot of excitement, a lot of energy and media coverage, but where's it all going? What has he done that a 65-year old retired banker - who will make it to the polls to vote - can look at? What does he fall back on when his "Can't we all just get along" message fails? Three years in the Senate? Even Fred Thompson has more experience than that.

One of the most interesting aspects of this race so far has been Richardson usurping the Iraq war issue from Obama as the way to distinguish himself from the other candidates. Nobody was better set-up to channel the country's anger about the war as Obama was. Yet he's never been able to separate himself from Hillary on the issue, which is amazing, considering he was against the war and she supported it for so long. Credit has to go to her campaign for winning, hands-down, her most important battle against Obama. If they're the same, why would anyone vote for him? She has so much more experience. Meanwhile, Richardson, who initially supported the war (though he was never in a position to vote on it) has recognized how important the issue is - not just to get elected, but for the future of the country. He's pulled an end-around on the other three main candidates. Obama, in this regard, has looked like a rookie playing way out of position.

Richardson's debate appearances haven't been great so far, but I think this weakness is offset by four things: 1) As I mentioned, Richardson does very well in person, talking to real people. Old style - and still extremely important - campaigning. He's a big personality with a hunger to connect with people. 2) His television ads have been very successful, gaining him a lot of attention not just from the public but from the political analysts and media. His numbers started going up in Iowa and New Hampshire immediately after his first round of humorous "interview" ads. I would venture to say that far more people have seen his ads than have seen his debate appearances, which brings me to. . . 3) How many ordinary voters have watched any of the debates so far? 4) I don't think Richardson's problems in the debates - stiffness, awkwardness, not seeming natural enough at times - are long-term problems. From most accounts, he's very comfortable with himself in public. I think the more he does these debates, the more successful he'll be at them. I recently watched the Univision debate, and Richardson did quite well, though they refused to let him to speak in Spanish. (That debate had at least two amusing aspects: 1) Richardson introduced himself to the audience, speaking in Spanish until the uptight Univision hosts got all in tizzy. But he had made his point to a crowd that may not have even known he was part Latino. Finally, they got to the first question of the debate: What would you do to make Spanish the second language of the United States? My aunt and I sat on the couch and cracked up - "Well, you'd let the first Latino candidate for president speak in Spanish for one thing!" 2) This is politics: The Democrats make a big deal about refusing to appear at a debate sponsored by Fox News. Instead, they go on Univision, which is run by Cuban gusanos who are far to the right of Fox in some cases. Questions at the debate about Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez were outrageously leading and showed how right-wing Univision can be. Ah, but it's surrealism in a good cause, right?)

What about finances? Well, Richardson will never be able to compare with Hillary and Obama, but who can? He's said all along that he would have enough money to run the kind of campaign he needs to run, and if you look at what he's accomplished with much less money than his two main rivals, it's pretty impressive. Obama raises the big bucks but can't generate movement in the polls, whereas Richardson spends much less money and has steadily rising numbers. His well-made and well-timed TV ads have also spread around the internet to even more people. And if his numbers continue trending upwards, more money will come in.

It's a long shot, granted. But I don't think it's as unrealistic as people think.

I'll let Nichols conclude:

Richardson recognizes that it is his position on the war that is giving his candidacy traction. Of course, he's glad to discourse on how to tackle the crisis in Darfur and his concerns about Pakistan, and he's more than willing to detail his mainstream progressive positions on everything from gay rights to net neutrality. But the governor's antiwar position is now the primary focus of his media buys, his savvy campaign appearances and his aggressive new direct-mail fundraising appeals to liberal donors. That's smart politics. Richardson's Iraq stance is at once refreshing and reassuring for grassroots Democrats, who polls suggest are increasingly frustrated with the cautious approach of party leaders. In the former UN ambassador they get a candidate who knows his way around the world, who understands the delicacy of diplomacy, who actually negotiated with Saddam Hussein. . . . Richardson's résumé and his poll numbers assure him a place on the stage and an ability to keep prodding the frontrunners to clarify their murky positions on Iraq.

None of this means Richardson is on a fast track to the nomination. He's still playing catch-up in a brutal fundraising competition, and he remains a largely unexamined contender with his share of political baggage--the Energy Department's bungling of the Wen Ho Lee nuclear espionage scandal during Richardson's tenure is an embarrassing footnote, as is his post-Cabinet service on the boards of energy firms with troubling environmental records. But no 2008 Democratic candidate has come further on the basis of a bold stance on the essential issue of the race than Richardson. At the very least, he will make it difficult for Clinton, Obama and Edwards to continue dancing around the core questions of the war. And if the leading Democrats fail to make convincing moves toward withdrawal, Richardson is better positioned than any other candidate to ride that issue to the center of the competition.

The Front-Runner

Believe it or not, October begins on Monday. Third quarter fund-raising numbers for the 2008 Presidential candidates will be released. And it’s just three and a half months before the primaries begin.

So what are analysts saying about the race for the Democratic nomination at this point? Let’s take a look:

Headline: “Clinton is the candidate to beat.”

Headline: “Clinton Appears To Be The Likely Nominee”

Headline: “Analysts And Insiders Say It's Looking Like Clinton.”

Zogby: “Given where we stand now, it's hard to see a way to stop Clinton, especially if she has a strong showing in Iowa, which she very well may have.” Zogby said Clinton swept all demographic categories, leading among all age groups, among union and non-union voters, and among self-described progressives and liberals. “This is stunning,” said Zogby. “This qualifies as juggernaut status.

Larry Sabato, Director of UVA's Center For Politics: Clinton is the candidate to beat. “Over the years, I have followed so many of these and watched the candidates and the numbers and everything. . . . I don't want to give my own Crystal Ball away, but Clinton is just running away with it. When you put all the factors together and weight them properly as I think we have done with this analysis, good luck to the others.”

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile: “I think if I were Clinton's campaign manger, I would feel comfortable now that for the last three months Hillary Clinton has been in the driver's seat.”

So, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and the others gave it their best shot, but it looks like the Clinton Machine was simply too much for them. You wonder why they even bother staying in the race at this point?

Well, I can give you one very good reason: All of the above quotes and headlines were actually from October 2003, and they were all about Howard Dean.

Read back through the news coverage at this point in the last election and Howard Dean was the longtime front-runner, the “man to beat,” and Wesley Clark was stirring up things with his entrance into the race. In October 2003, Dean led the national polls, with Clark second, followed closely by Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman. (Remember Lieberman, Al Gore’s sublime choice for VP in 2000? A real, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, Joe was. We miss you, Joe!)

John Kerry was in fifth place and couldn’t even break into double digits, eking out a measly 9%.

But National Poll numbers are never as important as poll numbers from the individual primary states, analysts like to say. So, in October 2003, Dean and Gephardt were tied in Iowa, with 26% each. Kerry was struggling at 15%. John Edwards wasn’t listed anywhere, his numbers were so pathetic.

The results in January 2004? Kerry 38%, Edwards 32%, Dean 18%, with Gephardt a distant fourth.

In New Hampshire, in October 2003, Dean was running away with the race at 40%. Kerry was tanking at 17%. Wesley Clark and John Edwards were tied at 6%.

The results in January 2004: Kerry 39%, Dean 26%, Clark 12%, Edwards 11%.

I decided to look up these quotes and headlines about Dean after I saw the following Washington Post headline: "Clinton as the Insiders' Shoo-in." (“It's official: Washington insiders believe Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee.")

And, of course, the guy in the White house said this week that he thought Hillary would be the nominee. I don't know about you, but the last thing I would want as a candidate right now would be George W. Bush saying he thought I would be the nominee. Hillary's staff must have ordered a lot of extra TP after that little jewel came out in the media.

Hillary Clinton may indeed wind up as the Democratic nominee. But this is a funny world we live in, and I guess I still believe that in politics, as in football, anything can happen. That's why we still play the games and still hold the elections.

We'll know more in a few months.

UPDATE: Discounting the nomination process in 2000 (Gore was a sitting VP) and 1996 (Clinton's re-election), the next example of a contested nomination for the Democrats was in 1992.

Who was the front-runner in the fall of 1991? The guy who never ran: Mario Cuomo. A November 1991 national poll in the LA Times looked like this: Cuomo 38%, Jerry Brown 11%, Douglas Wilder 7%, Clinton 6%.

The Iowa caucus that year wasn't a factor, because Iowa's senator, Tom Harkin, was a candidate and no one else contested him there. New Hampshire was the first primary test. In November 1991, Bill Clinton only had 5% support, placing him fifth behind Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin and Jerry Brown.

The results: Tsongas 34%, Clinton 26%, Kerrey 12%, Harkin 11%, Brown 9%.

That's an especially impressive showing for Clinton, considering that the primary took place just as the stories of his infidelities were coming out.

Other intersting poll numbers from that time period:

Gallup Poll, Oct 91: Clinton Favorability

25% Favorable; 16 Unfavorable; 17 Heard of, no opinion; 40 Never heard of

Bush 58% vs. Clinton 22%