Earlier today, I noted that "drop off" voters (that is, people who voted in 2008 but are currently considered unlikely to voter in 2010), are actually much happier about the direction of the country, and of the Democratic Party, than are likely voters. This makes it very difficult to argue that drop-off voters are dropping out primarily due to increasing cynicism rooted in the current direction of Democratic governance.
Surely, there are some drop-off voters whose primary motivation is the Democratic failure to deliver on sweeping change. As with any large group of people (in this case, tens of millions), more than one motivation is in play. But what is the primary motivation behind drop-off voters, and what can be done to get Democratic drop-off voters to the polls in 2010?
I have a theory: nothing. There is nothing that can be done to bring the drop-off voters to the polls. The lack of participation among drop-off voters is consistent with long-term civic trends in the United States, and not specific to the current political situation. The problem is particularly pronounced for Democrats in 2010 because the Democratic coalition has become increasingly dependent upon young voters who, despite what anyone has tried since 18-year olds were first given suffrage almost 40 years ago, have always seen their participation plummet in midterm elections relative to older voters. As such, Democratic and progressive efforts to win elections in 2010 must be focused primarily, if not entirely, on voter persuasion rather than voter mobilization.
Two recent Democracy Corps polls present counter-intuitive findings about the nature of "drop-off voters" (that is, people who voted in 2008 but who are unlikely to vote in 2010). According to the polls, those who voted in 2008, but who are unlikely to vote in 2010, are much more positive about the direction of the country than people who are likely to vote in 2010.
This finding is important, because it damages a theory, prevalent in progressive circles, that drop-off voters are motivated primarily by a growing cynicism with the failure of Democrats to deliver on sweeping change. Here are the numbers:
Democracy Corps, January Q.10 Generally speaking, do you think that things in this country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
Likely Voters
Drop off Voters
Right Direction
36%
45%
Wrong Track
58%
43%
Net
-21%
+2%
Democracy Corps, November Q.10 Generally speaking, do you think that things in this country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
Likely Voters
Drop off Voters
Right Direction
35%
42%
Wrong Track
58%
50%
Net
-23%
-8%
(The sub-sample of drop-off voters is small in both polls (133 in January, 125 in November). As such, it has a large margin or error of about plus or minus 8.5%.
However, margin of error can break both ways, and the odds or a poll erring closer to its published, topline numbers are higher than the odds of a poll erring toward the outer boundaries of its margin of error. As such, even with that 8.5% margin of error, there is a very high probability that drop-off voters have a more positive opinion about the direction of the country than likely voters.)
As that's not all. As I discuss in the extended entry, drop-off voters also have a more favorable view of their incumbent member of Congress, and are less likely to reject the two-party system than likely voters. Plus, they like President Obama, Democrats, and the health care bill.
Democrats have lost 6% in the generic ballot from 2008 due to people switching from Democrats to Republicans, and have lost an additional 3% from projected lower Democratic turnout. Even though this means there are about as many 2008 Democratic voters switching to Republicans as there are Democrats who are currently unlikely to vote in 2010. Those who are switching to Republicans are causing twice as many problems because they are removing a vote from the Democratic column and adding one to the Republican column, while those deciding not to vote are just removing one from the Democratic problem.
The problem Democrats face from voters defecting to Republicans is exacerbated when one conducted a closer examination of the 2008 national congressional vote. While GQR posits a 2008 Democratic victory of 53%-45%, the Green Papers shows that Democrats actually won by 53.18%--42.53%, or 9.65%. This suggests that Democrats have lost even more than 6% to voters who have defected from Democrats to Republicans--possibly as much as 7-8%.
Additionally, as I wrote three weeks ago, some of the lower Democratic turnout is entirely natural, given lower turnout for youth voters in midterm elections:
Long-term data from the census bureau indicates that the turnout gap between Americans above and below the age of 45 widens significantly in mid-term elections. For example, over the last nine Presidential elections, Americans aged 45-64 turned out, on average, at a rate 12.7% higher than Americans aged 25-44. However, in mid-term elections, the average gap over the last nine cycles has been 17.1%. Given that Obama won 55% of the vote among Americans aged 25-44, but only 50% of the vote among Americans aged 45-64, this "natural" turnout problem facing Democrats in mid-term elections also makes the specific problems they face in 2010 appear more pronounced than it actually is. Midterms electorates are worse for Democrats than presidential electorates.
Altogether, this makes the problem of voters switching from Democrats to Republicans much worse than the problem of lower Democratic turnout.
This isn't to say that lower Democratic turnout isn't a problem, because it is. Also, this isn't to say that Democrats will appeal to those voters who have currently moved over to the GOP will be brought back by centrism. There is simply no evidence of that, and it is far more likely that improving economic conditions would do much more to bring them back into the fold than any abstract ideological maneuver.
What this data does indicate that it is wrongheaded to blame current Democratic electoral problems mainly on a failure to "excite the base." Even if Democrats brought all 2008 voters back to the booths in 2010, they would still be facing significant losses. To prevent any losses, they must hold together their entire 2008 coalition, which means bringing 2008 Democratic voters who are currently favoring Republicans back into the fold. Short of a remarkable economic recovery that few economists are predicting, it is hard to imagine at this can be done in its entirety. Democrats are in charge, things suck, and so they are inevitably going to lose voters both to apathy and to the opposition party.
Although the 2008 presidential election showcased a more diverse electorate with an increase in voter registration and turnout by historically underrepresented Americans - including youth and minorities - the movement toward a more balanced electorate that represents all citizens is still a work in progress. Advocates have long maintained-and recently Congress has heard testimony to the fact-that disparities in turnout rates are less an issue of voter apathy, and more related to a severe lack of democratic access for many groups. The growing awareness of this problem has inspired an increased interest among citizens, advocates, legislators, and officials to improve the administration of elections, particularly regarding voter registration.
I'm hearing contradictory reports on this issue. Kos said last night that turnout sucked. Paul reiterated that view earlier today. Meanwhile, Politico and others are reporting that turnout percentage will set a modern era record. I don't see their evidence for this, they just say it will exceed 130 million. So far, CNN shows about 119.5 million votes for Obama and McCain combined. Presumably there's another million or two for third party candidates.
I wrote about turnout two days ago and you can see a chart of turnout percentage history here. So which is it? Historically high turnout or disappointing turnout?
Okay, take a look at this graph of turnout percentage over the last half century or so:
The numbers come from here except for 2008 where the number, 64 million percent, is Gallup's estimate. The magnitude of that percentage is the reason why Gallup's two likely voters models suddenly converged; Gallup decided turnout for Obama-friendly demographics was going to be much higher than earlier estimates.
Voting in presidential elections declined for 4 straight decades with the exception of 1992 (did Perot draw in some voters who usually don't participate?) reaching a low point in 1996. Tomorrow night when everyone is adding up electoral votes, Senate and House seats I'll be watching the turnout percentage. Even if we don't hit 64 percent it seems quite likely we'll exceed 2004 levels and therefore have three straight increases in turnout percentage.
The question I have for readers is why? Is it a coincidence? Have we had, since 2000, a growing sea of discontent that is now bearing down like a tidal wave? Is the big number for 2008 entirely due to Barack Obama and his popularity?
Personally, I see an Internet activism argument in these numbers. It would no doubt be an oversimplication to attribute it entirely to the Internet but it's hard, given the perfect match of the years of voting increase with the rate of Internet adoption and use also rising not to put two and two together.
I'm really interested to get other people's takes on this. Why, over the past 12 years now, have we seen a steady rise in the percentage of people voting in presidential elections?
Should I tease with a long drawn out intro? Nahhhh. Based on spreadsheets sent to me directly by John Lindback, Oregon's Director of Elections, here is a graph of the ballot returns so far, broken by party affiliation:
In terms of polling analysis, I feel as though I have morphed into one of the bi-partisan pundit concern trolls that dominate the big media commentariat whenever Democrats have gained the upper hand in our political discourse (calls for bipartisanship were far less common, of course, during the Republican trifecta). Pretty much no matter what the polling situation is, I stick to my constant refrain "the truth is in between."
Well, I am about to start that refrain again, this time when it comes to the dueling likely voter models floating around the polling universe. Nowhere is the discrepancy between likely voter models more pronounced than in the Gallup tracking poll, which publishes two separate likely voter models every day. One likely voter model, the "traditional" model, includes questions about past voting behavior and assumes 60% turnout of the voting age population. The other, "expanded" model does not ask about past voting behavior, and makes no assumptions about national turnout.
Most Democratic-leaning election websites have decided to use the "expanded" model as the daily Gallup tracking poll number, rather than the "traditional" model. This is the case at TPM, Pollster.com, and fivethirtyeight and, it would appear, among most of the commenters I read on Open Left. I haven't taken sides in this argument before, but I actually think it is a mistake to use only the "expanded" likely voter model and discard the traditional one entirely. As I always say, the truth is in between.
The popular vote is a fallacy, as I've written before. A brief recap: 1) Candidates would camp out in large urban areas like LA and Brooklyn and never spend so many millions trying to split 200,000 votes in the whole state of NH; 2) No state would rationally hold a caucus, thereby disenfranchising its say in the nomination selection; and 3) unlike the general election concept of one person, one vote, allowing independents or Republicans to vote in some states but not others badly skews the simplistic moral argument underpinning popular vote.
Tuesday night, I am watching two numbers. First, if Obama takes down a combined 98 pledged delegates then pledged delegate checkmate can officially be declared, with the remaining 37 proportional races guaranteed to give Obama at least a minimum 1 vote and thus put him over the top on the minimum viability alone.
Second, I want to see Obama erase Clinton's PA popular vote gain, which would finally drive a stake into that argument.
This diary is a straightforward analysis of what it will take to regain 214,224 votes.
As of 10:00 a.m. this morning, 20% of the registered Democrats in the two divisions (precincts) where I hand out literature had already voted. We could hit 50% Democratic turnout with a rate like that.
Also, AlterNet has a guide to the Pennsylvania primary, where I am quoted extensively. Check it out.
Finally, to go out on a limb, I don't think that the final uptick toward Clinton as registered in Zogby is accurate. (Yeah, it's a real stretch not to trust Zogby). I was looking over primary polls today, and Survey USA never once overstated Obama's performance. While overall Survey USA has been quite accurate, in the three states where they were off by more than a handful--Alabama, Missouri and South Carolina--every time their margin skewed more than ten points in favor of Clinton. I also thought ttuje had a convincing analysis of the polls arguing why both the pro-Obama outlier of PPP and the pro-Clinton outlier of Suffolk are wrong. So, my gut tells me that the 6% gap we have seen in most polls is accurate, and that when the undecided are factored in the final margin will rise to 7%. So, I'm going with Clinton 53.5%--46.5% Obama, with a delegate breakdown of Clinton 85--73 Obama. Kind of a mushy prediction that doesn't break strongly one way or the other, but so it goes.
McCain, on the other hand, could only manage to bring in $15 million for the month -- including just $4 million from the grassroots -- moving his overall haul for 2008 to under $40 million. In other words, McCain couldn't raise in three months what Obama was able to raise just this past month alone (a fundraising month that actually represented a decline of more than a quarter from the previous month). Pitting McCain against Clinton, the Republican in three months took in just 70 percent of what the Democrat was able to bring in during just two months.
Obama raises more online every month than McCain raises in total. Clinton and Obama combined are raising about twelve times what McCain is raising in small donors. This might be the largest grassroots discrepancy ever seen in a presidential campaign.
Despite the millions of dollars pooling around Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, anti-McCain funds have fallen far short of the hopes set in November, when a key organizer, Tom Matzzie, reportedly told The Washington Post that the "Fund for America" would raise more than $100 million to support the activities of a range of allied groups.
The Democratic National Committee, too, is organizing an anti-McCain campaign, but a spokeswoman, Karen Finney, said fundraising to support that effort has met "mixed" results.
So while news releases and Internet ads have been launched, the largest-bore weapon in contemporary politics - a sustained television campaign - hasn't. That's because, people involved say, the soft-money groups don't have the soft money.
The ad doesn't cite specifics, but such numbers are hard to come by for 501(c)4 and 527 groups. A useful proxy is to compare the DNC versus the RNC, since the founding purpose of both groups is to compete in the presidential general election. So far, in 2007-2008, while Democratic presidential candidate fundraising has swamped Republican presidential candidate fundraising, the RNC has raised $108M to the DNC's $67M. At least according to this example, Democrats are lagging in money to pursue an anti-Republican or pro-Democratic message in the general election. Our money seems to be pro-Obama or pro-Clinton, not anti-McCain or pro-Democrat.
All of this suggests a possibility I have been considering for some time: an open seat, general election campaign between Obama and McCain could result in turnout levels closer to 2000 (105M voters) than 2004 (123M voters). Despite massive primary turnout and the general upward trend in voter turnout across the country over the past six years, a general election lacking a clear villain for either side could reduce turnout. Even though the mood of the country is extremely negative, there is no incumbent. Further, both Obama and McCain have very high favorable ratings, including decent favorable ratings among members of the opposing party. Yet further, the ideological difference would appear less stark, as Obama campaigns on unity and bipartisanship, and as the media never stops calling McCain a maverick moderate. In short, the most important factor driving voter turnout--the belief that the outcome of the election really matters-might actually wane in 2008, despite the trends of the last six years.
Now, I could be wrong, and small donations are just one measure of voter excitement. For one thing, it is quite possible that as the election season drags on, as the focus turns to the general election, and as the independent expenditures heat up, both McCain and Obama will become far more polarizing figures. Second, perhaps the new Democratic focus of being pro-someone, rather than anti-someone, won't actually hurt turnout. Perhaps instead of coming out to vote against McCain, much like most Democrats came out to vote against Bush in 2004, this time around most Democrats and Democratic leaning independents will come out to vote for Obama. Further, there are indications that in 1992, Ross Perot drove turnout through the roof, as there were actually the same amount of voters in 1992 as there were in 2000 (and 1992 actually had far more voters than 1996). So, maybe the direct appeal to independents might help turnout.
However, I have to admit that there just doesn't seem to be as much excitement "on the street" about the general election as there was in 2004. Perhaps that is because the primary isn't quite over yet, and people haven't switched focus. Perhaps that is because it is still April, and the election is seven months away. Or, perhaps it is because Democrats and progressives just aren't as pumped up about beating McCain as we were about beating Bush four years ago. If the latter is the case, and I certainly think it is a strong possibility, I wouldn't be surprised if we failed to reach 120M voters in the general election this year.
The turnout numbers for the presidential primary were absolutely insane. The official numbers from Secretary Bowen state that 74.26% of registered Democrats in California cast ballots. Now that isn't totally accurate because that includes the DTS voters who pulled Democratic ballots. The real number is expected to be closer to 65%. But even that number is striking. Tim Herdt has a great column today on how this is part of a shift to Democrats larger than just this one election.
Those numbers suggest that Republicans can no longer count on a voter-turnout advantage that in the past has helped GOP candidates overcome the party's minority status in voter registration.
"Republicans have almost always done better because they have the people who always vote," said Republican analyst Tony Quinn. "But this year you had the reverse."
To some degree, the numbers reflect the unusual excitement arising from the contentious nomination battle between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, an unsettled battle that may linger until the Democratic convention in August. That historic contest helps explain - but does not fully account for - the enormous disparity between the 5.1 million votes cast for Democratic candidates in the state Feb. 5 and 2.8 million cast for Republicans.
Quinn, co-publisher of a data book that breaks down every political district in the state, says the Democrats' February surge in turnout is the continuation of a trend.
It has been conventional wisdom in California that since Republicans outperform their voter registration, compared to Democrats that the voter registration gap is not as significant as it appears. That appears to be changing.
Via Mike Pridmore, Rhodes Cook notes that primary turnout is a terrible indicator for general election results.
The sample size of Presidential races is way too small to draw any real conclusions. Here's Cook.
The Democrats in particular have had a number of "negative" high turnouts, where friction between various wings of the party produced substantial voter interest but a badly scarred nominee with little chance of winning the general election.
It happened in 1972, when the controversial anti-Vietnam War campaign of George McGovern barely prevailed over more moderate elements in the party. It happened again in 1984, when former Vice President Walter Mondale could not shake off primary challenges from Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. And to a degree, it happened a third time in 1988 when Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jackson kept fighting weeks beyond that year's large Super Tuesday vote before Dukakis finally nailed down the Democratic nomination.
In contrast, the 2000 Republican contest between Bush and McCain arguably produced a positive turnout surge. The two candidates battled across the February calendar that year and into March, setting GOP primary turnout records in far-flung contests from New York to California. Yet in spite of the intensity of that campaign, it ended amicably enough on Super Tuesday. McCain abandoned his candidacy in favor of Bush, and the Republicans marched united into a fall campaign which they ultimately won.
Given that base Democratic voters (as opposed to activists and elites) like both Clinton and Obama, and Republicans are not especially fond of John McCain, it seems like a united Democratic Party and a depressed and damaged GOP will be the outcomes. Obama is kicking the crap out of McCain on the money side in a way that is probably unprecedented; Obama will have a billion dollars to spend, and McCain will have much less than that.
I wonder if fundraising - either number of donors or total amount - is a proxy for general election strength. Bush outraised Gore substantially in 2000, and the conservative movement was much more energized at that time than the progressive base. I think Clinton beat Dole in 1996 by total amount, but I'm not sure about the number of donors. And in 1980, Reagan's direct mail base was substantially larger than Carter, though this may not have been true in 1972, when McGovern's campaign pioneered direct mail fundraising.
Since the 1968 elections, there have been three times when the Republicans have gone into the general election with a nominee who was not received enthusiastically by the conservative base. The first time was Gerald Ford in 1976, who had a divisive primary against Ronald Reagan which he barely won. It was the closest shave an incumbent has had towards losing in a primary in modern American history.
The second time was in 1992 with the first George Bush running for re-election, because of him breaking his no new taxes pledge.
The third time was in 1996, with Bob Dole, when there wasn't so much an open split, but a party base that was clearly disinterested in the candidate, a party base that was far more excited about the new conservative energy that Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay were bringing than the old establishment persona of Bob Dole.
All three times the Republicans lost, and I don't think there is any coincidence about that.
We now go into the fourth election of the post-Nixon era, with the conservative Republicans not excited about John McCain.
Now some would argue that's a false division, that the Republicans will rally around him, that perhaps they are doing this to make McCain seem more moderate. But I think those folks are either being overly hopeful, if they are Republicans, and alternatively overly cynical, if they are Democrats.
There is no question that the Republican establishment, like all partisans tend to do, will rally around their candidate. But there is also no question that the Republican base has not embraced McCain warmly, and that their feelings about him are about what they were for Ford '76, Bush '92 and Dole '96. And I think that does create a major problem for the Republicans.
The question now is whether McCain gains makes up for these problems because he gains support from independents. My guess is, in the end the answer is no. And I suspect this for two reasons.
One is that I think progressives and Democrats can bring McCain's numbers down among independents over the course of this campaign. I think we can convince a pretty wide range of independents that this guy isn't who they think he is, he isn't who the media says he is (that great maverick independent). I think we can go after McCain on the character issue and on ideological issues. And we also have plenty of ammunition on his particular answer stands taken. On the Iraq war, whether he wants us to be there another few years or a hundred years. On the economy, where he really doesn't many answers and doesn't know much about it or isn't interested in it, and on a range of other issues important to swing voters. After all, independents strongly agree with progressives and Democrats on most issues. So I think we have the advantage with independents.
I also believe that past elections clearly show that turnout and enthusiasm matter a great deal. I think that's true on the Republican side, where in 2004, even though the Democrats turned out their base in greater numbers than before, Republicans turned out their base even more. In 1994, the Republican base did turn out and the Democratic base did not because they were discouraged. And in 1992 and 2006, Republican turnout was down, contributing to their loss. It's also true on the Democratic side, where we have both won and lost elections because of turnout in recent years.
In 2000, Karl Rove thought the race was won, and was surprised by the intensity by the level of turnout, especially in Florida in terms of African-American turnout. It made Al Gore win the race (even though it was stolen from him). Election after election, enthusiasm among the base matters a great deal in terms of how elections turn out.
So yes, McCain will be tough and formidable. But I think the overall dynamics of this election remain in our favor, absent a horrific and utterlessly mindless credentials meltdown at the August convention in Denver.
