Don’t Count Your Chickens, Etc.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:55 am by Susie
For a variety of reasons, I don’t think this election is going to be anywhere near as easy as people seem to think. Here’s one of them:
“High primary turnout does not necessarily augur high general election turnout,” Gans writes. “In 1972, the year of the highest presidential primary turnout, turnout in the general election experienced the largest decline (5.3 percentage points) of any election since World War II when turnout declined 6.8 percentage points between 1940 and 1944, largely because a large percentage of Americans were outside the country fighting that war. (See chart 2 in Summary Charts section and commentary no. 1 below.)
“Rather it is very likely that this fall’s election will have high turnout because of the issues which will be in play and the economic condition of the nation,” Gans added. “But whether it will equal or exceed the 2004 general election turnout when President Bush served as a lightning rod and propelled 60.9 percent of the eligible electorate to the polls (the highest turnout since 61.9 percent voted in 1968) is up in the air at this time.”
it isn’t turnout or rallies per se that are fueling the optimism, it’s the fact that people are enthusiastic to get rid of the bush regime. that’s why they are turning up in rallies, that’s why they are turning out for primaries, and that’s why there is reason for hope in november. it’s just a symptom of the overall mood in the country that is very good for democrats right now.
We had similar turnouts at rallies in 2004, is my point.
75,000 turned out at an election rally in 2004 and past numbers of Democratic voters in contested primaries in so many states were double (or more) the number of Republican voters?
I don’t remember as well as I used to, but I think I would have noticed that.
1972, as an election, is a bad comparison. It was clear as the Presidential election got closer that it was a blowout, which diminished turnout. If there’s a chance that we’re going to see lesser turnout this year, I think it’ll be because McCain is getting blown out.
59 million voters did NOT vote for Clinton in 1992. 39 million of those voters voted for Bush Sr. Total vote: about 104 million. 4 years later, with the Dole Boredom Express, Bob Dole again received about 39 million votes, meaning that he really didn’t pick up any of the conservative vote that had given Perot 20 million votes 4 years later. Clinton gained 3 million votes. The total vote was diminished, because it was perceived by Election Day that it was a done deal.
BTW, Perot snagged 8 million of the vote in 1996, so there was only 12 million possible at play for Dole to bore away.
We had similar turnouts at rallies in 2004, is my point.
but not nearly as much enthusiasm, which is my point.
There’s turnout, and then there turnout.
I’ll turnout for down-ticket candidates, and to vote against any despicable referenda which appear on my ballot, where my vote will actually matter, but my inconsequential ToT vote will be a write in. I’m hearing this quite a lot, not only around the blogosphere, but in other ‘net venues, including the parenting and law school boards I frequent.
It’ll be an interesting campaign cycle.
From snuzy mandrake at 6
but not nearly as much enthusiasm, which is my point.
Really? I was field staff on Kerry-Edwards, and so had hands on experience with the enthusiasm of the volunteer contingent - it was phenomenal. Even the Greens in my state were endorsing KE04, asking their supporters to eschew their own ToT candidates.
The higher decibels of a few do not increase the overall volume if a greater number decide not to remain silent, except, of course, when those few are singing solos. But a successful campaign requires greater enthusiasm of a larger number, not merely spectacular enthusiasm of a few.
So it’s hard to take evidence from the primaries and use it to make meaningful guesses about the general election….hmmm….that’s an interesting point.
How about another post on how Sen. Clinton’s win in W VA proves her the more electable?
Or, Bob, we can hear again about how those Obama caucus wins will get him a bunch of western states in the GE.
The ONLY argument I have ever made about Obama is this: he won. Now, before your grand a-haaaa! reply I know, technically he hasn’t won yet. The point is all sentient beings understand he will gain the requisite number of delegates and thus he gets to run.
What you and so many other Clinton supporters fail to understand is people like me are Democrats first. Were the situation exactly reversed right now you and I would have no disagreements. Why? Because I wouldn’t be grasping at straws trying to ensure my candidate got the nod regardless of the consequences. I’d be 100% behind the obvious nominee of the party, just as I am today.
I have not heard anywhere that Obama is the obvious nominee. And who the fuck cares? And as always, I’m impressed with your ability to turn anything into an anti-Clinton diatribe.
Hey - we had blue skies! Obama must have done it!
Shut the fuck up.
k: sorry for not “shutting the fuck up” (now that’s reasoned political discourse). I’m all ears: explain to me the plausible scenario by which Clinton wins the nomination.
Sorry if my acceptance of reality interferes with your hallucinations, but life is funny that way.
k: I’m still waiting on that plausible scenario.
Oh well, guess I should have known better. If “shut the fuck up” is your idea of witty repartee you really don’t have anything to add to an adult conversation, do you?