Posted on 10/21/2016 11:43:47 AM PDT by Peter ODonnell
If Donald Trump wants to win this election, there is one key that will unlock that door -- he needs to convince perhaps 5 per cent of the American voters who normally stay at home to vote for him.
What is the available voter pool of non-voters? The results of the past ten elections show that, on the average 40 to 45 per cent of the eligible voters stay home. If we believe that there is some voter fraud leading to non-existent (dead, mostly) or duplicate votes then that could be even higher, nearly 50 per cent.
Look at the steady decline of voter turnout since JFK won in 1960 with about half of the 62% turnout. LBJ's win involved 62%, Nixon's two wins came from 61 and then 55 per cent turnouts, the Carter victory attracted 54 per cent of the electorate, then Reagan was welcomed in by only 53 per cent of the eligible voters. This steady decline seems to be related to the coming of age of the baby boom generation who, it could be argued, produced a significant cohort of tuned-out citizens who eschewed politics more so than their parents (or grandparents, but there were lower turnouts in 1920 and 1924, presumably as women gradually accepted their new opportunities to vote -- those turnouts were slightly under 50 per cent).
In 1988 Bush 41 was greeted by only 50% of eligible voters, that improved to 55% in the three-way race of 1992 presumably because Ross Perot attracted some normally dormant voters, but it was back down to 50% in Clinton's re-election in 1996. George W. Bush won two close elections with 50 and then 55 per cent turnouts.
Barack Obama had a decisive win over John McCain with a 58 per cent turnout indicating a greater engagement of blacks and young adults perhaps (or the dead); Romney lost perhaps because some of those attracted by Sarah Palin perhaps stayed home in a 55 per cent turnout in 2012.
So that gets us to the current situation and we have to wonder, who are the 40 per cent who do not vote? Are they the same people (in demographic if not individual terms) election after election? Probably. The habit of voting is either ingrained or rejected.
Can we learn anything about this hidden voter pool from results or opinion polls or comparison to nearby Canada?
I would argue that there's a clue in all of those, since Canada has a slightly larger turnout in their elections (it has run generally 10% higher than in the U.S. over the past half century and reached 68% in the change election of 2015). Canada has more liberals per capita and fewer libertarians (although some, the average libertarian vote in 2015 was generally half of one per cent).
I suspect that the majority of habitual non-voters in the U.S. presidential elections would be four main demographics:
(a) very poor and uneducated persons in rural areas
(b) non-conformists of various kinds, apolitical, including mentally challenged people
(c) libertarians who think there are no good choices
(d) evangelicals who think there are no good choices
The Trump campaign could target all four of those groups, if they managed to shake 1 or 2 per cent of the hidden voters out of each of those four thickets, they might go over the top in the electoral college.
The very poor rural vote could perhaps be approached as a logistical exercise -- these are likely to be people more receptive to Trump than Clinton, but perhaps without much of a support structure to go and vote on election day.
The non-conformist vote might already be attracted, and part of their non-conformity would be to hide their sentiments from scrutiny (including ignoring pollsters).
The disaffected libertarians have a dog in the hunt but is that ticket really mainline libertarian? This may be a source of some cross-over votes for Trump although shaking that tree might send votes the wrong way too.
Finally, the reluctant evangelical vote that might have crept to the voting booth in faint hopes back in 2008 can be persuaded if their leadership make a strong enough case. Trump needs to pull out all the stops in building bridges to the evangelical vote, and he needs to make a stop in Utah to plead his case (your vote for McMullin just ends up electing Clinton, do you really want that?).
We will know if Trump attracts the hidden voters if the turnout cracks 60 per cent for the first time since the 1960s. If he can do it, he'll be president.
well they better get busy registering since many of the deadlines to do so are passing.
Anyone that does not want America overrun by islamic filth, deadbeat illegals and our Constitution destroyed will be voting against clinton.
(b) non-conformists of various kinds, apolitical, including mentally challenged people...
HEY. I voted already :)
Full Disclosure. I HAVE NOT voted in some presidential elections because I figured it’s NY, why bother?
I did this time.
I ordered an absentee ballot because of an injury and it’s already been delivered.
IF I’M voting, then LOTS of people who usually don’t are.
I will never take my voting privilege for granted again.
My nephew is 38 and never voted until this election, where he will crawl through broken glass to vote Trump!
I have seen many other stories like this, I think a good number will come out.
What percentage of registered voters turn out? In Canada, you are registered through the census and can add your name by producing the right documents at a polling place. We don’t have electronic voting machines and we do have party observers (scrutineers) so voter fraud is very low — in close recount situations the only real change from the announced result is a handful of questionable ballots with odd markings that are disputed in court. In other words, we really do have a 68% turnout, not 60% where ten per cent vote twice and there’s a few thousand dead peoples’ votes.
I may be wrong, maybe our system is not all that good, there are mail-in segments to our voting that could be subject to fraud, I suppose, but they are usually less than one per cent of final results (people working a long way from home or travelling, mostly).
The only really bad thing about Canadian elections is who gets elected, whole different story there.
(a) very poor and uneducated persons in rural areas
(b) non-conformists of various kinds, apolitical, including mentally challenged people
Pretty condescending characterization there, Peter. Have you ever watched “Watters World”? Slamming “rural areas” as having the highest number of non-voters is as cheap a shot as I’d expect from Hillary or Obama.
Or “poor” people. Where do you suspect there’s a greater concentration of them - in the urban people warehouses or in “rural areas” where you likely will freeze or go hungry if you just lie around watching TV all day.
And when it comes to “non conformists” you’ll find many more people who more disaffected, pissed-off, or just plain busy worrying about how to make ends meet than you’ll find “mentally challenged”.
I tend to agree that many traditional non-voters will come out in support of Trump this year, but your categorization ignores the reality that would be obvious to anyone who has watched even one Trump rally.
I will offer a free ride to the polls for 10-20 people who can be contacted beforehand. The local gop doesn’t do it that way even though they have the information. Early voting starts tomorrow where I live.
Two weeks before the election is a little late to be working on turnout.
There’s real data on who doesn’t vote. Demographically, it’s younger people and those with low levels of income and education. Personalitywise, it’s those who are more antisocial than their neighbors. Liberals are less likely to vote than conservatives!
The last few election cycles should have seen the GOP specifically targeting self-described ‘born again Christians’ who aren’t much more likely than any other group to vote. There are millions of non-voting or unregistered born again Christians, and they have a strong presence in states like Florida where they could be decisive.
Remember it takes a Trump monster to slay a crooked Hillary Monster
“The only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative.”
Isn’t that the truth. I regret all of the support I ever gave for lowering their taxes.
Let’s kick around the wealth tax idea again.
We were ALL suckered for 28 years pretty much, since Reagan
Still can’t believe the Bushes are voting for hillary.
And Paul Ryan is some piece of work.
of course, I meant SINCE AFTER Reagan!!!
The legitimacy of Trump's win will rest on his getting a majority of electoral votes AND a majority of nationwide votes. Thus, every vote is important, even in states that do not look like they will go to Trump.
The electoral college are the only ones that vote for the president.
THAT is the body who determines the next president.
Good to show up en-mass to the polls and vote TRUMP anyway as it will send an unmistakable message to them because each one of them actually can vote any damn way they please!
SO YEAH, IT’S RIGGED!
You’re 100 percent right. I am VERY glad I voted for Trump. It feels good.
There hasn’t been 65% eligible voter turnout since 1908.
All campaign money is spent to sway the swayable 10% of voters who vote one way and then another, repress the swayable into not voting, or sway folks into voting when they weren’t going to. So no matter the result of an election, pub or dem, con or lib, the dumbest voters who somehow still manage to vote or not vote supposedly decided it.
Freegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.