Posted on 01/02/2015 7:03:48 AM PST by Kaslin
There is a widespread assumption that President Obama has expanded the electorate and inspired booming voter turnout. One could make a case for that based on the 2008 election. But since then, not so much.
Looking back over the past 15 years, the biggest surge in voter turnout came during George W. Bush's presidency. In the Obama years, turnout actually declined in both the 2012 presidential and the 2014 congressional elections.
In 2000, about 105 million Americans voted for president. In 2004, 122 million did. That's a 16 percent rise, the largest between two presidential elections since 1948 and 1952. Turnout increased further in 2008, to 131 million. That's a 7 percent increase over 2004.
There's a similar pattern between the off-year elections during that period. Turnout was 66 million in 1998, when Republicans were mulling the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It increased to 73 million in 2002, when Bush's post-9/11 job approval remained high, and to 80 million in 2006, when Bush's job approval was languishing at levels similar to Obama's this year.
One conclusion here is that increased turnout can result from both hearty approval and vitriolic opposition. You see both in the numbers: Bush won 11.6 million more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000, but John Kerry received 8 million more votes than Al Gore. Republicans apparently did a better job than Democrats of getting their votes out that year, but feeling was high on both sides.
Four years later, Democrats did a much better job turning out the vote. The Obama campaign inspired many young voters and blacks to join the electorate. It targeted four previously safe Republican states -- Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri -- and carried three of them, losing Missouri by an eyelash. North Carolina, though not the fastest-growing state, had the biggest percentage increase in turnout between 2004 and 2008 as the Obama campaign registered thousands of blacks and students.
Those numbers showed enthusiasm for Obama. But the numbers since then have not. Off-year turnout spiked from 80 million in 2006 to 86.5 million in 2010. But Democrats got 3.4 million fewer votes than they did four years earlier, and Republicans got 9 million more.
The 2012 Obama turnout operation outshone the Republicans, and Obama was re-elected. Even so, he got 3.6 million fewer votes than he did four years before. That proved to be enough, because Mitt Romney received only 1 million more votes than John McCain. Overall turnout sagged from 131 million to 129 million. Both sides seemed dispirited.
That year turnout was up, but only by 1 percent, in the 10 states that both parties targeted. Turnout fell 1.9 percent in the 23 safe Republican states and 3.4 percent in the 18 safe Democratic states. Republican votes rose in all three categories if you leave out New York and New Jersey, where Hurricane Sandy depressed turnout. Obama votes were down 8 percent in Republican states and 5 percent in Democratic states, but only 2 percent in target states.
Obama's victory, like Bush's in 2004, owed something to superior organization. But unlike Bush's win, Obama's looked less like a measure of enthusiasm than a grudging acquiescence to the status quo.
That's not what the 2014 off-year results look like. In the 20 states with seriously contested races for Senate or governor, turnout (as measured by total vote for the House) was up over 2010, but by just 1 percent. In the 30 states without such contests, it was down 18 percent --15 percent in safe Republican states, 20 percent in 2012 target and safe Democratic states.
Tentative conclusions:
Useful stats, not sure if the drop to 129 million in 2012 from 131 million is that significant of a drop.
If you have a job you are generally not too wasted to go vote at the end of a hard days work. With more people out of work and given up on finding work - well why bother?
Voter turnout boomed under Bush, not under McCain or Romney. There, fixed it!
R Limbaugh and others keep saying that Romney lost 4 million (evangelical) votes.
I don’t see a statistic that supports that.
The nearest I could find was that McCain lost about 2.1 million over GW Bush.
2000: GW Bush 50.4 million [Gore 50.99 million]
2004: GW Bush 62.0 million
2008: J McCain 59.9 million
2012: M Romney 60.9 million
You fixed nothing
Yeah, but McCain and Romney weren’t presidents
Can I be the first to say it?
Blame Bush!!!
No, they ran for President. I fixed it. McCain and Romney disgusted the conservative base which is one of the reasons Obama won.
Go back and check posts in this forum.
A LOT of conservatives refused to vote for McCain or Romney.
You ain’t seen decline until Jeb gets the GOP nomination.
And .. an interesting stat from the 2004 election was over 4 MILLION MORE VOTERS turned out for Bush’s 2nd election.
That was the BASE .. who suddenly realized that if they didn’t vote, we were going to have John Kerry as President.
And .. again in 2010 and again in 2014, the base came to the rescue. Too bad the GOPe still think they’re smarter than we are.
If they keep acting this way, Obama's base who is loved and adored by everyone will win everything from now on.
Initial voting results in 2012 indicated a decrease in votes, but later those numbers were revised up. I’m not sure what extra votes were added later, maybe overseas military ballots, maybe other absentee ballots & such. Rush might be still quoting the initial results. His overall point that the candidate has to get out the base is still correct.
From my own anecdotal experience, I believe many potential Romney voters in key states stayed home, but I don’t know the exact numbers. I always expected some expert to do a full analysis and announce the reasons but the narrative quickly switched to “we have to reach out to Hispanic voters.”
Also, analysis showed that in 2012, Romney won the so-called “independent” vote. Those precious “moderates” and independents that the are considered by the consultants to be the key to winning the election — Romney won them but still lost the election.
They, the R’s, actually think that they can win national elections without their base. So they go after independents and hispanics trying to make up the difference. Why? They really must be the stupid party.
That’s the way I look at it, how did it effect the swing-states such as Ohio and other states like that.
Boomed in 2006 when we were taken to the cleaners big time. Not impressed.
That's because the consultants didn't realize the obvious: you can't take the "base" for granted.
Romney may have won the independents and the moderates, but without reliable support from people that normally vote Republican, it's not enough to make up that deficit.
The article doesn't just discuss turnout in midterm years and incumbent reelection performance. Weighing the appeal (or lack thereof) of the nominated 2008 and 2012 GOP candidates is not only warranted, the article is flawed by avoiding it.
I agree with that sentiment. What happened to Michael Barone? Has he gotten lazy?
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.