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:
Voter turnout does not always mean it was due to “positives” about any incumbent, before or after an election. It can just as much be an increase in those desiring to definitely vote AGAINST someone. It is a level of voter excitement, that’s all, and excitement can be from positive, or from negative directions, depending on the individual.
The article also should address how many less American citizens there are here now as compared to ten years ago. My area has lost citizens while the population is stabilized with masses of immigrants (legal or otherwise); we lost an electoral vote because of it.
Right after the 2012 election, he jumped on the “white voters stayed home” theme.
4.3 million white voters actually did stay home in 2012, but they were not Republican voters.
Romney got 1.4 million more white votes than McCain.
Obama lost 5.5 million white voters in 2012.
What goes unnoticed about 2012 is that Obama set turnout records for Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters.
By the way, I'm the “expert” who crunched the numbers.
Took me about an hour using 7th grade math.
I used the Congressional certified vote totals (available on Wiki), NEP exit polls (used by AP, NYT, and all major TV networks), and the US Census Bureau.
Good points. The other thing these numbers point out is that white voters who voted for Obama in 2008 — they stayed home rather than flip their votes to Romney in 2012. I don’t think it would have been easy to get them to flip their vote. They view all politicians as empty suits, but in 2008 this guy came along they thought was “special” and they turned out to vote for him. Then they realized he was just like the others so they just returned to their normal pattern of not voting.
The other reliable voting groups — they are succeptible to campaigns that scare them into voting, such as with Biden’s “gonna put ya’ll back in chains” remark. So it is not surprising that voter turnout increased for those groups in 2012.
Isn’t it nice to have a sensible conversation about this so we can learn the correct lessons before 2016?
Look at what happened in 2010 and 2014 when Obama was not on the ballot. That's what we will see in 2016.
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.