- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Ok we hear a lot about how the Democrats are killing the Republicans when it comes to voter turn out in the primaries.
So I thought I would dig around and see if we can determine if these numbers really mean anything.
I went back to the 2000 elections since that is the last time both parties had a contested nomination and looked at some numbers and here are the results.
New Hampshire:
Total Democrat votes in primary 154,000
Total Republican votes in primary 238,000
Bush won by only 8,000 votes
Delaware:
Democrat votes in primary = 11,000
Republican votes = 30,000
Gore won by 40,000+ votes.
Washington:
Democrat votes = 297,000
Republican votes = 521,000
Gore won the state by 140,000 votes
California:
Democrat votes = 2,654,114
Republican votes = 2,847,921
Gore won by 1.3 million votes
Conn.
Both parties had almost the same vote at 177,000
Gore won the state by 350,000 votes
That is five states before Super Tuesday and before McCain and Bradley both dropped out and in all five the results of the primary total was not even close to the results of the general election.
This would suggest that looking at the turnout in the primaries is not a good indicator of what is going to happen in the general election. Most likely the high Republican turnout in 2000 was a result of the race between Bush and McCain being far more interesting and closer than the race between Gore and Bradley. Which means that the Democrat advantage we are seeing this time around could be a result of Hillary and Obama being more interesting that anything on the Republican side. This is also backed up with the surveys which show that many Republican were not happy with their choices this time around and it is therefore possible that caused a drop in voter turnout.
But when the general election roles around it becomes a totally different ball game. The guy who doesn?t take the time to show up and vote for McCain, Rudy or Romney will be far more likely to vote in the general election in order to keep a liberal Democrat out of office.
Thoughts from the P&N crazies?
Sources of data primary vote totals
general election results
*Update*
Found this one realclearpolitics.com. Proves that I am right in my thesis that Democrat turnout in the primaries does not lead to Democrat victory in the fall.
link
So I thought I would dig around and see if we can determine if these numbers really mean anything.
I went back to the 2000 elections since that is the last time both parties had a contested nomination and looked at some numbers and here are the results.
New Hampshire:
Total Democrat votes in primary 154,000
Total Republican votes in primary 238,000
Bush won by only 8,000 votes
Delaware:
Democrat votes in primary = 11,000
Republican votes = 30,000
Gore won by 40,000+ votes.
Washington:
Democrat votes = 297,000
Republican votes = 521,000
Gore won the state by 140,000 votes
California:
Democrat votes = 2,654,114
Republican votes = 2,847,921
Gore won by 1.3 million votes
Conn.
Both parties had almost the same vote at 177,000
Gore won the state by 350,000 votes
That is five states before Super Tuesday and before McCain and Bradley both dropped out and in all five the results of the primary total was not even close to the results of the general election.
This would suggest that looking at the turnout in the primaries is not a good indicator of what is going to happen in the general election. Most likely the high Republican turnout in 2000 was a result of the race between Bush and McCain being far more interesting and closer than the race between Gore and Bradley. Which means that the Democrat advantage we are seeing this time around could be a result of Hillary and Obama being more interesting that anything on the Republican side. This is also backed up with the surveys which show that many Republican were not happy with their choices this time around and it is therefore possible that caused a drop in voter turnout.
But when the general election roles around it becomes a totally different ball game. The guy who doesn?t take the time to show up and vote for McCain, Rudy or Romney will be far more likely to vote in the general election in order to keep a liberal Democrat out of office.
Thoughts from the P&N crazies?
Sources of data primary vote totals
general election results
*Update*
Found this one realclearpolitics.com. Proves that I am right in my thesis that Democrat turnout in the primaries does not lead to Democrat victory in the fall.
link
(edited out a lot from the article)
For instance, some Democrats - and many in the media, for that matter - are pointing to the relatively high turnout in the Democratic primaries as evidence of an enthusiasm gap that advantages the Democrats. Without commenting on who has an advantage in November, I will say that this particular argument is problematic.
Roughly 62.2% of all primary votes have been cast in the Democratic primary. This is an impressive statistic. However, by itself it does not count as evidence of a Democratic advantage. The reason is that Democrats typically out-perform Republicans in the primaries. The following chart compares the Democrats' share of primary turnout against their share of the two-party vote in the general election.
As you can see - 62.2% is far from extraordinary. Even when we exempt the years in which the Republican Party had non-competitive contests (1972, 1984 and 2004), the Democrats typically out-perform the GOP. Pulling in 62.2% of the primary vote is no unique feat for the Democrats. 1996 is telling. Bill Clinton had no serious challenge while Bob Dole faced a protracted battle against multiple opponents. And yet the GOP still only pulled in 55% of the primary vote.
Another key year is 1988. This is the best apples-to-apples comparison of 2008 that there is. That year, both parties had open nomination battles. The Democrats out-performed the GOP by a margin larger than what they have done this year, pulling in a little more than 65% of the total primary vote. Did it do them any good in the general? No. George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis, 54% to 46%.
So, there is apparently no connection between Democratic primary turnout and the Democratic vote in the general. Why not? I would suggest two reasons. First, higher turnout is in many respects a consequence of drama rather than enthusiasm. In years past, the Democrats have had more dramatic primary battles that have intrigued and engaged voters. This year is no exception. Dramatic races might actually have a negative effect on the party because it drains time and money from the eventual nominee.
Second, our system does not weigh votes according to enthusiasm. I think it is clear that there is an enthusiasm gap this year. I also think that part of the vote difference between the GOP and the Democrats might be a consequence of this gap. However, enthusiasm can only do so much for a candidate. If Voter A can't decide whom to support on Election Day, and breaks the tie by flipping a coin - his vote counts as exactly one vote. If Voter B is so excited to support his beloved candidate that he can't sleep the night before - his vote counts for exactly...one vote!
Where enthusiasm has an effect is in the relative likelihood that Voters A and B will vote. Voter B is almost assured to vote while Voter A is much less likely. This is the benefit that accrues to the candidate with enthusiasm on his side. However, the likelihood of Voter A actually voting increases as the competitiveness of the contest increases. Competitive elections generate attention and interest, and therefore participation. This is why, for instance, turnout was down 8 million votes between 1992 and 1996, was back up in 2000 and even higher in 2004. What's the difference? 1992, 2000 and 2004 were intense elections that captivated the nation. 1996 was not.
Where I think enthusiasm could have the biggest effect is in the money both candidates are able to bring in. This is probably one reason McCain is going to press Obama to take public financing. Obama's enthusiastic voters count for just one vote apiece, but they can give him a financial edge over McCain that public financing would nullify.