John Hinderaker Powerline notes a study finds 2004 and 2008 had roughly equal turnout, in contrast to media reports that turnout was exceptional this election cycle. Despite talk of a “mandate,” in contrast to landslide years like 1964, 1980, or 1984, only a few states flipped from red to blue in 2008 and the nation remains divided roughly the same as in 2000/2004, with a portion of the moderate vote having moved to Democrats after an 8-year period when Republicans mostly dominated control of the federal government on slender margins.
This argues Democrats should tread lightly, as the nation has not really embraced their agenda so much as it has tired of the GOP, and any overreach could quickly turn the country back to red.
John also pessimistically asserts the following:
The other possibility, I think, is that cultural forces push the Democrats forward relentlessly, except for occasions when their policies have clearly and undeniably failed. By “cultural forces” I mean the Democrats’ monopoly or near-monopoly over newspapers, news agencies, network television, the universities and public schools, Hollywood, women’s television and magazines, late-night comedy, the music industry, and so forth.
This is true as far as it goes, but it really only explains why the youth vote tends to favor Democrats, which has been the case for a long time. As people grow and mature and absorb their values from work and real life experience rather than simply accepting what movies and teachers tell them, they begin to recognize the flaws in the socialist model (this usually starts when they get their first real paycheck and see all those withholdings) and become more conservative on economic policies. At the same time, as they leave home they also notice that many elements of social conservativism taught in church and school do not hold up to scrutiny, thus the longstanding trend toward acceptance of consensual activities long held taboo such as homosexuality, premarital sex, miscegenation, and recreational drug/alcohol use, especially in urban areas.Â
This, I think, is the future of the political center in America: greater liberty both economically and socially. The party that embraces these values will prosper in the years ahead.
{ 6 comments }
You didnt mention that Hindraker is a bit suspicious of the analysis, and that it left out California as well as other states. The absolute numbers of votes tallied are pretty clear
link to 2004
link to 2008
not only were teh absolute number of votes in 2008 higher than in 2004, so too was percentage turnout (number of voters as percentage of eligible registered ones). The analysis you invoke, excludes the biggest state in the country (CA) as well as several others, so really is not very rigorous at all. Its straightforward to find statsitics on teh election from other sources to verify the claim.
This, I think, is the future of the political center in America: greater liberty both economically and socially. The party that embraces these values will prosper in the years ahead.
I agree with you unreservedly.
Hmm. reading the report, it does sound reasonable as a theory though – Dem turnout was way up, but GOP turnout was down, partially canceling it out. Maybe the numbers I saw earlier were partially incomplete. This from teh report you cite is particularly ineresting for a number of reasons:
Of the states included in this report, Democratic turnout increased in all but seven states, led by
Indiana (up 8.32 percentage points), North Carolina (8.3), Hawaii (6.4), Delaware (6.1), Georgia
(6.1), North Dakota (6.0), Nevada (5.9), Montana (5.4), New Mexico (.1), and Virginia (5.0)—all
except Hawaii, new areas of potential Democratic strength. Republican turnout increased in only
eight of 47 states and the District of Columbia included in this report.
The greatest increase in overall turnout was in North Carolina, where turnout increased by 9.4
percentage points to a record high. Georgia also had a record high turnout, increasing by 6.7
percentage points, as did South Carolina with a 6.0 percentage point increase. Others setting new
records included Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, and the District of Columbia.
You didnt mention that Hindraker is a bit suspicious of the analysis
True, but it’s probably not enough to change the results much even if Cali had significantly different turnout differences than other states, which it probably doesn’t.
Also, on your cites above, keep in mind absolute turnout ignores the fact the nation gets more populous every four years. We aren’t even close to the percentage turnouts of the 1960s. This was another relatively quiet election.
Also, on your cites above, keep in mind absolute turnout ignores the fact the nation gets more populous every four years. We aren’t even close to the percentage turnouts of the 1960s. This was another relatively quiet election.
I see your point. Still there are really two stories here: huge turnout for dems, and poor turnout for GOP. Averaging them together and arguing turnout was the "same" as in 2004 is I think accurate, technically, but masks the more important dynamics.
If Obama is as dangerous as McCain tried to portray him, then you have to wonder why more GOP voters werent motivated to vote against him. I conclude that McCain’s arguments and evidence were weak even to the sympathetic base. As they said over at TheNextRight,
 Can we win elections by calling people liberals and socialists and anti-American?  No.  Can we win elections by misconstruing oppo research and converting it into disingenuous cookie-cutter negative ads?  No.  Can we win elections by invoking the memory of Reagan and calling for a return to the 1980′s?  No.  Can we win elections by ignoring the Big Middle?  No.
keep in mind absolute turnout ignores the fact the nation gets more populous every four years.
agreed, thats what i meant in the other thread when i saoid that i need to do a more rigorous analysis taking population growth into account. its an interesting question i intend to follow up on.
Comments on this entry are closed.