With the Iowa Caucuses finally here, this is a good time to offer a few thoughts on their significance and the American presidential race this year.
Why Iowa?
I tell my doctoral students writing dissertations that oftentimes one does not have to be right, just first. That is the story of Iowa. By all accounts if one were going to pick a first state to start the US presidential selection process, Iowa would not be it. It is a state hardly representative of the nation–too white, too rural and agricultural, and too small a population. Its is over-representative in religious conservatives compared to the rest of the nation, and with a caucus system it brings out a very small percentage of the population that even might not be representative of the national let along the Iowa Democratic and Republican parties. But none of that matters–it is first and it does have a major impact on the presidential election.
Its impact is twofold. First it eliminates candidates who do poorly—think Howard Dean in 2004. It does that by drying up money and media attention. But the Iowa Caucuses also can help presidential campaigns by declaring winners and those doing better than expected getting boasts. The Democrats have been holding the Iowa caucuses since 1972 (11 total) and 8 of the winners there have gone to win the party nomination (66%). The Republicans have held caucuses there since 1976 (10 total), and 6 of winners (60%) have gone on to win the nomination. Overall, 14 of 21 winners (66%) have gone on to win their party’s nomination, with seven of the winners of the caucuses winning the presidency.
Year Iowa Dem Winner Dem Party Nominee Iowa GOP Winner GOP Party Nominee President
1972 Muskie McGovern Nixon Nixon
1976 Carter Carter Ford Ford Carter
1980 Carter Carter Reagan Reagan Reagan
1984 Mondale Mondale Reagan Reagan Reagan
1988 Gephardt Dukakis Dole Bush Bush
1992 Harkin Clinton Bush Bush Clinton
1996 Clinton Clinton Dole Dole Clinton
2000 Gore Gore Bush Bush Bush
2004 Kerry Kerry Bush Bush Bush
2008 Obama Obama Huckabee McCain Obama
2012 Obama Obama Santorium Romney Obama
Life is About Showing Up
The caucuses are all about turnout, proving the adage that 90% (if not more) of life and politics is showing up. To participate caucus attendees must register in advance with a party or they can do that at the door. This is effectively day of caucus registration, making it difficult to predict turnout because of the possibility of individuals not previously registered (or predicted by the polls) deciding to attend. In 2008 239,000 Democrats and 120,000 Republicans turned out. In 2012 it was 25,000 (Obama unopposed) and 122,000 respectively.
Turnout is important because the question for 2016 is will the turnout be closer to the 2008 number (360,000) total or 2012 (147,000 total). Turnout is key for Sanders and Trump. For both to win they must generate numbers closer to the 2008 level. This would mean the Millennials, independents, and swing voters go for Sanders and the non-college blue collar (among others) show up for Trump. What will be tested on February 1, is the ability to translate pep rallies and media persona into get out the vote and actually showing up at the caucuses.
Who Lost the White Working Class?
Much has been written about why the Democrats lost the white working class voter to the Republicans? This is an issue again this year because of a great piece in the NY Times recently describing how union leaders are fretting that their rank and file might bolt to Trump if he were to get the nomination. This split in the labor vote would be a disaster for the Democratic nominee.
Lyndon Johnson declared the signing of the 1964 Civil rights Act cost the Democrats the south and the white vote. The Edsells’ Chain Reaction says the same thing. Ronald Reagan pealed off the Reagan Democrats by talking muscular and opposing affirmative action. All possibilities. But Bill Clinton did further damage by supporting NAFTA and blowing off working class America, especially the unions. Obama did that too with his race and his failure to address the economic hardships of white working class America who saw him continue to bail out the banks and not the home owners, and do little to address the loss of manufacturing jobs. Granted the Republicans too have done next to nothing to help white working class. But with neither the Democrats or Republicans having done anything to help white working class, this group of voters has been receptive to the claim that they are losing out because people of color are being helped. Yes, this is the racial card and for 40 years it has helped the Republicans, and Trump is again playing it.
Defining Inclusive
I read the other day about a woman saying she loved Clinton because she was more inclusive than Sanders. Her reference was the Clinton ads showing people of color and Sanders mostly whites. What we see here are contrasting definitions of what it means to be inclusive.
In 2016 Sanders is appealing to many of the white working class again. The political messages and coalitions of Sanders and Clinton display two different concepts of inclusivity–For Sanders class is the inclusive group to unite America, for Clinton it is gender and race. We see here a battle between rival concepts of how to unite America. Moreover, as we think about their coalitions, it is important to remember that neither Clinton nor Sanders is winning 100% of their groups. Both are winning some women, liberals, and people of color. The issue is about marginals and how will each does to hold their own bases, eat into the other’s, and mobilize new voters. This too is what we shall learn on February 1.
The Media
Finally what is also surprising is how the institutional mainstream media has lined up for Clinton and against Sanders. The mainstream media however is perplexed by Trump v Cruz, opting to give Rubio its favored treatment yet also liking Trump for the ratings he produces. None of this is a surprise. Remember, Sanders is not a traditional Democrat and he talks about issues that have not be part of the mainstream in years, if ever. In the last week the social and traditional media have piled on to criticize Sanders, often unfairly. For example, there is heavy criticism of his healthcare plan (and there is room to criticize all of the plans by all the candidates) but the idea of national health care and single payer is the norm across many countries including Canada and it works very well. To hear the media and critics, one would think Sanders is the first to come up with this idea and that it is unworkable.
There has also been a media blackout of Sanders in the US, at least until recently, and a continued refusal to treat him as a serous candidate. How will the media report the results on Iowa for Tuesday? Will it be Sanders lost and he is done(if he does), or that a socialist almost beat Clinton (proving her vulnerable), or that he won and it was a fluke? For Trump, does a win legitimize his campaign or does a second place mean that he lost and that it demonstrates he has no ground game? How the media and the candidates spin Monday is even more important that actually what happens. This is part of why the Iowa Caucuses are so important, even though they should not be. They are first and they get to decide how the next stage of the 2016 presidential campaign will be framed.
Showing posts with label voter turnout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voter turnout. Show all posts
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Friday, August 15, 2014
What we learned from the Minnesota primary?
Far less than you think. Journalists and politicos want to write the big story and find trends. If there is a special election in one race they see in it a harbinger of a trend. Think of Eric Cantor losing to a Tea Party candidate and how from one race everyone is saying that the immigration issue did him in and therefore Republicans will refuse to compromise on this topic. Maybe it was immigration that cost him his seat, or maybe it was that he lost track with his constituents or simply was complacent in his campaigning. This is what did Jim Oberstar in.
My point is that there are two competing trends in thinking about politics. One is the classic Tip O’Neill line that all politics is local. The other is the belief that all politics is now being nationalized. Evidence exists for both propositions and there are serious questions also whether one can generalize from one event to seeing a trend.
Minnesota’s August 12, primary invites this type of speculation. By now the received wisdom is that endorsements matter and that the turnout was bad. There is some truth to both but more needs to be said.
First it appears that all the party endorsed or party favored candidates one–Johnson, McFadden, Otto, Kahn, and Loon just to mention a few. After what appeared to be a nearly generation-long repudiation of convention endorsements, they seem to have mattered this time and perhaps it is a sign of a trend. Yes they mattered this time but a trend is not something one can leap to yet. This primary the endorsements mattered and parties looked strong because the turnout was so bad. The two are related and when we think about it, the parties do not look that strong.
One of the classic functions of political parties is voter mobilization and get out the vote. Strong parties are generally associated with vigorous voter turnout. But in this primary turnout was 12.8%, more or less confirming a long-term decrease in turnout dating back 30 years in Minnesota when in 1982 31% showed up on primary day. Since then the number of individuals identifying themselves as a member of a political party has decreased, thereby making it harder for parties to mobilize as many people as before. Many of those people are also younger voters or Millennials who are less likely to identify with the two major parties compared to the past. They are also individuals harder to reach by more traditional methods of communication (mail or phone) and instead need to contacted by alternative or social media. Finally, unlike 30 years ago, third parties such as PACS are more powerful today and they along with interest groups perform many of the functions that parties used to perform.
My point is simple. Low turnout and the appearance of party endorsements as mattering last Tuesday went hand-in-hand. Because the parties (and the candidates) did such a bad job reaching and mobilizing voters the turnout was so bad. With turnout so bad we saw young people stay away from the polls and also those who did show up were the hardcore partisans–those whom the endorsement process mattered most to. Come November when turnout is at about 54% things will look different. Parties and the candidates will be competing more with third party groups (PACS, legislative caucuses, and independent expenditures) for influence and they may or may not look as relevant as they did in this primary.
Now of course there are other reasons why turnout was bad. As I pointed out four years ago in a study other states that moved from a post to pre Labor Day August primary demonstrated lower turnout. Four years ago MN had a slight bump in turnout (as did other states with their first August primary) but the longer term trend is for lower turnout. Few people are thinking of politics n Minnesota except for the hardcore politicos. Most Minnesotans barely think about elections until the state fair, or after Labor Day when school starts. Picking an August primary date as opposed to an early one such as June favors incumbents or party endorsed candidates by holding an election when many people are not thinking about voting. June would be better for an primary but incumbents did not want it because of how close it came to the end or the legislative session (assuming it ends on time) and it would hurt their ability to fund raise and campaign.
A couple of other thoughts about Tuesday. This was the first with new excuses early voting. Many thought this would increase turnout. It did not for two reasons. One, few people knew about the change in the law. Second, the evidence is mixed regarding whether early voting really increases turnout or simply makes voting more convenient for those who do vote. Additionally, it is not clear that many candidates knew how to use early voting to their benefit. I remember talking to Scott Honour at one point and he thought he would win because he had the most money and would use it to get people to early vote. I asked him how he was taking advantage of early voting and he said he had a link on his web site for people to download an absentee ballot application. This is hardly a good use of early voting. I heard of similar other candidates operating with similar naive strategies.
Finally, one other argument I had emerging out of this election is that money did not matter–Entenza and Honour lost. Yes they did but in part because they did not use their money effectively and also because there is something that one needs to consider–they were not quality candidates. Both faced many liabilities that money just could not overcome.
So what do we learn from the August 12 primary? Maybe far less and far different from what the received wisdom is saying
My point is that there are two competing trends in thinking about politics. One is the classic Tip O’Neill line that all politics is local. The other is the belief that all politics is now being nationalized. Evidence exists for both propositions and there are serious questions also whether one can generalize from one event to seeing a trend.
Minnesota’s August 12, primary invites this type of speculation. By now the received wisdom is that endorsements matter and that the turnout was bad. There is some truth to both but more needs to be said.
First it appears that all the party endorsed or party favored candidates one–Johnson, McFadden, Otto, Kahn, and Loon just to mention a few. After what appeared to be a nearly generation-long repudiation of convention endorsements, they seem to have mattered this time and perhaps it is a sign of a trend. Yes they mattered this time but a trend is not something one can leap to yet. This primary the endorsements mattered and parties looked strong because the turnout was so bad. The two are related and when we think about it, the parties do not look that strong.
One of the classic functions of political parties is voter mobilization and get out the vote. Strong parties are generally associated with vigorous voter turnout. But in this primary turnout was 12.8%, more or less confirming a long-term decrease in turnout dating back 30 years in Minnesota when in 1982 31% showed up on primary day. Since then the number of individuals identifying themselves as a member of a political party has decreased, thereby making it harder for parties to mobilize as many people as before. Many of those people are also younger voters or Millennials who are less likely to identify with the two major parties compared to the past. They are also individuals harder to reach by more traditional methods of communication (mail or phone) and instead need to contacted by alternative or social media. Finally, unlike 30 years ago, third parties such as PACS are more powerful today and they along with interest groups perform many of the functions that parties used to perform.
My point is simple. Low turnout and the appearance of party endorsements as mattering last Tuesday went hand-in-hand. Because the parties (and the candidates) did such a bad job reaching and mobilizing voters the turnout was so bad. With turnout so bad we saw young people stay away from the polls and also those who did show up were the hardcore partisans–those whom the endorsement process mattered most to. Come November when turnout is at about 54% things will look different. Parties and the candidates will be competing more with third party groups (PACS, legislative caucuses, and independent expenditures) for influence and they may or may not look as relevant as they did in this primary.
Now of course there are other reasons why turnout was bad. As I pointed out four years ago in a study other states that moved from a post to pre Labor Day August primary demonstrated lower turnout. Four years ago MN had a slight bump in turnout (as did other states with their first August primary) but the longer term trend is for lower turnout. Few people are thinking of politics n Minnesota except for the hardcore politicos. Most Minnesotans barely think about elections until the state fair, or after Labor Day when school starts. Picking an August primary date as opposed to an early one such as June favors incumbents or party endorsed candidates by holding an election when many people are not thinking about voting. June would be better for an primary but incumbents did not want it because of how close it came to the end or the legislative session (assuming it ends on time) and it would hurt their ability to fund raise and campaign.
A couple of other thoughts about Tuesday. This was the first with new excuses early voting. Many thought this would increase turnout. It did not for two reasons. One, few people knew about the change in the law. Second, the evidence is mixed regarding whether early voting really increases turnout or simply makes voting more convenient for those who do vote. Additionally, it is not clear that many candidates knew how to use early voting to their benefit. I remember talking to Scott Honour at one point and he thought he would win because he had the most money and would use it to get people to early vote. I asked him how he was taking advantage of early voting and he said he had a link on his web site for people to download an absentee ballot application. This is hardly a good use of early voting. I heard of similar other candidates operating with similar naive strategies.
Finally, one other argument I had emerging out of this election is that money did not matter–Entenza and Honour lost. Yes they did but in part because they did not use their money effectively and also because there is something that one needs to consider–they were not quality candidates. Both faced many liabilities that money just could not overcome.
So what do we learn from the August 12 primary? Maybe far less and far different from what the received wisdom is saying
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Minneapolis will likely see increased voter turnout in November
Today's Blog appears in Minnpost.
Predicting voter turnout is always difficult, including for political scientists. The same will be true this November in the Minneapolis elections. But for those who contend that confusion due ranked choice voting (RCV) or that 35 candidates are running for mayor will depress voter turnout, they had better think again. Instead, examination of the factors affecting voter turnout and evidence from races and jurisdictions where there are competitive multi-candidate races suggests Minneapolis could have a larger than expected turnout this fall.
As I point out in my forthcoming book Election Law and Democratic Theory, many variables influence voter turnout. Party affiliation and intensity of partisan attachment are two factors. Being a member of a political party and the intensity of that party loyalty affect turnout. But other demographic factors such as class, race, and religion too are important. Religious affiliation–especially regular religious attendance–correlate positively with voter turnout. Age too is a factor, with middle age voters more likely to vote than those under the age of 30. Turnout in the United States is also greater in presidential than non-presidential election years. There is also good data suggesting that better educated and informed voters are more likely to vote and that campaigns that are better covered by the media have higher rates of turnout.
But there are two other factors that are significant drivers of voter turnout–the appearance of a close or competitive election and candidate choice. There is powerful evidence that voters are more likely to vote when there is a reality or perception that their vote matters. All things being equal, voters like competitive horse races and will show up when they think their vote will make a difference. Related to that, when there are competitive elections candidates and parties generally do a better job identifying and mobilizing voters to turnout, acting on the same belief that every vote matters. Second, in situations where individuals feel like there is a real choice they are more likely to vote. Voters who do not find candidates whom they wish to vote for or in races where they are not excited about their choices, are less likely to vote than in races where they perceive a choice.
Anecdotal and hard evidence support the notion that competitive elections and candidate choice are powerful forces affecting turnout. There is evidence that the Electoral College depresses turnout in non-competitive presidential states. Generally competitive close elections have higher turnout than lopsided victories. Around the world multi-candidate (more than two viable choices) races yield higher voter turnouts than non-competitive or two person races. In 2010, those of us who predicted that the shift to an August primary would decrease turnout as was the case in the other states that did the same, the close DFL gubernatorial race demonstrated how candidate choice and competition increased turnout. Finally, for those who have worked on real campaigns (including me), they know that candidates and parties hustle more for voters when it is perceived to be a close election.
Now apply all this to the coming Minneapolis elections. All indications are that the mayor’s race is very competitive and that there is no clear favorite. There are perhaps four or more individuals who have a real chance to win, each appealing to different constituencies. This means already candidates are working hard to mobilize their voters and that Minneapolis residents have several choices for mayor. These factors alone should positively affect turnout. But now throw RCV in and the calculations change. Some might argue that RCV and the appearance of too many choices will confuse voters and depress turnout. Only elitists lacking faith in the people should make such an argument. Instead, RCV, as it was designed to do, enhances voter choice and creates real possibilities that candidates who were the second or third choice of voters might win. This creates, as is happening in Minneapolis, candidates who are working harder to convince voters to consider them a second choice and it is encouraging voters to think, in a race that seems even more competitive than usual, that their vote will matter. Bottom line–there is a reason to vote.
Four years ago Minneapolis used RCV for the first time and turnout was abysmal. Critics labeled RCV as the reason. I was asked by the City of Minneapolis back then to evaluate the implementation of RCV. My report indicated that the main reason for low voter turnout was a perception that the mayor’s race was not competitive. The 2009 was not a good test of RCV. Moreover, there was no or little evidence that RCV depressed turnout among the poor or people of color. Yes, some areas of the city did have signs of voter confusion but again no evidence that RCV depressed turnout. Evidence of use of RCV in the United States and around the world substantiates that conclusion.
Overall, given the low voter turnout and perceived lack of competitive elections in 2009, it is almost too easy to predict that in 2013 turnout will increase across the board. Many factors will drive this including the hard competition of many fine candidates in a close election where RCV could determine the outcome of the mayor’s race.
Predicting voter turnout is always difficult, including for political scientists. The same will be true this November in the Minneapolis elections. But for those who contend that confusion due ranked choice voting (RCV) or that 35 candidates are running for mayor will depress voter turnout, they had better think again. Instead, examination of the factors affecting voter turnout and evidence from races and jurisdictions where there are competitive multi-candidate races suggests Minneapolis could have a larger than expected turnout this fall.
As I point out in my forthcoming book Election Law and Democratic Theory, many variables influence voter turnout. Party affiliation and intensity of partisan attachment are two factors. Being a member of a political party and the intensity of that party loyalty affect turnout. But other demographic factors such as class, race, and religion too are important. Religious affiliation–especially regular religious attendance–correlate positively with voter turnout. Age too is a factor, with middle age voters more likely to vote than those under the age of 30. Turnout in the United States is also greater in presidential than non-presidential election years. There is also good data suggesting that better educated and informed voters are more likely to vote and that campaigns that are better covered by the media have higher rates of turnout.
But there are two other factors that are significant drivers of voter turnout–the appearance of a close or competitive election and candidate choice. There is powerful evidence that voters are more likely to vote when there is a reality or perception that their vote matters. All things being equal, voters like competitive horse races and will show up when they think their vote will make a difference. Related to that, when there are competitive elections candidates and parties generally do a better job identifying and mobilizing voters to turnout, acting on the same belief that every vote matters. Second, in situations where individuals feel like there is a real choice they are more likely to vote. Voters who do not find candidates whom they wish to vote for or in races where they are not excited about their choices, are less likely to vote than in races where they perceive a choice.
Anecdotal and hard evidence support the notion that competitive elections and candidate choice are powerful forces affecting turnout. There is evidence that the Electoral College depresses turnout in non-competitive presidential states. Generally competitive close elections have higher turnout than lopsided victories. Around the world multi-candidate (more than two viable choices) races yield higher voter turnouts than non-competitive or two person races. In 2010, those of us who predicted that the shift to an August primary would decrease turnout as was the case in the other states that did the same, the close DFL gubernatorial race demonstrated how candidate choice and competition increased turnout. Finally, for those who have worked on real campaigns (including me), they know that candidates and parties hustle more for voters when it is perceived to be a close election.
Now apply all this to the coming Minneapolis elections. All indications are that the mayor’s race is very competitive and that there is no clear favorite. There are perhaps four or more individuals who have a real chance to win, each appealing to different constituencies. This means already candidates are working hard to mobilize their voters and that Minneapolis residents have several choices for mayor. These factors alone should positively affect turnout. But now throw RCV in and the calculations change. Some might argue that RCV and the appearance of too many choices will confuse voters and depress turnout. Only elitists lacking faith in the people should make such an argument. Instead, RCV, as it was designed to do, enhances voter choice and creates real possibilities that candidates who were the second or third choice of voters might win. This creates, as is happening in Minneapolis, candidates who are working harder to convince voters to consider them a second choice and it is encouraging voters to think, in a race that seems even more competitive than usual, that their vote will matter. Bottom line–there is a reason to vote.
Four years ago Minneapolis used RCV for the first time and turnout was abysmal. Critics labeled RCV as the reason. I was asked by the City of Minneapolis back then to evaluate the implementation of RCV. My report indicated that the main reason for low voter turnout was a perception that the mayor’s race was not competitive. The 2009 was not a good test of RCV. Moreover, there was no or little evidence that RCV depressed turnout among the poor or people of color. Yes, some areas of the city did have signs of voter confusion but again no evidence that RCV depressed turnout. Evidence of use of RCV in the United States and around the world substantiates that conclusion.
Overall, given the low voter turnout and perceived lack of competitive elections in 2009, it is almost too easy to predict that in 2013 turnout will increase across the board. Many factors will drive this including the hard competition of many fine candidates in a close election where RCV could determine the outcome of the mayor’s race.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Thoughts on the MN Primary: Looking to the General Election
What did we learn about the August 10, MN primary? A few interesting things.
Turnout
First, I confess, I was wrong. I predicted an August primary would produce a 12% turnout or a 2% decease from previous years. Instead, it went up to 15%. I am glad I was wrong. Instead of people being confused by a new date perhaps candidate groundwars and the novelty of the new date increased turnout.
Second, because of increased turnout, the winning number for the DFL primary was much higher than I predicted. Moreover, given how many voted in the DFL primary, this suggests more passion or hunger by the DFL to win the governorship. This is why the primary turnout increased, and it does give Dayton some momentum heading into November.
Why Dayton?
Many DFLers expressed shock that Kelliher lost. I never thought she would. All along I said that Dayton had the name recognition advantage, the money advantage (over Kelliher but not Dayton), and was at least second in terms of ties to organized interests (AFSCME) in terms of organized interests. All this counted a lot. But I also suggested his strength would be with the Iron Range and his Lt. Governor. This is what paid off. Kelliher was really an urban Twin Cities candidate but never really one with broader appeal across the state.
I also think there was a certain arrogance on display with the DFL establishment on Tuesday. As I listened to MPR on Tuesday night Brian Melendez and others in the DFL seemed self-confident and cocky that their machine would deliver for Kelliher. Why believe that when the track record for the last two decades demonstrates the contrary. I think Kelliher’s shock and late concession on Wednesday reflected this arrogance too. Neither she nor the rank DFL get it in terms of understanding that they do not speak or represent the broader spectrum of those who consider themselves Democrats.
What is significant about Dayton are two things. First, he won with rural and blue collar support. The GOP should be worried about this. Generally, Emmer and the GOP can count on rural votes and some blue collar. However, Dayton ran strong where the GOP normally do. Assuming that the DFLers can bring their organization statewide and in the metro region to support Dayton, the DFL has a good campaign.
Second, Dayton won with a coalition and themes that bring back to life the old Perpich era. He did well with workers and the Iron Range and he ran on populist themes that harken back to that era. His emphasis on education returns the DFL to the Perpich one of making MN the brainpower state. Normally I do not think the past beats the future in politics, but here Dayton is cementing together one last time the old Perpich themes and coalition and updating for 2010. It might work again.
The General Election
It is trite to say that Dayton versus Emmer represents the broadest liberal/conservative divide in decades and that this sets up Horner for the center. All this is true. This also sets up the old Perpich coalition v. the new Tea Party brand of the GOP. Two different populist movements in conflict.
Emmer faces some weaknesses. Support for him among his base is a little soft, leaving Horner with room to grab GOPers. Also, Dayton has a stronger hold on moderate swing voters and female suburban voters (the soccer moms) than does Emmer. This is the battleground and Emmer is way behind here. He needs to figure out a way to remessage and move to the center. However, thanks to Matt Entenza and bad campaigning on his own account, the DFL has already defined Emmer. Emmer made the same mistake as Kerry in '04–he let others define him instead of defining himself. Once defined it is hard to undue.
Emmer also faces a McCain problem. In '08 McCain knew Bush was unpopular and that “change” was the mantra of the year. He needed to figure out how to run against Bush, a member of his own party, and also recognize that America was going in the wrong direction. If you are of the same party how can change mean staying with the same party? This is a tough trick to perform and McCain failed.
Emmer has a similar problem. He says MN is on the wrong track and it needs a new direction on taxes and regulation. He seems to forget that Pawlenty was governor for the last 8 years. How can he run against is own party? This is the McCain-Bush problem repeated here. Yes, Emmer represents a different wing of the GOP compared to Pawlenty (it is the Reagan v. Palin wing), but the DFL have already linked Emmer to Pawlenty.
Finally, the issues. Briefly, it is the economy and jobs. Average voters do not care about the record of Dayton as senator or the budget deficit. If the GOP talk about Dayton’s senate life that get away from core issues of the economy. Conversely, if the DFL talk too much about DWI and the deficit that also lose focus.
Monday, May 10, 2010
12% Turnout Predicted for August 10 Primary
Today I released a study indicating that the impact of changing the date of the Minnesota primary from September to August will result in less than a two percent decrease in voter turnout. The study is found here at http://davidschultz.v2efoliomn.mnscu.edu/MinnesotaPolitics
I predict that only about 12% of the voters, or approximately 381,000 voters will show up for the new August primary. This is a 2% compared to the 2006 primary.
The report is entitled Estimating Voter Turnout in the August 10, 2010 Minnesota Primary.
Based on the limited experiences of two other states–Florida and Washington–which changed their primaries from September to August, the impact of the new August date in Minnesota will be minimal, amounting to less than a 2 percent decrease in turnout. While two percent is not much, it is a predicted decrease, continuing a downward rate of participation in primaries in Minnesota that has continued since the early 1980s.” The reason for the decrease, according to the report, may be due to confusion, summer vacations, and the absence of the state fair to cue voters that a primary is occurring.
The report notes that the impact of the new primary date needs to be considered along side of this downward trend in primary participation. The latter may be driven by declining party identification in the state or other factors according to Schultz. The 12% turnout would compare to nearly 14% in 2006 and 31% in1982. The 12% predicted turnout in August means 381,000 voters will go to the polls this August.
In addition to predicting overall August voter turnout, the report estimates 229,000 individuals will vote in the 2010 DFL gubernatorial primary, and that to win the DFL gubernatorial primary, a candidate will need to between 76,197 and 114,410 votes, with the most likely winning number being between 90,000-95,000 votes.
I predict that only about 12% of the voters, or approximately 381,000 voters will show up for the new August primary. This is a 2% compared to the 2006 primary.
The report is entitled Estimating Voter Turnout in the August 10, 2010 Minnesota Primary.
Based on the limited experiences of two other states–Florida and Washington–which changed their primaries from September to August, the impact of the new August date in Minnesota will be minimal, amounting to less than a 2 percent decrease in turnout. While two percent is not much, it is a predicted decrease, continuing a downward rate of participation in primaries in Minnesota that has continued since the early 1980s.” The reason for the decrease, according to the report, may be due to confusion, summer vacations, and the absence of the state fair to cue voters that a primary is occurring.
The report notes that the impact of the new primary date needs to be considered along side of this downward trend in primary participation. The latter may be driven by declining party identification in the state or other factors according to Schultz. The 12% turnout would compare to nearly 14% in 2006 and 31% in1982. The 12% predicted turnout in August means 381,000 voters will go to the polls this August.
In addition to predicting overall August voter turnout, the report estimates 229,000 individuals will vote in the 2010 DFL gubernatorial primary, and that to win the DFL gubernatorial primary, a candidate will need to between 76,197 and 114,410 votes, with the most likely winning number being between 90,000-95,000 votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)