Turnout, Turnout, Turnout

[classical liberal]

I think that people will be motivated to go to the polls this time.  Florida showed people that votes in swing states count, so the swing state turout will be like 75%.  Since the swing states include 153 of the 435 Congressional Districts (35% of the total population), that is 26.4% total turnout, plus roughly 50% turnout in the remaining states equals 58.8% overall turnout.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Turnout is about motivating your side and demoralizing the otherside. So we get a combination of attack ads to suppress the otherside's turnout and campaign rhetoric to excite the base so they work and turnout.

The turnout number itself does not tell the whole story. It is also important to see WHO is turning out, in addition to HOW MANY.

For example, DOLE lost because the christian conservatives didn't turn out in 92.

Look at the the change in the 2000 vote from 5 days before the election compared to the election results. Bush's base was demoralized and GOre'sbase energized because of the DUI reported 4 days before the election.

It is true, though, that in general, those less politically active (ie vote less frequently) generally vote DEM.


 

First, Dole was defeated in 1996, not 1992.

Second, both tax cutters and christian conservatives were angry with Dole as he was about as two faced as Kerry.

Third, the substance about the candidates has more to do with "enthusiasm" and "demoralization" than ads or rhetoric.

Fourth, efforts to locate, register and get to the polls likely voters (including importantly absentee voting) ix nitty, gritty, detail work.  The Democrats did it in 2000 with money raised by Motel 1600 and Chinese Communists for Gore.

[angus]

I hate the phrase Christian Conservatives.  They're really not conservative at all; their entire agenda is pushing for government to interfere in things that the constitution does not empower.  They assume that they know what is best for people and wish to use government unconstitutionally to impose their thoughts on others.  In that reagard they are as much liberal elitists as John Kerry and his ilk.

You are definitely not morally fashionable.  I really like that about the persona your posts have assumed.  And you are exactly right.  I'm glad someone had the balls to finally say something true and profound, even though it is currently unfashionable to do that.

[angus]

I think that people will be motivated to go to the polls this time.  Florida showed people that votes in swing states count, so the swing state turout will be like 75%.  Since the swing states include 153 of the 435 Congressional Districts (35% of the total population), that is 26.4% total turnout, plus roughly 50% turnout in the remaining states equals 58.8% overall turnout.

this post, on the other hand, is madness.

[classical liberal]

morally fashionable?

what is mad about it?  the tossup states know who they are, and what happened last time, so they will be motiviated to turnout en masse.  threefourths of registered turnout in those states and one half registered turnout elsewhere translates into 58.8% overall.

[California Dreamer]

It is unlikely to see 75% in the swing states. In the last election the swing states had about the same turnout on average than the rest of the country.

Interestingly...Gore tended to win swing states with high turnout...and Bush won swing states with low turnout. Florida's turnout was 53.8 (1% below the national average)...suggesting possibly that if Florida was up the the average or above average it might have gone for Gore.

[pieman]

Turnout is about motivating your side and demoralizing the otherside. So we get a combination of attack ads to suppress the otherside's turnout and campaign rhetoric to excite the base so they work and turnout.

The turnout number itself does not tell the whole story. It is also important to see WHO is turning out, in addition to HOW MANY.

For example, DOLE lost because the christian conservatives didn't turn out in 92.

Look at the the change in the 2000 vote from 5 days before the election compared to the election results. Bush's base was demoralized and GOre'sbase energized because of the DUI reported 4 days before the election.

It is true, though, that in general, those less politically active (ie vote less frequently) generally vote DEM.


 

First, Dole was defeated in 1996, not 1992.

Second, both tax cutters and christian conservatives were angry with Dole as he was about as two faced as Kerry.

Third, the substance about the candidates has more to do with "enthusiasm" and "demoralization" than ads or rhetoric.

Fourth, efforts to locate, register and get to the polls likely voters (including importantly absentee voting) ix nitty, gritty, detail work.  The Democrats did it in 2000 with money raised by Motel 1600 and Chinese Communists for Gore.

Your right, Dole was 1996. My bad.

I agree with your other points, except to add that negative ads can have a big impact on demoralizing the opposition. Attack ads drive up negative opinion. If you have a negative opinion about your candidate, you tend not to work for them, give them money, or vote for them.    

[classical liberal]

Turnout in MD will be 50 or below but Kerry will still win with like 57 or 57 points.  Although in swing states turnout would swing the state.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Turnout is about motivating your side and demoralizing the otherside. So we get a combination of attack ads to suppress the otherside's turnout and campaign rhetoric to excite the base so they work and turnout.

The turnout number itself does not tell the whole story. It is also important to see WHO is turning out, in addition to HOW MANY.

For example, DOLE lost because the christian conservatives didn't turn out in 92.

Look at the the change in the 2000 vote from 5 days before the election compared to the election results. Bush's base was demoralized and GOre'sbase energized because of the DUI reported 4 days before the election.

It is true, though, that in general, those less politically active (ie vote less frequently) generally vote DEM.


 

First, Dole was defeated in 1996, not 1992.

Second, both tax cutters and christian conservatives were angry with Dole as he was about as two faced as Kerry.

Third, the substance about the candidates has more to do with "enthusiasm" and "demoralization" than ads or rhetoric.

Fourth, efforts to locate, register and get to the polls likely voters (including importantly absentee voting) ix nitty, gritty, detail work.  The Democrats did it in 2000 with money raised by Motel 1600 and Chinese Communists for Gore.

Your right, Dole was 1996. My bad.

I agree with your other points, except to add that negative ads can have a big impact on demoralizing the opposition. Attack ads drive up negative opinion. If you have a negative opinion about your candidate, you tend not to work for them, give them money, or vote for them.    

I t depends.

Some attack ads actually encourage the opposition to vote for their candidate.

Moreover, some attack ads got 'over the top' and rebound against the attacker.

The example of the ad where Kerry himself stated he voted for the appropriations for troops in Iraq before he voted against it is an example of an effective ad because it shows his hoe the left wing line ultimately and that his initial vote for the appropriation was merely an empty gesture to the majority of the electorate.

In 1996 in Arizona, Forbes ran ads citing the many times Dole supported tax increases while he was in Congress.  Needless to say it was true, and Forbes won Arizona.  If he had followed the same approach in other states he might have been the 1996 nominee.

[ian]

I voted 57-58.9 b/c this election is so hyped up so early.  No president has ever started campaigning this early (to my knowledge) and a lot of people are p.o.ed at Bush and MTV is getting involved (to get politics to appeal to a younger crowd).  So, I expect a relatively high turnout this election.  It's going to be huge.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, the last time the VAP has been this high was 1968, before the voting age was reduced to 18.

Second, Clinton stated his commercials even earlier than Bush in 1996.  He did this on the advice of Dick Morris.

Third, MTV has been involved heavily in past elections with little impact.  Check their "rock the vote" campaign in 1996.

Fourth, a number of people have been angry at every President seeking reelection over the past several decades.  Didn't have much impact on the turnout.

Finally, I would be shocked if the turnout (of VAP) exceed 55.2%.