End of conventional wisdom?

[cabville]

 Still trying to determine what the results of what this election mean. I for one thought that Kerry was going to win a slight victory, and the only way Bush was going to win was going to be an electoral college victory, not a popular vote victory. I was of course very much so in error.

   The election being an high turnout election with massive voter registration drives convinced me that the high turnout will help Kerry, and hurt Bush in the swing states, and the early returns confirmed this, but as the numbers continued to come in, I was surprised to say the least, but in retrospect, I should not have been.

  The previous conventional wisdom was that high turnout elections help Democrats, but going though previous presidential elections, while a high turnout helped JFK in 60, and the 74 and 82 mid term elections became Democratic blowouts with a high turnout, since then, it seems that lower turnout has either been a wash or even a negative for Democrats. In 92, a high turnout turned out to be a wash for Democrats, though Perot drove most of the higher turnout. In the 94 and 02 midterms, a high turnout helped the GOP rather than the Democrats, while the low turnout 98 mid terms did the opposite. The 96 presidential election had the lowest turnout where Clinton was re elected.

   I am not one who will say Bush has a mandate, but the fact he has 60 million + votes, and the Democrats threw everything they got to increase turnout, and the GOP has 94 like numbers in the congressional races in a high turnout election says that pundits have to rethink their math in terms of elections. 51% is still 51%, a close election that was driven but outside groups and events that for the most part broke Mr. Bushs way, but getting 51% of an election that had 60% Voting age population turnout vs a more typical 50% VAP turnout is a little different.
 
   I am curious what has changed that has made higher turnout benifit the GOP?

The answer to this question is relatively simple.  Once upon a time, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a significant margin.  So higher turnout simply meant more Democrats going to the polls.  It didn't guarantee anything, but it did give them a built-in advantage. In the decades since, Republicans have gained considerable strength and moved into parity with the Democrats among the electorate.  Therefore higher turnout merely means more of everybody voting, not just Democrats . 

obviously you could still get one-sided elections if one sides base was fired up and the others isn't or if all the swing voters broke one way or the other.  But turnout no longer automatically favors Democrats.

[cabville]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It looks to me like you're just buying into the conventional wisdom.  As I explained to another poster, the fundamentals that led to turn out favoring Democrats have changed dramatically over the decades.  The conventional wisdom is simply wrong.  Democrats no longer have the advantage among registered voters they once had and even their massive voter registration drives this time did not change that fact.  More turnout simply means more of both Republicans and Democrats these days.

[cabville]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But much of the 51% the House GOP won is concentrated in different areas to the 51% that Bush won. The similarity is really only the topline figures.
---
Re: higher turnout... I think this election was unusual in that there was a higher than usual evangelical turnout as a result of Gay Marriage etc. being on the political agenda.
There was also a higher turnout of non-evangelical voters (not in relative terms though) and if there hadn't been I think Bush would have won by as much as the media over here acted like he did (there coverage was hysterical and acted as though he'd won a landslide).

Turnout is a relative thing I suppose. Like pretty much everything else in politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's very little evidence that the game marriage issued helped Bush significantly. the issue appeared have no appreciable impact in any state.  Bush did no better in states where the issue was on the ballot than he did in states where the issue was not.  The issue also received much wider support then Democrats have been willing to admit.  The 11 amendments averaged 60 plus percent support including huge margins in both Oregon and Michigan, blue stakes. White evangelical conservatives don't even come close to accounting for that

[cabville]

Kerry should have based his campaign on bread and butter issues, not try to fight Bush on a field that Bush picked for himself.

Hopefully whoever the Democrats pick in 2008 they won't make the same mistake that Kerry did.

In a strategic sense your correct.  However that strategy would not have likely change the result.  The national security issue was the dominant issue and it's difficult to see how constantly talking about domestic issues would have overtaken George Bush's advantage.

[cabville]

There's very little evidence that the game marriage issued helped Bush significantly. the issue appeared have no appreciable impact in any state.  Bush did no better in states where the issue was on the ballot than he did in states where the issue was not.  The issue also received much wider support then Democrats have been willing to admit.  The 11 amendments averaged 60 plus percent support including huge margins in both Oregon and Michigan, blue stakes. White evangelical conservatives don't even come close to accounting for that

I was talking about Gay Marriage being an issue, I was not talking about the referenda.
Read what I said, not what you appear to want me to say.

That's a distinction without a difference.  There's still no evidence that it had an appreciable impact on turnout.  Turn out increase amongst a number of groups who had no apparent pet issue . 
This claim arose as a result of that exit poll question when asked about a moral values.  But moral values can include of a wide variety of sub issues.  The only reason it came out on top is that they listed the other issues as their various sub issues such as the war in Iraq verses the war on terrorism instead of foreign policy as a whole.  The evidence simply doesn't support your conclusion at this time