Does a good economy means low turnout

[BigVic]

Elections in the 90s had low turnouts especially in 1996 with just 49.6% voting. 2000 also had a low turnout. A good economy means people aren’t interested in politics

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

Not necessarily, I think that our current political era is just one of higher turnout then that of the 90s. If you go back to the third and fourth party systems turnout was fairly high consistently through good times and bad.

[Pericles]

The big feature of the 1990s was the two parties weren't that different, especially compared to right now. That made people more willing to vote third party too and that's why even though lots of people dislike both parties now hardly anyone will vote third party when the stakes are so high.

[Del Tachi]

While it is true that there was a sense during most of the 1990s and 2000s that the two parties weren't that different on the big issues, it's difficult to tease that out as either the cause or an effect of a low turnout environment.     

[Pres Mike]

Yes, combine with a peaceful world stage.

2004, the economy was good(ish). For many Americans, just as good as the 90s. But turnout went up with a global turmoil and 2000 showing voting does matter

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I expect a 70/60M turnout, lower than 20 but higher than 22 enough to reelect Boden and get at least a tie S and 218 in the Congress

That's why I say just because Trump leads in polls means zilch unless we vote a lot of females that vote D don't like taking polls on computers like my sister and rather take it in voting booth

[Sumner 1868]

No, turnout was just fine for most of the postwar era. The terrible turnout during the End of History reflects the deliberately mediocre campaigning of the DNC in that era shaped by people like Mark Penn.

[Mr. Smith]

No. Truth is, with a few spurts here and there, turnout generally declined until 2004. Even as recessions came and went.

2020 was literally the highest since 1900, surpassing 1960, which not even 2008 could do!

[Agonized-Statism]

Not really. There was a cultural turn toward apathy in bourgeois democracy after the zenith of student activism in 1968. The counterculture, already falling into COINTELPRO-facilitated infighting, took a turn toward violent direct action after Nixon took office that alienated its last white middle class sympathizers. The development of a youth culture focused on self-fulfillment over collective action, such that the 1970s were dubbed the "Me Decade", was punctuated by a widespread distrust of elected officials after Watergate. It became uncool to stump for candidates and a hopeless endeavor even if you cared. You were either unapologetically hedonistic and focused on your own life (sex, drugs, and rock n' roll), or you joined a left-wing organization with a scarily long acronym and hijacked planes for your daily dose of politics. But no one was getting Clean for Gene anymore, that was nerd stuff. Contrary to your point, it was the "magic economy" of the 1960s in part that had enabled such widespread social experimentation and political cause-championing. The inward turn of the 1970s was helped along by the piddling economy.

This political apathy crested among the young in the 1990s, as others mentioned, with the techno-optimist neoliberal determinism of the "End of History". The DLC took over the Democrats and alienated the student and minority-led social movements, who were already considered a dying breed as the last of the baby boomers left college in the late '80s- the boomer-led student Anti-Apartheid Movement was the last big cause of note before Gen X took the reins, taking postmodernism to its logical conclusion of a nihilistic skepticism of any sort of political cause. Capitalism triumphed in the 1990s such that it had co-opted anti-capitalism and turned it into another branded individualist subculture. Bush and Gore were considered Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and not voting at all was considered the most politically enlightened move. Think the bell curve IQ meme. It's telling that this forum was started by a literal computer geek and populated by similar types concerned more with the data, statistics, and little factoids than an actual passion for politics in its early years.

Once again, continued voter apathy through the sputtering post-dot com boom economy of the 2000s and the sluggish post-Great Recession economy of the 2010s disproves the correlation between high turnout and a bad economy. Turnout started picking up when the fermenting post-neoliberal politics of the early 2010s, first present in Obama's pseudo-progressive 2008 campaign, boiled over electorally in 2016. All this being said, the dip in turnout can be attributed more to post-'60s individualist culture, and the recent increase corresponds with the post-Great Recession disavowal of that individualism as the source of voters' problems.

[wnwnwn]

What happened in 1996:
A clear favorite
A lame GOP candidate
A Dem candidate that wasn't appealing to progressives
Not much difference between the candidates' platforms
Lack of foreing policy issue that used to motivate people's fears.
Protectionist apathy?


The difference between Bush and Gore could seem clearer nowadays, but Bush campained as a "compassionate moderate" (at leats in front of the 90s hardliners) and Gore still had some of his Atari moderate reputation. Bush was the most appealing person and won.

Im 2004, the democrat candidate was Kerry, a "MA liberal". Menwhile, Bush run on his neocon record.
A 'RW nutjob' vs a 'liberal wiener' during the Iraq War and with gay rights on the ballot in some states...