End of conventional wisdom?

[JNB]

 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?

[??????????]

9/11

[Sam Spade]

The 2004 popular vote numbers in the House are nearly identical to the 2002 popular vote numbers in the House.  Notice the similarity to the popular vote for President in 2004.

2004 numbers: Reps. 51-Dems. 47
2002 numbers: Reps. 51-Dems. 46

This lies in contrast to the 1996, 1998, 2000 House popular vote numbers which were tied at 49-49 for each election.

There has been a shift since 2000, it seems obvious now.

Whether this has to do with 9/11 or the strength of Bush's politics is still up in the air right now.

[Shira]

 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?

I have the filling that the Republicans have exhausted all their turnout potential in last election. Any additional turnout would probably benefit the Democrats.
It is not going to happen in the near future, but I think that with 70% turnout the Democrats will easily win.
It is not clear what the turnout was this time. According to the barometer in the atlas it looks like the mid fifties.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The 2004 popular vote numbers in the House are nearly identical to the 2002 popular vote numbers in the House.  Notice the similarity to the popular vote for President in 2004.

2004 numbers: Reps. 51-Dems. 47
2002 numbers: Reps. 51-Dems. 46

This lies in contrast to the 1996, 1998, 2000 House popular vote numbers which were tied at 49-49 for each election.

There has been a shift since 2000, it seems obvious now.

Whether this has to do with 9/11 or the strength of Bush's politics is still up in the air right now.

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.

[Sam Spade]

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.

Very true.  But this similarities between these numbers in the past 4 presidential elections and the past 3 offyear elections from 1992 forward are almost too distinct to ignore.

Some other numbers:

Before 1992

1988
House popular vote: Dems 53-Reps 46
Presidential vote: Reps 53-Dems 46

1990
House popular vote: Dems 53-Reps 46

1992 and after

1992
House popular vote: Dems 51-Reps 46
Presidential vote: Dems 43-Reps 37 (Ind. 19)

1994
House popular vote: Reps 52-Dems 45

1996
House popular vote: Dems 49-Reps 49
Presidential vote: Dems 49-Reps 41 (Ind. 9)

1998
House popular vote: Reps 49-Dems 48

2000
House popular vote: Reps 49-Dems 48
Presidential vote: Dems 48-Reps 48 (Ind. 3)

2002
House popular vote: Reps 51-Dems 46

2004
House popular vote: Reps 51-Dems 47
Presidential vote: Reps 51-Dems 48

Michael Barone has noted this trend more than any other political analyst, specifically in his book "The Almanac of American Politics", where he coincides this trend with the decline of the split-ticket voting that had dominated the 1970s and the 1980s and a move towards straight-ticket voting which occurred in the 1990s and continues.

Based on the results of this previous election, it appears that this trend of straight-ticket voting is not declining, but rather increasing, especially when you look internally at different regions of the country, whether it be the Coasts, the Heartland, the South or the Mountain West.

The real question is whether this slight Republican advantage we've seen in the past two elections will continue and whether it will grow any.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The figures certainly shouldn't be ignored but at the same time it's also possible to read too much into them.

One thing that has changed over that time period, is that the Democrats have been ignoring "O'Neill's Law" more and more as time passes.
Which is daft, as while the GOP is far better organised on a national level (and always will be) the Democrats have better local organisations, many of which are being wasted by idiotic strategists.

[JNB]

The 2004 popular vote numbers in the House are nearly identical to the 2002 popular vote numbers in the House.  Notice the similarity to the popular vote for President in 2004.

2004 numbers: Reps. 51-Dems. 47
2002 numbers: Reps. 51-Dems. 46

This lies in contrast to the 1996, 1998, 2000 House popular vote numbers which were tied at 49-49 for each election.

There has been a shift since 2000, it seems obvious now.

Whether this has to do with 9/11 or the strength of Bush's politics is still up in the air right now.

  The 51-47% figures are just the initial figures, I dont think races where the canidate is running unopposed are included. Going though the figures, I am surprised to see that many canidates in nominally contested races broke 200K in terms of votes cast for them. My gut feeling is that when all the votes are counted, the % of votes cast for the GOP in the house will be slightly above 52%, putting it in the neighborhood of their performance in 94.

[JNB]

 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?

I have the filling that the Republicans have exhausted all their turnout potential in last election. Any additional turnout would probably benefit the Democrats.
It is not going to happen in the near future, but I think that with 70% turnout the Democrats will easily win.
It is not clear what the turnout was this time. According to the barometer in the atlas it looks like the mid fifties.

   The Vorlon says that when "spoiled" votes are to be included, the turnout will go beyond 60% of the vote. Both parties have things to worry about in the future. The GOP has the problem of dramatically over valued real estate that can cause a nasty recession, not to mention demographic changes, with many of the illegal immigrants from Latin America being from the poorest regions and being the most unchurched, so being most sympathetic to socialism.

  On the other hand, the Democrats have to worry about is their backers and the unions threw everything they got at president Bush, and in the rust belt states that Kerry won, (PA, MI,MN and WI) at 51-49 or 51-48 margin is not that comfortable at all conserdering the size and scope of the turnout efforts and Mr Bushs very unpopular stands on "free" trade and immigration in these states, not to mention his severe lack of articulation skills.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[muon2]

   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?

I'd still like to see the math that results in an estimate of 60% turnout of the VAP. Here are the real numbers, at present:

The voting age population this year is estimated to be 221.3 million people. The voting eligible population is estimated to be 203.9 million people. The current total of votes for President on the Atlas page is 118.5 million. I get a VAP turnout of 53.5%. If I restrict to the turnout of the VEP it only gets to 58.1%. That's better than 2000 and 1996, but below the turnout in 1992.

[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

[The Vorlon]

The big problem for Democrats, at least as I see it, is that a party that claims to be the party of tollerance, has become profoundly intollerant and indeed dismissive and scornful of those who disagree with them.

"What would Jesus do?" is NOT the punchline of a joke about backward yokums from Alabama, and as long as the Democratic party treats it as such, they will be spotting the GOP 222 EVs in the south and plains states for a long time to come..

The Gay Marraige issue is symbolic of this problem.

What we have here is the classic clash between two legitimate and equal rights.

Gay people, obviously in my judgement, have the right to define and enter into a relationship under whatever terms they personally define.  

This is clearly an area that is simply outside any rational definition of scope of Government.

But and equivalent right also exists for relgious individuals, and callling a gay union a "marriage" is insulting to people of many faiths.

Imagine if somebody in the Moral Majority proposed the passage of a law that specifically said that Chapter 23, Verse 61 of the Koran was a load of crap and that the the specific stated policy of the Government of the United States was that this Chapter and Verse was morally defective and ethically repugnant.

(I have no idea what this verse is BTW, or if it even exists, I just grabbed numbers out of the air)

I am sure that if this ever happened, the ACLU, The NY Times, and every liberal from Rhode Island to California would be (appropriately) appalled and outraged.

So why is it different if the Chapter and Verse being scorned and repudiated happens to be from the Bible instead of the Koran...?

I am not a person of religious faith and do not claim to be an expert on the Bible, but the story of Sodom and Gamorragh (sp?) seems to me to be a fairly clear religious pronouncement against gay marriage.  To tens of millions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims to define marraige as anything other than one man and one women is a direct governmental repudiation of an important element of their religious faith.

The Christian's right to not have their faith ridiculed and scorned by the Government is also an absolute and unbreakable element of "tollerance" as well.  Again "What would Jesus do?" is NOT the punchline to a joke...

Call it a "civil union", call it a "domestic partnership", call it a ZarfelGrambit, why do you have to call it "marraige" and insult a 100 million citizens when you do it...?

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Hitchabrut]

Question: How do different regions in the UK fare politcally?

[J. J.]

I'm going to note something as a longer term trend.  There is effectively a presidential party.  All things being equal, the presidential party wins.  When it loses, it does so because of two factors:

1.  The vote is split with a major third party candidate.

2.  Because of #1, the non-presidential party candidate is up for re-election.

Look at the period between 1960 and 1976.  The Democrats, the presidential party of the day, had wone every presidental election, except 1968 (#1) and 1972 (#2).

Between 1980 and 1996, the Republicans won every election except 1992 (#1) and 1996 (#2).

The "fundamentals" might be (for various reasons) that the electorate choses a president for the "presidental party."  The Dems were the the presidential party between 1960-1976 and the Reps. were the presidential party from at least 1980-1996, possibly currently as well.

In this context, the Democrats showed weaker electoral strenght in 1980-96 than the GOP did in 1960-76.  

In one election during that period, 1972, the GOP had a majority of the PV (and this was the only time).  The Dems had three elections (1960, 1968, 1972) when they did not have a majority of the PV.  Between 1980-1996, the Dems never had a majority of the popular vote.  Only twice did the Reps not get a majority of the popular vote.

If you want to add 2000 and 2004 into this, the GOP had a three elections when they did not receive a majority, and Dems have now had a string of seven elections where they have not had a majority of the PV.  (They have had one PV victory in the last ten presidential elections.)

That has got to be a troubling fundamental for the Dems.  There is a long tern trend, in presidential elections to away from the Democratic party.

[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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

What evidence? Who's evidence? I'm not basing my claim on exit polling... I would say that the results in numerous rural counties indicate a higher Evangelical turnout.

[JNB]

   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?

I'd still like to see the math that results in an estimate of 60% turnout of the VAP. Here are the real numbers, at present:

The voting age population this year is estimated to be 221.3 million people. The voting eligible population is estimated to be 203.9 million people. The current total of votes for President on the Atlas page is 118.5 million. I get a VAP turnout of 53.5%. If I restrict to the turnout of the VEP it only gets to 58.1%. That's better than 2000 and 1996, but below the turnout in 1992.

   Looking at the stats of this web site, I would like to know how the VAP  expanded from 196 million to 217 million in 4 years. I know immigration has been running high, but even if the US population was expanding at 2% a year(and even with illegal immigration it is not expanding at 2% a year) that would mean create an additional 21 million potential voters out of a base of roughly 200 million VAP in 2000.  I wonder if the 2004 estimate(and the 2000 estimate for that matter) includes illegals.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Probably fraud by both parties

[muon2]

   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?

I'd still like to see the math that results in an estimate of 60% turnout of the VAP. Here are the real numbers, at present:

The voting age population this year is estimated to be 221.3 million people. The voting eligible population is estimated to be 203.9 million people. The current total of votes for President on the Atlas page is 118.5 million. I get a VAP turnout of 53.5%. If I restrict to the turnout of the VEP it only gets to 58.1%. That's better than 2000 and 1996, but below the turnout in 1992.

   Looking at the stats of this web site, I would like to know how the VAP  expanded from 196 million to 217 million in 4 years. I know immigration has been running high, but even if the US population was expanding at 2% a year(and even with illegal immigration it is not expanding at 2% a year) that would mean create an additional 21 million potential voters out of a base of roughly 200 million VAP in 2000.  I wonder if the 2004 estimate(and the 2000 estimate for that matter) includes illegals.

The Official US Census estimates for the population 18 and over since the last official count are:

July 1, 2000: 209.8 M
July 1, 2001: 212.5 M
July 1, 2002: 215.1 M
July 1, 2003: 217.8 M

Based on the released estimates, and projection data previously released by the US Census, Prof. Michael McDonald of George Mason U. has estimated the Nov. 2, 2004 population at 221.3 M. This is the voting age population (VAP) that is usually cited. For the Nov. 2000 election this was estimated to be 210.7 M, and the presidential VAP turnout was 50.0%.

If one deducts the non-citizens nationwide, and felons from those states that bar voting to felons, and adds eligible overseas voters, the voting eligible population (VEP) is 203.9 M. This is not commonly used by the media in determining turnout, and requires state-by-state estimates to subtract felons from the total. By comparison, the 2000 election VEP was 194.3 M, and the presidential VEP turnout was 54.2%.