I think it does. I am more staggered by the turnout numbers than Mr Obama’s win. The increase over 2004’s turnout is huge (220K v. 124k, in round numbers). On the Republican side, 114K v 88K in 2004 was significant, but substantially less as a percentage increase. http://www.us.kohler.com/tech/products/why_flushsystems.jsp
Apparently many of my group (The Cynical Political Agnostics) deserted the CPA and showed up to actually participate.
I think this is a bigger story than the results, and although it certainly bodes well for Mr Obama, I think the show is over for worrying about any Republican chances at the Presidency.
Hold onto your hat-- it ain’t over yet. The Clinton Campaign Machine (TCCM) still has plenty steam left in it. The turnout was impressive, but remember that the Dems alone spent something like 4x the amount they did 4 years ago. It turns out to be about $350/per vote. They might have done better by just handing out checks to people!
Do you think increased turnout is related to total money spent? Is there a way to measure that? I’ve always considered money to affect voter choice (more or less) but not absolute turnout…I’m not addressing the Democratic choice so much as the (foregone?) conclusion that tons more Dems than usual will turn out, and that whoever the winner is, (s)he will be a Democrat by a very lopsided margin.
From listening to the news over the last few days, it’s been reported that a lot of that money goes to actual efforts to get people to show up at the caucuses, not just TV ads. Things like hiring drivers, babysitters, and arranging for elder care for people who need it. It literally is spent on physically getting people to the “polls”.
The spin machines are right that this portends that the American people (if Iowa is any representation of the people as a whole) want change. Does that portend well for any Democrat vs any Republican? Not as much as if it was a Vice-President running or if the Republican’s were running on the strength of the current administration. But the Pubbies running are mostly running as agents of change themselves. Huckabee is an outsider as is Romney. McCain may align himself more with Bush’s policies but is perceived as a maverick - the perennial outsider despite having been in the Beltway for what? forever? If “change” is what America wants (as HRC opined) then any of them may do better than another Clinton in the general run.
I cannot find a good cite for historical trends in money spent but my sense is that in recent elections is has soared in substantial disproportion to voter turnout.
(Or was that a whoosh since I live near Chicago where we have a fine empiric tradition of voting early and often and getting paid for it?)
Probably. More importantly, it signals a renewed interest in running our own damn country! Its is a shame, an embarassment, it borders on obscene…that we don’t participate in our own democracy, that we shrug off being the most powerful citizens in human history.
And if our citizenry examines the facts and the issues, there may be two marvelous developments: short term, a huge Dem victory. Longer term, the chance for a return of the honest conservatives, Republicans you can talk to without wanting to puke yer guts out.
Speaking from the conservative wing of the extreme left, the second of those is the more important.
I am not really sure what I should be taking away from this graph nor how it undermines the proposition that money drives turnout. The relationship is not linear: inflation and rising advertising costs drive spend upward, as do the greater price voters may demand to appear in the polls. If that chart is accurate, overall US voter turnout has not changed much at all in the past 40 years. Encouraging.
Too early to tell. Do Repubs and Indies crossing over to the Dem caucus do so because they are born again Democrats, or do they find that they don’t particularly care who wins the Pubbie race, or did they just want to cast an anti-Hillary vote? Darned if I know.
In Presidential elections, overall US voter turnout has not changed much.
Overall spending on Presidential elections, even adjusting for inflation, has soared.
What I’m taking away is that spending more money does not drive turnout. There must be another factor at play, which is why I think the huge Iowa turnout portends a huge Democratic turnout. It isn’t just that more money is being spent.
I’ve spoken to a number of people today about the caucuses and two things aside from the huge turnout stand out - first, the number of lifelong residents caucusing for the first time, and second, the dramatic increase in 18-25 year-olds who showed.
I don’t know if anyone has started to do any hard numbers yet, but if the second is true, it may be a good sign that high-school and college students are really interested in the outcome (as they should be). Personally, I think attending a caucus as a high school civic project (you can just stand and observe) should be practically required where ever peossible.
I think we can credit Jon Stewart and call this The Daily Show Effect. His show has a huge following on college campuses, and has bred a generation of politically aware young folks.
On the Republican side, folks drop by, drop in a vote, and go home. On the Democratic side, it takes longer. After short speeches, people gather in their candidate’s corner. Counts are tallied, and if a guy gets less than 15% his supporters go sit with somebody else. So, the second-favorite choice counts for something.
Most voters won’t put up with this ritual dance, and turnouts are low. This year’s Democratic turnout was nearly twice what was usual, but it was still barely 20% of eligible voters. The campaigns, and mainly the Obamians, concentrated on Iowans who had never caucused before.
Sometimes, Iowa predicts the nominee, and sometimes it doesn’t. This time, it’s only 4 more days til New Hampshire. In an actual primary, things might be different. My record of political predictions is dreadful, so I won’t bother to dust off my crystal ball.
I believe that this is misinformed and is probably not even asking the right question.
I believe the important thing to consider is not overall turnout rates, but turnout rates that are actually pivotal. I live in New York. My vote for president is essentially worthless, since I have a very low probability of influencing the outcome of the election. My state will support the democratic candidate, end of story.
So the question is not whether spending buys overall voter turnout but whether it buys pivotal voter turnout. I am speaking from memory here, but in the last presidential cycle, we observed record turnout in “battleground” states, where, incidentally, the most money was spent. A fortune was dropped on Iowa, and quite predictably, caucus turnout was huge. Campaign spending got a hell of a lot of Floridians, Pennsylvanians, and Ohioans to the polls in 2004.
Unfortunately, I do not have JSTOR access anymore so I cannot do a full search and cite. But for what it’s worth, my graduate degree is in formal political science. I have done empirical work of my own on voting behavior and voting theory. So even if you find my logic unpersuasive, I am not making this stuff up out of whole cloth.
Did it? Or did voters turn out because they knew they were in a swing state and that their vote might be important? Correlation does not imply causation.
Being in a swing state is not stochastic. It is not like your blood type. And it certainly is not completely exogenous.
Candidates face a strategic decision: they have limited resources, so they want to spend money where their marginal dollar has the greatest probability of being pivotal. Even in a pivotal state, if you have no particular preference over an election outcome, you still won’t vote. Candidates spend a lot of money in these states so that voters actually do form preferences and thus care enough to vote. Most people in this country seem to have no preferences whatsoever, so as it turns out, it costs quite a bit to get people to prefer one outcome or another.
Spend money >> create preferences >> vote
We do not have to do a granger causality test to understand this connection.
I get the sense we are talking past one another.
I am aware the 2004 Iowa caucus turnout was “huge.” And this year the Democratic turnout was nearly twice the 2004 Dem turnout. So my point is that such an enormous Democratic turnout means that a Democrat is a lock for the Presidency.
Which Democrat? Well money and time will certainly affect that. Money will affect pivotal turnout more than total turnout, in my opinion. If a lot of annoying or unattractice candidates spend a lot of money, overall turnout may still be low. However within that low turnout, the money may have persuaded a particular pivotal block to show up even as the masses stayed away in droves. I am not arguing against that.
Are Political Scientists sorta like Economists, btw? Really really smart but you gotta get rid of one of their hands to get them to predict anything?
