Of course it has hurt them in the polls. GOP party ID is as low as its been. They are down 7 to 8 in the generic Congressional ballot. You are confusing their election success, which is based on structural items, and not all gerrymandered ones, with the polls.
But the Right, the relative few left who ID as GOP, also has more who are willing to swallow much they do not like to get what they do. “ALL I care about is gun rights.” or judges that will favor the causes of the Religious Right or … A Dem of on that one issue will be voted against, end of discussion. More left of center have various issues that matter and few that are the one that is it. And they care enough that they come out fairly consistently.
In 2016 both the GOP presidential candidate and the GOP house candidates got 63 million votes.
Meanwhile the Democratic presidential candidate got 66 million votes while the democratic house candidates got almost 62 million votes.
The democrats lost the popular vote in the house in 2016. So the GOP is doing something right.
My impression is no matter how crazy the GOP gets, they are going to get 60-65 million votes in presidential years and 40 million votes in midterm elections.
A reasonable point about the 2016 House vote which was R+1.1% …
… but then again in 2012 it was D+1.2%, in 2008 D+10.6% (and total of 52 million, despite your impression). Midterms leaned more GOP with 2014 R+5.7 and 2010 R +6.8 … but 2006 midterms, with GW Bush’s approval numbers having gotten as bad as about where Trump’s are now, was** D+8** (and GOP total under 36 million, despite your impression).
Hahaha, despite my impression. I’m going to start using that phrase.
As I mentioned earlier, the GOP is going to get about 40 million votes in midterms and 60-65 million votes in presidential years. No matter how crazy, dangerous or irresponsible they get. Cites from 2006 and 2008 are nice, but that was a decade ago. US population was 304 million then, vs 325 million now. So the numbers may not be exact, but they are fairly close. Also despite the GOP screwing up so badly under Bush, they still got 52 million votes in the house in 2008. Adjusted for population that is now 7% larger, that still works out to 55 million votes, pretty close to the 60-65 million I said. If you want to nitpick, feel free but my numbers are fairly accurate from what I can tell. Voter turnout may be suppressed by ~5 million votes if that party is unpopular, and increased by ~5 million votes if that party is popular (or the other party is unpopular). 2010 was about 45 million votes to 39 million.
Yes, when they push too hard on the crazy the public push back. 2006 and 2008 were wave elections against GOP overreach. But so was 2010 against dem one party rule. And so will be 2018 and likely 2020 as resistance to one party rule.
And then the public will probably push for a GOP wave in 2022. I wonder if this is just the new normal. Wave elections every couple election cycles.
I think that’s a big part of why centrists seem so… indecisive these days. We don’t much care for either party’s base and the pandering they do in that direction. So there’s usually a fairly large period prior to the election where we try and figure out which candidate is the worse of the two evils, and vote for the other person.
Yeah, I can’t think of swing voters without thinking of this article by Chris Hayes, recounting his time in Wisconsin talking to undecided voters on behalf of an interest group that supported John Kerry:
That’s a different kind of thing though. Bringing out new voters is generally something only people with A+ charisma accomplish. John Kerry was not bringing out new voters, so he couldn’t have a strategy to bring out new voters. Same went for his opponent. Chances are, the Democratic candidate will be fairly run of the mill and won’t have the option of just counting on new voters.
Most articles I read about how swing voters basically aren’t worth trying to appeal to are written by liberals, who are understandably sick of not being able to elect the candidates they want and keep on having to settle.
The fact is, in elections are close as ours usually are, swing voters are EVERYTHING. Motivating base voters can work, but it’s not an ideal strategy. It’s what you do when you know you won’t be winning swing voters.
In presidential year elections swing voters matter. But do swing voters bother to vote in non presidential elections? What is their turnout?
In a presidential year election each side gets 60-70 million votes. In a midterm they get 35-45 million votes. Turnout is even lower for primaries and local elections.
I don’t see how appealing to voters who barely bother to show up is a winning strategy. Yes we need them in presidential years, but in other elections focus on the base.
Okay, if you’re talking about midterms you’ve got something there. But even there, can you actually increase turnout? Seems to me that the opposition party is already more motivated, and that the party in power is almost always completely unsuccessful in getting their base out during midterms.
I just think that it’s easier for candidates to influence swing voters, who by nature are malleable, then to get people who are disinterested interested. The only successful times I’ve seen it done was actually in presidential elections: 2004 and 2012, by unpopular incumbents who basically cried, “Help! If you don’t come out to support me, I’m doomed!”
As a general rule of thumb in modern times, I think each party starts with about ~40 million votes in the midterm.
If that party is unpopular, their turnout may drop to 35 million.
If their party is popular (or the other party is really unpopular), turnout may hike to 45 million.
But overall, the impression I get is that about ~35 million people will come out for each party no matter what.
But if that party isn’t doing a terrible job, an additional ~5 million will also show up. So now you have 40 million.
But if there is one party rule, and/or the other party is extremely unpopular, an additional ~10 million may show up. Now you have 45 million.
So reaching out to that 5-10 million is important. But I’m not sure how you identify them or get them to show up in midterms.
But here is the thing, they aren’t really swing voters.
In 2008 Obama got 70 million votes, McCain got 60 million (more or less). In the 2010 house elections, the democrats got 39 million and the GOP got 45 million.
So about 31 million democrats stayed home, and about 14 million republicans stayed home.
Or compare the 2008 vs 2010 house elections. In 2008 the democrats got 65 million votes, the GOP got 52 million. Then it was 39 vs 45 in 2010.
So 26 million people who voted democratic in the house elections in 2008 stayed home in 2010. But only 7 million republicans who voted GOP in the house in 2008 stayed home in 2010.
So its not a question of winning over swing voters so much as making sure people who would vote D or R anyway actually bother to show up in non-presidential years.
And that seems to come down to whether party R or D is popular or unpopular right now. But even in a ‘wave’ midterm election, about 30-50 million people who would vote in a presidential year still stay home.
Individual districts’ mileages may vary. Who is “the base” even does.
In the Special Election for PA 18 revving up the progressive base, or even the non-White base, would not have done as well as Lamb did or as well as he is doing for the newly redrawn PA 17.
Tammy Duckworth wins in IL by being someone the center can vote for, for example, as well.
This. Although I gotta admit I’m starting to doubt the efficacy of going after the median voter in Presidential elections. (I’d still lean that way, just less certain of it than I used to be.)
But the rest of the time? There are plenty of people who are reliable D or R partisans in Presidential elections who aren’t likely to vote the rest of the time. If you can give a decent fraction of the ones on your side a strong motivation to show up, there’s your win.