Myth-busters: On Youth Turnout And GOP GOTV

by DemFromCT

Two items here are worth reporting on. Mark Mellman writes for the Hill today on the GOP GOTV, with more myth-busting analysis.

Experiments on turnout by Alan Gerber and Donald Green suggest that the most effective means of increasing turnout raise it by less than 10 percent --  and that's for people who get canvassed in person. None of this is to suggest that GOTV efforts are not valuable. When 2000 or 200 votes decide an election there is no question that GOTV efforts can make all the difference in the world. But again, that is simply not the case that is being argued by GOP operatives.

Can't micro-targeting help them achieve spectacular successes? Anyone who has ever modeled data knows there is much more salesmanship than science in Republican claims about these efforts. Our firm and others on the Democratic side have been using these models for half a dozen years or more and we know they can make our efforts much more efficient; expand our GOTV and persuasion universes; and provide message guidance. So when races are otherwise marginal, the lift models provide can make all the difference between winning and losing. But no model is going to turn what would otherwise be a 5-point loss into a victory.

But didn't the GOP prove its efforts were much more effective than the Democrats' in 2004? No. Check the data. In Ohio's base Democratic precincts turnout was 8.2 points higher than it had been in 2000. In base Republican precincts, turnout increased by a slightly lesser 6.1 points. Winning a state is not the same as doing a better job on turnout.

As important as turnout and GOTV efforts can be, the GOP needs to find something more to hold back this wave.

Mellman also added some insight here into the stability of the GOP House in an older article. Attributing the very real GOP strengths to their proper source will help keep the GOTV angle in prespective:

System equilibrium is another critical structural element. A fundamental insight of modern physics is that the magnitude of cause and effect are often unrelated because system dynamics are decisive. Often big changes do not reflect big causes, but rather systems that are in disequilibrium. Just as one grain collapses an unstable sand pile but has no effect on a stable one, so too the state of political situations can render them prone to, or resistant to, significant turnover.

One measure of political instability: the number of Republicans holding seats that vote Democratic for president and vice versa. When big political waves hit, that is precisely where much of the action is. In the two prior presidential elections, Bush (the father) or Reagan had won 30 of the 34 seats Democratic incumbents lost in '94. Similarly, two-thirds of the Republican incumbents who lost in '82 were running in districts presidential Democrats had won just previously.

Today, though, there are fewer mismatched seats than at any point in recent history. Going into 1994, 53 Democrats held seats won by Bush in 1992. Today just 18 Republicans hold seats won by Kerry. So, while forces in the political environment push strongly in a Democratic direction, they are acting on a relatively stable structure: Hence the test.

Another myth is that young voters are not engaged and don't show for elections. While it's true that the 43+ voters are the reliable demographic, the young voters did show in 2004 and did their part.

Despite long lines and registration snafus, voters under age 30 clocked the highest turnout percentage since 1972. The good news is that America's young people are more engaged in politics than at any time in two generations. Aging cynics have been quick to blame the kids for a host of political lapses, but the cynics have it wrong.

As for this year, young voters have no more love for Bush now than they did then. This is an online survey of 2,546 18-24 year old U.S. citizens conducted between October 4 and October 16 by Harvard's Institute of Politics

18-24 YEAR OLDS POISED TO CHALLENGE MIDTERM ELECTION TURNOUT RECORDS, HARVARD POLL FINDS
President Bush Gets Below-Average Grade of "C-" on Key Issues;
Majority of Likely Voters Favor Switch to Democratic Majority in Congress

A new national poll by Harvard University's Institute of Politics (IOP), located at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, finds nearly a third (32%) of 18 to 24 year olds "definitely" plan on voting in the upcoming midterm elections, a proportion that will likely amount to the highest turnout percentage for this age group in any midterm election in the last twenty years. The poll also finds that young people continue to disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as President, with the President averaging a grade of "C-"on seven key issues facing America, with the lowest mark coming on his handling of the War in Iraq (D+). Finally, 18-24 year olds seem to favor a swapping of majority parties in Congress, as a majority of likely voters (52%) said they favor a Congress controlled by Democrats following the November elections.

The landscape has not changed, and can't and won't because of Iraq. No matter how much the media gets distracted by negative advertising and made-for-cable issues like the Kerry flap, voters are looking at the news from Iraq, their own job prospects and the direction they think the country is going in. They really don't care about the rest. They are irritable and they are planning to vote. And as in 2004, the younger demographic is planning to be there.

Comments

[freepatriot]

if george bush won't change the course, We The People will

watch and learn

nothing succeeds like success

and the inverse ???

nothing fails like failure

want the shorter version ???

Karma is a bitch

[Mimikatz]

As I was listening to one ad on the web my partner commented how appalling it is that this kind of garbage is what we hear from people who are supposed to be leading this country. My feeling is that this is most likely the reaction of at least 60% of the country.

People who have to perform at work and take care of their family responsibilities every day can't help but be repelled at the puerility of what passes for political discussion from the GOP side of the aisle, and I believe they will come out to reject it. This will prove that Rovian politics is a dead end, although don't expect the Pubs to draw that lesson.

People want a government that functions, and the Dems better be ready to show them how it is done--at least at the Congressional level.

[Dismayed]

Just saw clips of the Kerry misspeak - At first I though he just wasn't thinking about what he said, but when you see the clip it is completely clear that he had lost his place, took a quick look at his notes and just read a beat to get his bearings again. For the republicans to be riding this is simply juvenile -- And shame of John McCain. I expected better from him. He just lost my support as a moderate voice. Clearly someone has taken him in a back room, cowered him like a dog, and told him to suck if he ever wants to be President. Too bad he wants to be a Republican President worse than he wants to be a man. John K - Keep firing back, keep reminding everyone who hates the troops.

[TCinLA]

These bullshit artists with their phoney "patriotism" have driven me nuts for 40 years, ever since I was the first Vietnam Veteran going to a college in Colorado who spoke out against the war and traveled to other campuses - every time, the YAFers and the fraternity freddies and their ilk would accuse me of "lacking patriotism," and every time I would reply "so, when are you going to quit school like your dad did in World War II and join up?" And every time the response was silence, because these cowards weren't about to do that. A pack of jackals can always be held at bay by waving a torch at them and bathing them in light (in our case, the light of truth) and they slink back into the darkness - growling and howling and sounding scary, but slinking away because they aren't predators, they're opportunistic scavengers.

[DemFromCT]

Bush looking under the desk for WMDs at a press dinner - this is the guy complaining??