Flickr photo by Dean Terry
Preliminary evidence suggests that voting turnout among all Americans was up in the November 2010 election. Compared with the last non-presidential election (2006), both voting turnout experts (Curtis Gans and Michael McDonald) agree that turnout among eligible voters rose 1.1-1.2 percentage points (based on preliminary estimates that will obviously change as all ballots are counted and certified). Regardless of whether one likes the outcome in 2010, it is civic good news that more Americans got involved.
Preliminary evidence suggests electoral turnout rose in at least nine states, and significantly in Texas, Florida and Minnesota. Ohio and Pennsylvania, among other states, seems to have experienced a turnout decline. [Curtis Gans projects voting turnout at 42 percent of registered voters; Michael McDonald believes that 41.5% of voting-eligible Americans turned out to vote.] Note: McDonald has now lowered his turnout estimate 1.2 percentage points to 40.3% (VEP Highest Office Turnout, as of 11/8/10).
But the bad news is what voices are being heard or not heard. Voting turnout rates were down among young voters (18-29) and blacks made up a lower percentage of voters in 2010 than in 2008 when Obama’s candidacy excited African-Americans to vote. For example, blacks made up 12% of voters in 2008 and appeared to make up just 10% of voters in 2010 (based on exit polls). This drop, if it holds up in more authoritative numbers like the Current Population Survey would negate this encouraging finding reported in 2008 that the black-white voting gap had disappeared. [Exit polls suggest that Hispanics maintained their share of the electorate, rising from 7% in 2008 to 8% in 2010, although one would have to compare this rise against their expanding voting-eligible numbers to truly understand whether their political voice was diluted, and if so, how much.] It wasn’t a simple story of the richest folks’ accounting for more of the votes, since those earning $100,000 or more accounted for 26% of the votes in both 2008 and 2010, but due to the elimination of restrictions on corporate campaign contributions in the wake of the 2010 Citizens United case, the wealthy disproportionately had chances to influence election outcomes even before voters got to their polling places.
[For information on 2008 turnout, click here.]
Posted in 2008, 2010, african-americans, blacks, campaign, campaign finance, citizens united, Curtis Gans, election, electoral participation, hispanics, Michael McDonald, November, numbers, politics, turnout, vote, voter turnout, voting, wealthy, young adults, youth, youth engagement
Tagged 2008, 2010, african-americans, blacks, campaign, campaign finance, citizens united, Curtis Gans, election, electoral participation, hispanics, Michael McDonald, November, numbers, politics, turnout, vote, voter turnout, voting, wealthy, young adults, youth, youth engagement
(Ironically Paris Hilton neither voted nor died in 2008)
Voter Turnout: Despite earlier reports that 2008 election turnout may have exceeded 1964 rates and rivaled 1960, Curtis Gans (an expert at American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate) now estimates that the percentage of eligible citizens in the 2008 presidential election was virtually unchanged from 2004 (126.5-128.5 million Americans, or 60.7-61.7%). [Read Gans report on voter turnout here.] Michael McDonald at GMU continues to believe turnout numbers will be higher, but thinks the rate will fall in the band that Gans predicts. McDonald projects turnout to be 130.4 million Americans or 61.2%, a 1.1% increase over 2004, and the highest since 1968. [See McDonald’s blog post here.] Gans and McDonald differ on the numerator (Americans who voted) and denominator (eligible Americans), and the latter difference focuses on the fact that “voter-eligibility” can be tinkered with state by state, depending on how often the state or localities scrub their voting lists to eliminate people who have died, moved, or are no longer eligible to vote.
Registration: Curtis Gans estimates that 73.5% of Americans are now registered to vote, breaking the previous record of 72.5% of Americans in 1964. Estimated registration for the 2008 general election increased by a moderate 2.5 percentage points; Gans believes that registration rates back when women were given the vote in 1920 may have been still higher. [Read Gans registration report.]
Youth Turnout: CIRCLE projects that a record number of young people (19-29) voted in 2008, in terms of numbers (22.8-23.1 million Americans) and the highest percentage of youth turnout since 1972 (52-53%). (CIRCLE’s figures are based on exit polling, which can then be compared with what youth report on the Current Population Survey, once it becomes available in the Spring). [As one would expect, youth turnout and turnout of those over 30 years old was heavier in battleground states.]
As we noted in “Why Republicans Are So Worried“, youth favored Obama by an unprecedented more than 2:1 ratio; as CIRCLE observes “The average age-gap in support for the Democratic candidate from 1976 through 2004 was only 1.8 percentage points, as young voters basically supported the same candidate as older voters in most elections.”
And CIRCLE believes that the increased youth turnout of 18-29 year olds represented 60% of the increase in voting from 2004 to 2008.
To see the whole CIRCLE youth turnout post, click here.
See Pew Research Report on “Young voters in the 2008 election“.
Posted in 2008, CIRCLE, Curtis Gans, election, Michael McDonald, registration, turnout, voting, youth
Tagged 2008, CIRCLE, Curtis Gans, election, Michael McDonald, registration, turnout, voting, youth
Maureen Dowd’s NYT column today (5/23/07) dicusses the coquettish tease of whether Gore is running in 2008. She notes “He is so fixed on not seeming like a presidential flirt that he risks coming across as a bit of a righteous tease or a high-minded scold, which is exactly what his book is, a high-minded scolding. He upbraided Diane about the graphics for his segment, complaining about buzzwords and saying, ”That’s not what this is about.” But Dowd notes that the TV screen blared ”The Race to ’08,” and featured a crawl that asked ”Will he run for the White House?”
Diane Sawyer on GMA noted that Donna Brazile, Gore’s former campaign manager, had said, ‘If he drops 25 to 30 pounds, he’s running.’ Diane asked pointedly: “Lost any weight?”
James Traub of The New York Times Magazine according to Dowd said that, “as he followed the ex-vice president around, the Goracle was ‘eating like a maniac: I watched him inhale the clam dip at a reception like a man who doesn’t know when his next meal will be coming.””
Asked about his weight, Gore laughingly said on GMA: ”I think, you know, millions of Americans are in the same struggle I am on that one. ”
So sounds like we’ll have to use Clam Dip consumption as a barometer for whether Gore is running in 2008. For the moment the answer appears to be no; that is unless he’s planning a William Taft type of candidacy.
I’m sure there is some connection between living life with a smaller ecological footprint and not pigging out on food, but as you know, with apologies to Emerson, ‘a foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds.’
P.S. In a recent cover story photo of Al Gore (I assume this is a recent photo, although it could have been airbrushed) he looks a bit less double-chinned. [The Story is called “The Last Temptation of Al Gore”, but I assume they are not talking about that clam dip.] However the contrast between the accompanying pictures tell the story: here’s Al as thinner V.P. candidate with Clinton in ’92; or even this one from the Inconvenient Truth Road Show. In contrast, here’s Al today or this one.