GALLUP: Democratic Enthusaism down sharply from 2004, 2008

[MorningInAmerica]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156194/Democratic-Voting-Enthusiasm-Down-Sharply-2004-2008.aspx?utm_source=add%2Bthis&utm_medium=addthis.com&utm_campaign=sharing#.UBAzQkU7QFU.twitter

Most suspected it would be down from summer of 2008, but down from 2004 as well? And this could be hard for Democrats to make up given the poor projections for the next several jobs reports.

[stegosaurus]

I have a hard time believing that Democrats were more enthusiastic about Kerry/Anyone but Bush in 2004 than they were with Obama in 2008, or even Obama today.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Turnout is the key to the election......this wouldn't make me happy to be a Democrat right now.  But it's early.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I have a hard time believing that Democrats were more enthusiastic about Kerry/Anyone but Bush in 2004 than they were with Obama in 2008, or even Obama today.

Pissed Hillary supporters who mostly came home in the end.

[anvi]

This is a generalization, with all the weaknesses generalizations are prone to, of course.  But I think it's easier for voters to be enthusiastic when their guy is either running against an actual incumbent (2004) of against the outgoing incumbent's party.  Defending an incumbent, especially when the incumbent's own side has such misgivings about or is so disappointed in them, makes everything harder.  Add to that the crummy prolonged unemployment numbers, and the bottoming-out D enthusiasm doesn't surprise me at all.   

[MorningInAmerica]

This is a generalization, with all the weaknesses generalizations are prone to, of course.  But I think it's easier for voters to be enthusiastic when their guy is either running against an actual incumbent (2004) of against the outgoing incumbent's party.  Defending an incumbent, especially when the incumbent's own side has such misgivings about or is so disappointed in them, makes everything harder.  Add to that the crummy prolonged unemployment numbers, and the bottoming-out D enthusiasm doesn't surprise me at all.   

This certainly sounds reasonable.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Youth voter are the Occupy Wall Street voter.  No party payed attention to them so they aren't paying attention to the politicians now.  The Big oil and gas and multimillionaires keep getting richer while the middle class and poor people keep getting squeezed people like Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nadar, and Bill Bradleys these people represent.

Does anyone believes after the election is over if the GOP maintains at least one house of congress that the tax cuts provisions of the Bush era won't be extended for everyone. Even if Obama is reelected. He bowed down to the GOP over the debt ceiling debacle. Occupy wall street voters are now the youth crowd.

[stegosaurus]

I have a hard time believing that Democrats were more enthusiastic about Kerry/Anyone but Bush in 2004 than they were with Obama in 2008, or even Obama today.

Pissed Hillary supporters who mostly came home in the end.

A 7 point swing though? I wouldn't have thought the PUMA crowd was that large.

[MorningInAmerica]

I have a hard time believing that Democrats were more enthusiastic about Kerry/Anyone but Bush in 2004 than they were with Obama in 2008, or even Obama today.

Pissed Hillary supporters who mostly came home in the end.

A 7 point swing though? I wouldn't have thought the PUMA crowd was that large.

For what it's worth, this poll was taken in June/July 2004 according to the site, and John Edwards was picked in early July as VP, and the Democrats held their convention around the 25th of that month. Democrats didn't hold their convention until late August in 2008. That could possibly account for the high 2004 Democratic enthusiasm. I also agree that left over Clinton-primary bitterness could account for the lower number in 2008. Remember Hillary didn't leave the race until June 7th.

[stegosaurus]

I have a hard time believing that Democrats were more enthusiastic about Kerry/Anyone but Bush in 2004 than they were with Obama in 2008, or even Obama today.

Pissed Hillary supporters who mostly came home in the end.

A 7 point swing though? I wouldn't have thought the PUMA crowd was that large.

For what it's worth, this poll was taken in June/July 2004 according to the site, and John Edwards was picked in early July as VP, and the Democrats held their convention around the 25th of that month. Democrats didn't hold their convention until late August in 2008. That could possibly account for the high 2004 Democratic enthusiasm. I also agree that left over Clinton-primary bitterness could account for the lower number in 2008. Remember Hillary didn't leave the race until June 7th.

Shouldn't enthusiasm have been higher with both candidates in the race and no clear loser to generate bitter supporters?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You're all reading this wrong. The question is not whether they're enthusiastic, but whether they're more enthusiastic than last election.
39% of Democrats say they are more enthusiastic, 43% say they are less enthusiastic. So no significant difference.

And face it: It'd be kind of difficult for Democrats to be more enthusiastic than in 2008.

[WhyteRain]

It's worse than you know:

Partisan advantage -- Poll of 15,000 Americans taken on the last day of each month

June 30 poll for each year, Party advantage in self-identified members.

2004:  D +2.0
2005:  D +0.8
2006:  D +3.4
2007:  D +4.1
2008:  D +9.5
2009:  D +6.7
2010:  D +2.4
2011:  D +0.3
2012:  R +1.4

Don't get fooled by polls that reflect D +11 fantasy world populations.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

[MorningInAmerica]

And face it: It'd be kind of difficult for Democrats to be more enthusiastic than in 2008.

But that's exactly what the poll says. Democrats were MORE enthusiastic than in previous elections in 2004 than they were in 2008.

[MorningInAmerica]

Shouldn't enthusiasm have been higher with both candidates in the race and no clear loser to generate bitter supporters?

The time period being measured is June/July, so both candidates were not still in the race for the majority of that period.

[stegosaurus]

Shouldn't enthusiasm have been higher with both candidates in the race and no clear loser to generate bitter supporters?

The time period being measured is June/July, so both candidates were not still in the race for the majority of that period.

So then, the polling was conducted in June/July rather than released in June/July? That would make more sense, being fresh into the Clinton concession.

[Vosem]

the Occupy Wall Street voter.

There's no such thing, Kandi.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

And face it: It'd be kind of difficult for Democrats to be more enthusiastic than in 2008.

But that's exactly what the poll says. Democrats were MORE enthusiastic than in previous elections in 2004 than they were in 2008.

Nope:

The question is not whether they're enthusiastic, but whether they're more enthusiastic than last election.

Read the actual pdf, maybe.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

And even if it WERE written like that, considering how well high Democratic enthusiasm helped Kerry in 2004, I'd say too much stock is place in 'enthusiasm' studies. Obviously, the GOP are more enthusiastic compared to 2008... how could they not be? the drop in Dem enthusiasm isn't great but that doesn't mean they suddenly like Romney and won't turn out for Obama in the end.

[WhyteRain]

... I'd say too much stock is place in 'enthusiasm' studies. Obviously, the GOP are more enthusiastic compared to 2008... how could they not be? the drop in Dem enthusiasm isn't great but that doesn't mean they suddenly like Romney and won't turn out for Obama in the end.

I tend to agree, but let's not overlook one thing:  The effect of the enthusiasm of partisans on the feelings of moderate Independents -- the 20% or so of people "in the middle".  When moderate Independents see excitement on the Left or Right, they'll tend to swing that way.  Like the moon affects the tides.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

... I'd say too much stock is place in 'enthusiasm' studies. Obviously, the GOP are more enthusiastic compared to 2008... how could they not be? the drop in Dem enthusiasm isn't great but that doesn't mean they suddenly like Romney and won't turn out for Obama in the end.

I tend to agree, but let's not overlook one thing:  The effect of the enthusiasm of partisans on the feelings of moderate Independents -- the 20% or so of people "in the middle".  When moderate Independents see excitement on the Left or Right, they'll tend to swing that way.  Like the moon affects the tides.

However, 2004 speaks against that. The enthusiasm was clearly behind Kerry, but that didn't materialise at the polls, and Bush actually saw his support among Independents increase, albeit within the margin of error.

I generally hold to the maxim that electoral rules exist until they don't any more...

[WhyteRain]

... I'd say too much stock is place in 'enthusiasm' studies. Obviously, the GOP are more enthusiastic compared to 2008... how could they not be? the drop in Dem enthusiasm isn't great but that doesn't mean they suddenly like Romney and won't turn out for Obama in the end.

I tend to agree, but let's not overlook one thing:  The effect of the enthusiasm of partisans on the feelings of moderate Independents -- the 20% or so of people "in the middle".  When moderate Independents see excitement on the Left or Right, they'll tend to swing that way.  Like the moon affects the tides.

However, 2004 speaks against that. The enthusiasm was clearly behind Kerry, but that didn't materialise at the polls, and Bush actually saw his support among Independents increase, albeit within the margin of error.

I generally hold to the maxim that electoral rules exist until they don't any more...

That's a good point, but wasn't the "excitement" on the Left about 2004 more negative than positive -- in the sense of not wanting to elect this mook with the rich wife but more wanting to get revenge for what they viewed as a "stolen" election in 2000?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

... I'd say too much stock is place in 'enthusiasm' studies. Obviously, the GOP are more enthusiastic compared to 2008... how could they not be? the drop in Dem enthusiasm isn't great but that doesn't mean they suddenly like Romney and won't turn out for Obama in the end.

I tend to agree, but let's not overlook one thing:  The effect of the enthusiasm of partisans on the feelings of moderate Independents -- the 20% or so of people "in the middle".  When moderate Independents see excitement on the Left or Right, they'll tend to swing that way.  Like the moon affects the tides.

However, 2004 speaks against that. The enthusiasm was clearly behind Kerry, but that didn't materialise at the polls, and Bush actually saw his support among Independents increase, albeit within the margin of error.

I generally hold to the maxim that electoral rules exist until they don't any more...

That's a good point, but wasn't the "excitement" on the Left about 2004 more negative than positive -- in the sense of not wanting to elect this mook with the rich wife but more wanting to get revenge for what they viewed as a "stolen" election in 2000?

To be fair, it's not like the GOP electorate this year is pro-Romney. It's very clearly primarily an anti-Obama vote... one of the many similarities between 2004 and 2012 so far. Reading the polling from a few weeks ago, the GOP is less pro-Romney than the Dems were pro-Kerry.

[WhyteRain]

... I'd say too much stock is place in 'enthusiasm' studies. Obviously, the GOP are more enthusiastic compared to 2008... how could they not be? the drop in Dem enthusiasm isn't great but that doesn't mean they suddenly like Romney and won't turn out for Obama in the end.

I tend to agree, but let's not overlook one thing:  The effect of the enthusiasm of partisans on the feelings of moderate Independents -- the 20% or so of people "in the middle".  When moderate Independents see excitement on the Left or Right, they'll tend to swing that way.  Like the moon affects the tides.

However, 2004 speaks against that. The enthusiasm was clearly behind Kerry, but that didn't materialise at the polls, and Bush actually saw his support among Independents increase, albeit within the margin of error.

I generally hold to the maxim that electoral rules exist until they don't any more...

That's a good point, but wasn't the "excitement" on the Left about 2004 more negative than positive -- in the sense of not wanting to elect this mook with the rich wife but more wanting to get revenge for what they viewed as a "stolen" election in 2000?

To be fair, it's not like the GOP electorate this year is pro-Romney. It's very clearly primarily an anti-Obama vote... one of the many similarities between 2004 and 2012 so far. Reading the polling from a few weeks ago, the GOP is less pro-Romney than the Dems were pro-Kerry.

Another good point -- you're on a roll!  :-)

[MorningInAmerica]

Read the actual pdf, maybe.

Please re-read this:

And face it: It'd be kind of difficult for Democrats to be more enthusiastic than in 2008.

But that's exactly what the poll says. Democrats were MORE enthusiastic than in previous elections in 2004 than they were in 2008.

Read  the underlined portion. That's EXACTLY what I said. Maybe you're having trouble with your English?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Read the actual pdf, maybe.

Please re-read this:

And face it: It'd be kind of difficult for Democrats to be more enthusiastic than in 2008.

But that's exactly what the poll says. Democrats were MORE enthusiastic than in previous elections in 2004 than they were in 2008.

Read  the underlined portion. That's EXACTLY what I said. Maybe you're having trouble with your English?

In other words, you were saying exactly what I said you were saying, even if you were also saying something else.