Demographics and the Electorate

[muon2]

Turnout, turnout, turnout. The most important ingredient in a successful campaign.

I have posted for months now that the turnout in 2016 will be lower than 2012. I think it may be perhaps as low as 1996. Negative campaigns drive down turnout, that's one reason they are employed. This campaign is as negative as any in recent memory and neither campaign is running a parallel positive message to counter the negativity. That negative messaging depresses educated voters that are not the "civic duty" types who automatically vote every cycle.

Black turnout was about 10% higher in 2008 and 2012 with Obama running compared to 2004. I don't see why they wouldn't return to voting patterns that match 2004.

Polling for likely voters suffered in 2012 since many screens were calibrated to 2008. There was less enthusiasm in 2012 compared to 2008 so polls mistook that for lower turnout. Polls recalibrated again after 2012 to insure that low interest responses weren't missed from the likely voter pool as happened in 2012. But maybe the low interest means what they thought it meant going into 2012. If so, then the likely voter pool is being overestimated this time, just as it was underestimated last time.

[muon2]

I live in flyover country, so if there's a regional difference in turnout models, I'll stand corrected. What I see around me are voters turned off, or if they are regular voters they are voting as soon as they reasonably can. They have learned that by voting early the calls and mail pieces largely stop and that part of the negative campaign stops with them.

Moving more predictably reliable voters to take early ballots is not a sign of higher turnout, but it is good for campaigns to lock down their base so they concentrate on that aspect. The question is what the fair-weather voters are doing, and can they be motivated to vote this year?

[muon2]

Black turnout was about 10% higher in 2008 and 2012 with Obama running compared to 2004. I don't see why they wouldn't return to voting patterns that match 2004.

Do you have the data for this? Articles/other resources seem to give varying numbers for turnout, but the one I believe I've seen most frequently is the federal data's version:



Which is essentially a total of 6.2% increase since 2004. The trend here is pretty obvious: Black turnout was already increasing prior to 2008, and I do obviously believe Obama had an effect, but who is to say black turnout wouldn't have increased more (if modestly) even if it was Clinton on the ballot? Previous trends certainly suggested it would have been possible.

Further, studies do show that people who vote once have a reasonably good chance of voting again, with the habit strengthening every time they vote thereafter. Why would all these African Americans just buck that trend because Obama isn't on the ballot?

I would have to ask - is there any precedent for one demographic's turnout to plunge so significantly while other demographics experience comparatively little, if any, drop?

I frequently see this 'disappearing black voter' theory, and I just don't understand why the default assumption after so many consecutive cycles of increasing turnout would be that these voters are not actually engaged in the process more than before, and will suddenly suffer a dramatic collapse in turnout.

I can't find my source, but I suspect they were quoting the increase in absolute turnout. 60% to 66% is a ten percent increase in the underlying numbers.

My feeling is that all demographics will drop. Blacks may drop slightly more to reflect their higher engagement during Obama's run. Since they are such a heavily Dem group, small changes in their turnout rates have a disproportionate effect on the overall Dem share.

[muon2]

To add to my post above, I would expect the black vote will converge to the white vote, if adjusted for socioeconomics. That is I would expect the college educated black vote to mirror the college educated white vote, and similarly for the non-college educated population.

[muon2]

Well that is the conundrum with the data. The interest level is at a record high, but the dissatisfaction is only surpassed by 1992 when Perot had a big showing as an independent. Without the big vote for Perot the turnout in 1992 would have been abysmal. Indeed in 1996 when Perot's vote dropped from 19% to 8% turnout dropped from 58% to 52%. This is consistent with half of the Perot voters from 92 staying home in 96.

Consider the correlations of the other factors in the table with turnout. Of the first three columns, the second column seems to correlate best with turnout. If you subtract Perot's vote from the turnout, then the last column also correlates well with the remaining two-party turnout. Based on correlations, column 2 predicts a turnout higher than 2008, but column 5 predicts a low two-party turnout between '92 and '96. The only way the are both right is if Johnson/Stein together get in excess of 25% of the PV. Otherwise the election result will break one of those two correlations.

So for 2016 my sense of turnout hinges on whether Johnson/Stein can rise to pick up those disaffected voters as Perot did in 92. If not, do they stay home as they did in 96? Either way those voters would not factor much into the two-party turnout. Right now I see the third parties closer to 96 than to 92.

[muon2]

Question - is there any analysis on what the polls projected turnout is? Obviously a single poll is unreliable, but if you aggregate some you should get a picture of what pollsters are predicting.

This is Reuters (who I can only praise for their willingness to share data)

That data makes no sense at all... I mean, wouldn't that suggest that turnout was largely stable 08-10-12? When it wasn't at all. I mean 2014 makes sense in relation to the data, considering 2010 turnout was only slightly better than 2014... Unless I'm completely misreading this.

Is it just me or is this an assumed projection...

The graph is RCP. They haven't used midterm data at all so that's misleading. It's been extended from 2012 to 2016 using Reuters turnout model.

Do you have the link to the article with the graph?

Midterm turnout data doesn't correlate that well with presidential year turnout, so I can see why they would only use the presidential years.

[muon2]

Is there a compelling hypothesis as to *why* LV screens might be doing particularly poorly this time?  If a demographic group is being systematically over or under-estimated as LVs, then why is that more of an issue this year than other years?  Are NCWs so psyched by Trump that they're more likely to tell pollsters that they're enthusiastic about voting, or what?

And I know that each individual pollster doesn't like to divulge this kind of info, but has anyone written a good article that describes the most common methods that pollsters use to rate respondents as LVs?

I don't think it's about LV screens being a problem this time. It's about LV screens being a problem. The polling in 2012 was off, especially for the Romney campaign. Gallup and others looked at the problem and concluded that LV screens were overreliant on behavior from 2008 that didn't apply to 2012.

The behavior of the population towards voting was for a long time fairly consistent. That meant you could ask questions that could predict whether someone would actually vote. In the last decade that behavior has become inconsistent, so that questions designed from one cycle aren't very predictive in the next.

The screens for 2016 were designed from 2012 results in light of how they performed in 2008. If the inconsistency is still applicable this year (and I think it is) then the pollsters are going to be spread all over with their responses based on the last two cycles.

[muon2]

Gallup poll seems to indicate that

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195806/americans-less-sure-vote-president.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles

Turnout this year will be below 2012 which is a surprise.

I based my conclusion for lower turnout on my active involvement in campaigns for over 20 years and my analysis of the factors that drive voters. I'm not surprised to see Gallup picking up the same sentiment in their polls, too.

[muon2]

As a baseline measure of the effect of demographics I'll use this post from June. Note how it gets WI and PA right and has MI and NH on the edge.

I posted this as a prediction, in part because I was surprised at the effect of the 538 calculator on some variables.

I assume about a 6% drop in overall turnout driven by the unpopularity of the major candidates and anticipated negative campaign. That gives a turnout equal to 1996.

College whites 70%-54%R (from 77%-56%R); negative campaigns and disaffected college drop the turnout by 7% as it shifts 2% Dem.

Noncollege whites 53%-70%R (from 57%-62%); the Trump factor plays big here, and the turnout only drops 4% compared to the 6% average.

Blacks 56%-86%D (from 66%-93%D); the lack of Obama on the ticket returns black turnout to previous levels, slightly better than noncollege whites, and though still solid they drop to less than 90% Dem.

Latinos 44%-74%D (from 48%-71%); a drop in turnout equal to noncollege whites and 3% shift to the Dems.

Asians/Other 45%-70%D (from 49%-67%D);  a shift matching that of the Latinos.

Predicted vote Clinton 48.5%, Trump 49.8%. EV Clinton 232 Trump 306.