Assume a High Voter Turnout in November

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think the turnout will be record breaking and I think it favors Obama.....how it affects the EV totals is the question.

[Alcon]

I'm expecting turnout to be higher numerically, but I think it will be lower as a percent of registered voters.

[J. J.]

The question will be who turns out.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Like J.J. said, this election will be won on who can bring out the people they need to get out to vote. If there are early signs of higher then normal turn out number with-in the black voters and young voters then Obama wins. If it stays the same then Obama loses. If McCain can get the christian base to turn out like Bush did, then he can win. So the question isn't as clean cut as you put it.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

So the question isn't as clean cut as you put it.

I agree, my friend, I think the Big O will be the one who brings em out in higher numbers than McCain.

[Verily]

I'm expecting turnout to be higher numerically, but I think it will be lower as a percent of registered voters.

I agree. And, J. J., it doesn't depend on who turns out. Unlike 2004, it is eminently obvious who would be the ones turning out in a high-turnout election.

[Eleanor Martins]

I'm expecting turnout to be higher numerically, but I think it will be lower as a percent of registered voters.

I agree. And, J. J., it doesn't depend on who turns out. Unlike 2004, it is eminently obvious who would be the ones turning out in a high-turnout election.

In the current landscape, sure, but the sheer complexity of the variables between now and November (youths deciding Obamamania was just another passing fad, the emergence of culture war along the fissure lines of gay marriage, etc etc) means no, it is not eminently obvious who benefits from a high turnout.

[Alcon]

I'm expecting turnout to be higher numerically, but I think it will be lower as a percent of registered voters.

I agree. And, J. J., it doesn't depend on who turns out. Unlike 2004, it is eminently obvious who would be the ones turning out in a high-turnout election.

In the current landscape, sure, but the sheer complexity of the variables between now and November (youths deciding Obamamania was just another passing fad, the emergence of culture war along the fissure lines of gay marriage, etc etc) means no, it is not eminently obvious who benefits from a high turnout.

Actually, I think that the highest turnout will start to curve toward McCain.  I see this as a reverse 2004 -- Bush got the turnout he needed, very high but no earth-shatteringly.  That's the kind of turnout, IMHO, that would benefit Obama this year.  It's also essentially the best I expect.

[MODU]

I don't think there will an unusually high voter turn out, but if there is, I can only assume that it would be a benefit to Obama.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Turnout in certain sorts of areas will, probably, be down rather a lot.

[Person Man]

I mean, do you think this is a question of who wants to vote or who remembers to vote?

[Smid]

I think Obama will see a higher Democrat turnout regardless of whether overall turnout is up, down, or average. Therefore, if overall turnout is down or average, it's because conservatives haven't come out to vote for McCain. A high overall turnout would result because conservative voters backed McCain and therefore a high turnout benefits McCain, simply because I think there's automatically going to be a high Democrat turnout.

[J. J.]

I'm expecting turnout to be higher numerically, but I think it will be lower as a percent of registered voters.

I agree. And, J. J., it doesn't depend on who turns out. Unlike 2004, it is eminently obvious who would be the ones turning out in a high-turnout election.

No, actually it isn't.  Will there a larger or smaller than normal turnout of suburban women, for example?  How about white working class Democrats?

One thing that has really struck me is that Montgomery County, PA, a former GOP bastion of the state is now majority Democrat, as of the primary.  Obama lost that in the primary, in spite of higher and newer registration. 

[Alcon]

I'm expecting turnout to be higher numerically, but I think it will be lower as a percent of registered voters.

I agree. And, J. J., it doesn't depend on who turns out. Unlike 2004, it is eminently obvious who would be the ones turning out in a high-turnout election.

No, actually it isn't.  Will there a larger or smaller than normal turnout of suburban women, for example?  How about white working class Democrats?

Even if Obama under-performs among working-class Democrats, he's still not going to lose them, so increased turnout will still help him.

[Flying Dog]

The enthusiasm gap that is being exhibited makes me think that high turnout with most likely help Obama.

[Torie]

I'm expecting turnout to be higher numerically, but I think it will be lower as a percent of registered voters.

I agree. And, J. J., it doesn't depend on who turns out. Unlike 2004, it is eminently obvious who would be the ones turning out in a high-turnout election.

No, actually it isn't.  Will there a larger or smaller than normal turnout of suburban women, for example?  How about white working class Democrats?

Even if Obama under-performs among working-class Democrats, he's still not going to lose them, so increased turnout will still help him.

I might depend on which working class "Democrats" turn out. I think it is all very fluid. Both candidates are pretty well liked in general, which also makes things fluid.

[Alcon]

I might depend on which working class "Democrats" turn out. I think it is all very fluid. Both candidates are pretty well liked in general, which also makes things fluid.

If it were just "the working class," I'd agree.  But whenever you add "Democrats" to a phrase, you have trouble finding a group that's going to even come close to voting McCain.

[Torie]

I might depend on which working class "Democrats" turn out. I think it is all very fluid. Both candidates are pretty well liked in general, which also makes things fluid.

If it were just "the working class," I'd agree.  But whenever you add "Democrats" to a phrase, you have trouble finding a group that's going to even come close to voting McCain.

It's the swing baby. There are not going to be any seminal cohort moves in this election I don't think, although I still hope my little demographic cohort (and yours it appears) does move substantially in critical precincts not in my state.

[Alcon]

I suppose the swing does count, but I just realized J. J. was probably talking about decreased turnout among those groups among ex-Clintonites.

I honestly think there'd need to be a lot of that to make up for the low GOP enthusiasm levels.  I just wish we could get an Obama vs. McCain poll that breaks down support to "very enthusiastic" through "not at all enthusiastic."  If Obama has a lot of the latter, and it's life-long Democrats who won't bother, he may have trouble.

[Torie]

Well some cohorts don't need any enthusiasm to still vote. They have been voting for along time, without much enthusiasm. I can't remember when my clan was enthusiastic about any presidential candidate.

[J. J.]

I might depend on which working class "Democrats" turn out. I think it is all very fluid. Both candidates are pretty well liked in general, which also makes things fluid.

If it were just "the working class," I'd agree.  But whenever you add "Democrats" to a phrase, you have trouble finding a group that's going to even come close to voting McCain.

Let's assume that white working class Democrats voted for Kerry 70/30, hypothetically, and they made up 20% of the electorate.  The white working class Democrats for Kerry would account for 14% of the electorate.  In this election, they go Obama 55/45 and they account for 22% of the electorate, hypothetically.  They now account for 12.1% of the electorate.

Whether or not the increased turnout will be a factor is an open question, at this point.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes; increased turnout amongst Obama supporters, coupled with decreased turnout amongst McCain supporters, will be key.

[Jacobtm]

I'd assume higher voter turnout helps Obama, because I doubt McCain really could turn out more religious conservatives than Bush could, especially considering all the gay-marriage ballot initiatives in '04. Obama, however, can definitely turn out more blacks at least, and probably youth, than Kerry did.

[Sam Spade]

Numbers-wise, the historical model says that turnout in-between 48%-50% of VAP helps Republicans, because the intermittent voters who typically make up the 50%-53% of VAP turnout tend to break strongly for Democrats. 

I'm starting to conclude that once you get above 53%, that the next cadre of intermittent voters, probably between 53% and 56% (which are more intermittent than the voters above) tend to break strongly for Republicans (and tend to be overwhelmingly in the Southern parts of the US).  These voters only showed up in 1992 for Perot (note how well Republican candidates did down-ballot in that election, even while losing the Presidency) and in 2004 for Bush. 

The next cadre of voters above that have simply never shown up in any election, so we don't know about them.  I really can't speak to whether the theories here are based on that occurring.

If Democrat turnout is roughly around 53% or so, that should be the best for their chances.  Just FYI.  Those Republican voters going up to the 50% may not look like they're going to show up, but as happened in 1996, they did anyway.

I should bump a Vorlon post on the matter, actually.

[Nym90]

In 2004 both parties turned out their bases extremely well, but the GOP even more so than the Dems. I don't think higher turnout than what we saw in 2004 is possible, quite frankly.

McCain matching Bush's levels of turnout and enthusiasm among evangelicals and the "religious right" is extremely unlikely. About as unlikely as the idea that working class Democrats will vote for Obama only 55-45.