Higher turnout than 2008?

[Phony Moderate]

As was pointed out in another thread, significantly more people watched the first debate of 2012 than the first debate of 2008. Does this suggest that there could be a higher turnout?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No, I think increased curiosity...

[J. J.]

So far, the early voting does not indicate that.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nooooooo way.  The Hopey Changey thingy's luster is gone.

[Ljube]

The turnout will be much lower than in 2008.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not likely. The first debate in 2008 probably got lower ratings because McCain was so uninteresting.

[Phony Moderate]

Not likely. The first debate in 2008 probably got lower ratings because McCain was so uninteresting.

And Romney is just a fascinating guy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He can be fun to watch debate though, even if just because he's so sleazy. McCain in debates isn't interesting in any way whatsoever.

[You kip if you want to...]

He can be fun to watch debate though, even if just because he's so sleazy. McCain in debates isn't interesting in any way whatsoever.

Romney's funny to watch in debates between the anger and the gaffes.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Part of me says yes, part of me says no.

No because this is a very boring election, much like 1996 or 2004.

Yes because turnout has gotten higher (or more people turn 18) since 2000.

[Phony Moderate]

No because this is a very boring election, much like 1996 or 2004.

How was 2004 boring? Enthusiasm on both sides was extremely high, and it was a close election.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No because this is a very boring election, much like 1996 or 2004.

How was 2004 boring? Enthusiasm on both sides was extremely high, and it was a close election.

I ment the candidates were boring.

[The Mikado]

Quite likely higher as an absolute number of voters.  In terms of percentages, I expect it to be somewhere between 2004 and 2008 (which would still put it at a higher level than most elections in the past half century).

[Adam Griffin]

In the past 100 years, nominal total turnout for an incumbent between two subsequent elections has only dropped twice: 1944 (-4%) and 1996 (-8%). Obviously, WWII played a part in 1944 when compared to 1940, and the other time was most likely due to millions of voters intrigued by the first three-candidate race of the modern era combined with a lackluster lineup. There was also one other election where turnout dropped: in 1988, it dropped by 1% when compared to 1984.

The 100-year average nominal increase in turnouts between two subsequent elections is 9.5%, ranging from -8% in 1996 to 45% in 1920. What was the 2008 turnout increase when compared to 2004? 8%.

Based on past trends, it's quite possible that nominal turnout will increase.

[後援会]

Quite likely higher as an absolute number of voters.  In terms of percentages, I expect it to be somewhere between 2004 and 2008 (which would still put it at a higher level than most elections in the past half century).

Probably. I suspect there will be more difference within individual groups. Turnout among hispanic and young voters (especially the latter), should drop. I don't see turnout among blacks dropping.