home

Only 3%

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:20:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Chris Bowers:

Democracy Corps is the only polling outfit currently measuring the specific 2010 Democratic enthusiasm gap. [. . .] What Democracy Corps found is that "drop-off" voters favor Democrats by a whopping 53%-36%. This compares to a narrow, 47%-45% Democratic advantage of likely voters. If drop-off voters were included in the overall sample, Democrats would lead 48%-43%. While this is only one data point, it means that the enthusiasm gap is currently costing Democrats about 3% nationally.

How many seats lost does "only 3%" translate into? 20 in the House? 4 Senate seats? I do not know but find it a curious attitude. Who cares about the drop off is an interesting message to read from Bowers. Hopefully, professional Dems are more worried about it than that.

Speaking for me only

< Coming Soon? The Ping Pong Nuclear Option | The Cynical Sucker >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Only 3% | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    he's gearing up the excuses already if and when the Dems lose lots of seats in November.

    Apparently I will be old enough to (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:40:51 AM EST
    remember the second one.

    3% is easily the difference between (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    winning and losing the Missouri Senate race between Robin Carnahan and Roy Blunt in 2010.

    A victory of over 3% in a national office election might be considered a landslide here.

    Predicting "drop-off" (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:32:04 PM EST
    I wonder how accurate these figures are, though.  What the Bowers post calls "ideological" voters are I think not so likely to admit to a pollster, or even to themselves, that they won't bother voting in the next election.

    But given that so much of this country makes getting to the polls to vote a trial and a chore, I would think more than that 3 percent would be likely to just not make the effort when the actual day rolls around, even if they expect to vote as of today.

    That's always the problem with counting "likely" voters, but I bet the "likely" are likely to be less likely when election day comes and it's raining.

    IOW, if this polling captures a 3 percent difference, I bet it's just the tip of the iceberg.

    Seems to me that professional Dems (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    are doing everything in their power to take different subsets of their base for granted. The attitude of "You have nowhere else to go." seems to still be the prevalent theme for Dem leadership.

    Yup (none / 0) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    I've already been told that.

    Parent
    Depends on how you think the politics (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    of passing the likely-crippled healthcare bill will work out, and whether the Administration can do anything more about unemployment.

    What depends? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    Clearly the enthusiasm gap matters is my point.

    "only 3%" strikes me as stupid thinking.

    Parent

    Whether the enthusiasm gap can be fixed (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:30:46 AM EST


    Parent
    Fix it via policy changes? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:00:53 PM EST
    That would suggest that drop-off voters care about policy, but what if they didn't -- and cared about personality?  (And stagecraft and inflated crowd counts and other campaign tactics. . . .)

    Parent
    Arrogance (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:33:54 AM EST


    I reread the post (none / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    and the phrase "only 3%" is not in Bowers' diary.  While minimizing the impact of 3% is not smart, I thought the post was just putting the enthusiasm gap numbers in context.

    It was clearly an attempt at (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    minimization.

    And it was ridiculous.

    Guess what? Obama won a landslide in 2008 - he won by 6.5%.

    I found Bowers' post absurd. Does soomeone believe the entusiasm gap would lead to 20 point GOP victories? No. Who the hell was Bowers talking to in that post?

    Parent

    Ongoing theme of Bowers (none / 0) (#20)
    by NealB on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    He's thinking out loud, but message is to progressives, like me perhaps, that enthusiasm gap is hard to measure and analyze because, well, what is enthusiasm anyway? I've read it a hundred times if I've read it once, voters vote, non-voters don't vote. Annoying observation, taut, and probably true. Non-voters, including those that got all enthusiastic about Obama in 2008, got registered, and then actually voted, likely won't be as enthusiastic again this fall and won't vote. But whatever this enthusiasm gap is, a bad economy may motivate more of those that usually vote to vote than usual.

    Parent
    Doesn't this assume (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    The "drop off" voters (now) don't decide to vote for someone else?  I realize most of them won't, but some will, right?

    Reminds me of the folks... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    ...who say we can't criticize Obama because his term is only 25% complete.

    Won't be able to (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    do it when it's 100% conmplete - then it will be, "History has to judge him - wait 50 years or so."

    Parent
    Those people (none / 0) (#18)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    don't understand the word squander.

    Parent
    Actually, I'm starting to wonder (none / 0) (#19)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    about the regional variation in polling- especially with regards to using national polling to predict 2010- take Gallup's Presidential Approval rating polling-- Obama's above 50%- well above it basically everywhere outside of what they define as the South- he's seen declines across the board but they've been the sharpest in the South among Southern Whites- given this how can one use national polling to predict that a Congressman in say Ohio or Nevada will lose?  

    If the fall elections (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:27:36 PM EST
    were purely a referendum on Obama, I believe that Democrats would do quite well outside of the south. That is not what I expect, however.

    Parent
    Even with a NJ loss? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:59:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Even? (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:09:37 PM EST
    Read again please.

    Parent
    Wait (none / 0) (#27)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    you thought NJ was a referendum on Obama- not about a Governor whose approval ratings were in the 30s at best?

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 07:18:08 PM EST
    what is the per-state dropoff....hmmm, Mistuh Bowers??

    Actually... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Watermark on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:56:33 AM EST
    In the house the Democrats received 53% last time and the Republicans recieved about 45%.  If the Dems lose 3%, the Republicans will gain about 3%.  Which means a 50%-48% split.  Since the house seats are gerrymandered to favor Republicans, this could actually mean a Republican MAJORITY.

    This has actually happened before - in 1998 the Democrats won the most votes in the house, but because of gerrymandering were still in the minority.

    Only 3% | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment