Curb Your Enthusiasm?
[Posted by Karl]
Gallup‘s Frank Newport reports:
Republicans’ enthusiasm about voting in the election for president next year has decreased, with 49% of Republicans and independents who lean Republican now saying they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, down from 58% in September. This narrows the gap between them and Democrats, 44% of whom are more enthusiastic than usual, essentially the same as in September.
However, there are several reasons to not panic about the current level of GOP enthusiasm.
First, Republicans still maintain an enthusiasm gap consistent with the GOP controlled years of 2000-04.
Second, Gallup is polling this question earlier than in past cycles, so the comparison is not apples-to-apples.
Third, as Newport notes, “The decrease in Republicans’ enthusiasm could reflect the intensive and bruising battle for the GOP nomination going on within the party, and the rapid rise and fall of various candidates in the esteem of rank-and-file Republicans nationwide.” This theory, which I think is related to second point, finds support in Newt Gingrich’s current front-runner status. It is more difficult for Republican voters to be enthsiastic during the part of the campaign where the candidates are focusing on each other’s negatives. Although Gingrich is having to go a bit negative now that he’s at the top, he got there in part by not criticizing rivals whose voters he wanted and by bashing debate moderators for encouraging intramural fights (even though that’s what a nomination campaign is).
Fourth, Gallup has previously noted it has “less historical data on the ‘more enthusiastic than usual about voting’ question, and thus far, it has not established a strong link between enthusiasm and voter turnout.” Although it seems intuitive that such a link should exist, and the more enthusiastic side does seem to do better in elections, enthusiasm does seem to have its limits as a predictor. Dem pollster Mark Mellman noted this before the 2010 midterm:
One final piece of evidence on the relevance of enthusiasm to turnout is provided by George Mason Professor Michael McDonald, who noted that the 62 percent who told Gallup they were enthusiastic about voting in this year’s election was “the highest level of enthusiasm among registered voters in a midterm election since Gallup began asking this question in October 1994.
The next highest level was recorded at 49 percent in a June 2006 poll, a difference of 13 percentage points.” Moreover, that 62 percent is on par with responses in presidential years. Indeed, it is just seven points lower than the level of enthusiasm expressed before the 2008 presidential election and almost 20 points higher than that leading into the 2000 presidential.
Anybody want to bet that turnout in this midterm will be higher than in the 2000 presidential?
Although 2010 was a good year for the GOP, that would have been a bad bet — turnout was lower in 2010 than in 2000, both in raw numbers and (more significantly) in the percentage of voting-age turnout. Indeed, by the second measure, 2010 turnout was below the GOP wave year of 1994. This point goes to overall turnout, rather than the enthusiasm gap between the parties, but ask yourself whether that gap — even in a wave year like 1994 — is itself a residual effect of the economy.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (e39d6b) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:17 amMore beneath-the-waterline analysis, thank you.
I am concerned the paucity of incumbents being primaried will further depress turnout.
However, nothing Dog Meat has going will turn his receding tidal ebb. The left will be demoralized, not enraged.
The worst to come for our side will be the millions spent by the Elites throwing feces at our candidates.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:55 amIf they can only repudiate Bush’s climate change denial they will win.
/Mega Sarcasm
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:58 amI think all the browbeating about some of the Tea Party candidates, probably did marginally effect the turnout, then again California, might as well
narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:58 ambe Zombieland,
‘Missed it by that much’
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/douthat-professor-gingrich-vs-professor-obama.html?_r=1
narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:59 amDouthat is the mad hatter.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:11 amNarciso–The singularity in thought of comments left at the Douthat article is amazing. Those New York Timers at least still do love them some Obama.
elissa (9d9d19) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:17 amI imagine I could look this up, but this is a discussion where we inform each other, so…
“Some people” never answer the phone until it rings at least 4 times. By that time, usually the only calls left are by real people who actually want to talk to you.
I wonder if there are characteristics specific to that group that end up not being represented in polls. These are the people who are “not enthusistic” about answering poll questions.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:41 am“Some people” never answer the phone until it rings at least 4 times. By that time, usually the only calls left are by real people who actually want to talk to you.
Republicans should have early on determined not to succumb to the over-exposure strategery that the MSM knows plays into the hands of the incumbent.
And nothin’ from nothin’, but Diane Sawyer had to be high last night. WTF was THAT all about?!?!
Colonel Haiku (988264) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:52 amI forgot to add that “Caller ID” is a very helpful service option.
Colonel Haiku (988264) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:53 amSome billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent that is the height of unfairness.
Yeah Olamea but if you raise taxes on Soros that is evil though.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:54 am“…Caller ID” is a very helpful service option
True that, Colonel, but “they” have gotten smart enough to call with phones that list an actual 10 digit number, suggesting that maybe it is really someone who wants to talk to you.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:59 amelissa @7
From the comments: President Obama is indeed president as well as a Harvard graduate, as well as having served as president of the Harvard Law Review. And President Obama, in a speech in 2008, said that he is NOT the Messiah.
What does it tell you about a nominee running for the highest office in the land, who feels the need to publicly clarify he is *not* the messiah?
And what does it tell you about the voters who need that clarity?
Of course we had the
messiahcandidate himself,“My job is to be so persuasive that if there’s anybody left out there who is still not sure whether they will vote, or is still not clear who they will vote for, that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany,” said Obama in New Hampshire , “and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama.”
Dana (4eca6e) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:59 ambut “they” have gotten smart enough to call with phones that list an actual 10 digit number, suggesting that maybe it is really someone who wants to talk to you.
I’m no MD, but I do sleep at the Holiday Inn®. If the Colonel doesn’t recognize the calling number, he associates no sense of urgency to the call. Just leave a voicemail message, caller, and I’ll return the call at my earliest convenience… or not.
Colonel Haiku (988264) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:04 amand yes SS needs to be reformed.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:08 amColonel-
Exactly, that’s why I let it ring at least 4 times, even if it is a “real-looking” number.
Dana at #13. What a quote. Just goes to show “controlling the oceans and healing the sick” was not a one-time mistake.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:13 am____________________________________________
It is more difficult for Republican voters to be enthsiastic during the part of the campaign where the candidates are focusing on each other’s negatives.
Speaking of “negatives,” and even more so in light of all the bad publicity aimed at the Republican candidates over the past many months — certainly involving Herman Cain — how come I never heard about the following (no thanks to the media) until only today?!
^ I’ve read various accounts since 2008 of Obama’s bisexuality, but I also kept thinking of the word “hearsay.” That’s because unless a person is involved in orgies or a menage a trois, there often aren’t third-party eyewitnesses to that person’s sexual behavior. But along with the above, I’ve come across way too much chatter about Obama’s social activity to still believe it can be easily shrugged off as “hearsay,” or merely snark from pro-gay liberals, or sly sniping from anti-gay conservatives.
Mark (411533) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:21 am“…Gingrich … got there in part … by bashing debate moderators for encouraging intramural fights…”
No, he got there in large part because he made the moderators look like the ignorant and corrupt hacks they are. When is somebody going to figure out that Conservatives are just as right about the media as they were about Barack Obama, and they are tired of politicians who suck up to it?
sherlock (503b64) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:36 amneither of the blogs I read even bothered to put up a debate thread for last night
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:42 amAs I watched Dianne Sawyer last night, I could help but think: Donald Trump would be less annoying. Shouldn’t there be, like, a 5-minute limit on ASKING questions? Her attempt to (slowly) arrive at the proper nuanced question was excruciating.
Kevin M (563f77) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:50 amDianne Swayer looked like she wanted to tear the GOP presidental contenders spleens out.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 11:14 amdid she really really think the monkeys hadn’t babbled enough about immigrants yet?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 12/11/2011 @ 11:25 amMark @17 – You might want to check on those claims from thekansascitian.blogspot.com. It looks like a beautiful substitution of the name Obama for Cain and some other minor changes to one of Politico’s stories just to point out how thinly sourced Politico’s crap was. Nevertheless, the rumors about Obama have been floating around for years.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/11/2011 @ 11:48 amOnly evil tyrants believe in everyone owning guns and thus uprising to peacefully overthrow tyrants and who want to deport illegal aliens.
/Liberals
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 11:57 amand yes democraps it ain’t paranoia to have a problem with illegals.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 11:59 amOnly evil tyrants believe in law-abiding citizens owning guns
/Lefty
What I meant.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:12 pmnibblin’ on spongecake
Cap'n and Tennile (13f65b) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:15 pmdoin’ the Suzy Muskrat
sounds like BarckyLove
Only evil people use guns to defend themselves
/SpartacVS
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:16 pmAn interesting question to ask about “enthusiasm” would be “Would you be willing to donate your time to GOTV?” I will bet $10,000 against a jelly donut that more Republicans do so this year than in any year since 1980.
Kevin M (563f77) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:18 pm___________________________________________
It looks like a beautiful substitution of the name Obama for Cain
daleyrocks, thanks for the heads up. Yea, I was punked. So I guess all the talk about Obama’s sexual behavior goes back to being purely hearsay.
However, even before my falling for the parody, I read a few days ago about a situation of a third-party eyewitness — who describes himself as a neutral, uninvolved stranger — stumbling unwittingly upon Obama in a liaison with another male back before Obama had become a senator from Illinois.
If I had to bet the $100 million Lotto on whether such hearsay was true or not, I’d wager that all the allegations in general validate the phrase “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” and be somewhat confident that I’d end up winning the money.
Mark (411533) — 12/11/2011 @ 3:14 pmMark – Instead, check out the story Gateway Pundit posted from the Globe last night about Michelle Obama.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/11/2011 @ 4:38 pm_______________________________________________
the Globe last night about Michelle Obama.
Don’t know how accurate that story is, but you have to admit this one comes close to hitting the target:
Beautiful! Classy!
Mark (411533) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:57 pmDiscrimination against the unemployed?
What next discrimination against angry people?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:03 pmHonestly how does one discriminate against the unemployed?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:19 pmBy refusing to employ them, giving preference in employment to those who are already employed. Actually this is quite common; I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/11/2011 @ 10:55 pmDon’t know about this life but Scratch is clearly marked as butt buddy for 72 porcine virgins, forever pink and unrelieved of their burden.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/12/2011 @ 6:16 am