KHH1

Early signs that Democratic turnout may sag in 2016

By Michael Barone (@michaelbarone) • 11/16/15 7:13 PM

In my Wall Street Journal article on polling last Thursday, I made the point that one thing pollsters have trouble projecting is turnout. And the key fact about turnout in this decade is that it has been going down — despite all the talk about how vast surges of non-w****s and Millennials into the e*****rate will produce a "death spiral" for Republicans.

Turnout in 2012 was lower than in 2008, turnout in 2014 was lower than in 2010, and in both cases turnout was down particularly among Democrats. Barack Obama received 3.5 million fewer v**es in 2012 than 2008, but that was enough to win because Mitt Romney received only 1 million more than John McCain.

What will turnout be in 2016? Will Democratic turnout surge this time, unlike 2012? In recent news stories I find clues suggesting that the answer will be no.

The first comes from Politico, headlined "Poll: Republicans more optimistic about their party's ideas." It quotes a Gallup survey finding that 60 percent of Republican identifiers say their p**********l candidates have come up with good ideas for solving their most important problem, while a significantly lower 42 percent of Democratic identifiers say their p**********l candidates have.

To be sure, Republicans and Democrats have different priorities: Republican v**ers tend to focus on allegedly declining values and foreign policy dangers, while Democratic v**ers tend to focus on economic ine******y and c*****e c****e. But these results suggest that the Democrats' economic solutions — higher minimum wages, higher tax rates on high earners, mandatory paid family and sick leave, equal pay for women (which has actually been the law for more than 50 years) — fall short of addressing the economic problems they perceive. Which makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.

The other sign comes from a Wall Street Journal article, pointing out that four-fifths of the people who gave $5,000 maximum contributions to Barack Obama's re-e******n campaign in 2012 haven't contributed to Hillary Clinton. One Obama fundraiser is quoted as saying, "Most Democrats will be behind Hillary if she's the nominee. Once that becomes clear, the rest of that money should be easy to get."

But it's already clear, at least as clear as it has been in any cycle in which a president is not running for re-e******n, that Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. And while it's certainly possible that maximum contributions can be pried out of many of the currenly non-contributing four-fifths, their hesitation to part with their money suggests something in the nature of less-than-full enthusiasm for the candidate.

You can be pretty sure that these people will v**e in November 2016, and that almost all will v**e for Clinton. But if their apparent lack of enthusiasm for her is shared by large numbers of Democrats who, for wh**ever reason, don't max out for Democratic candidates, that's not a good sign for heavy Democratic turnout next year.

Ve'hoe

All your share with other dems is your bigotry,,,,,

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

It is more than likely due to the non stop efforts of every Tom, Dick and harry - putting their two cents worth in - every minute of every day, day in and day out, year after frickin year. Any yahoo with a word processing program thinks they're a writer - and that the world really needs to hear their version of wisdom.

The sheer volume of stupidity that surrounds us on a daily basis, is enough to turn anyone away from the corrupt and useless political process. Maybe that's the plan - reserve that process to those who deserve it - the rich and those that serve them.

The louder all these knot heads yell - the deafer the people become. The thing is, it's the same 40 people yelling at each other all day long - the rest have opted out and can't hear them.

Cool Breeze

The bells are ringing the fat lady is singing