Turnout matters
Like many Americans, I was paying attention to the recent Alabama senate special election. As a data-focused person, I was checking the live updates at fivethirtyeight.com as they provide both insight and perspective.
What they, and the data, clearly demonstrated was that what mattered in this unexpectedly close election was turnout.
Republicans who voted did so for their candidate in pretty typical numbers by Alabama standards. The difference was, that some Republicans, unwilling to vote for any Democrat and disgusted by their own nominee, stayed home. And, a small but significant portion voted for write-in candidates. On the other hand, Democrats, given an unexpected opportunity to have a close election because their opponents nominated an extreme, scandal-plagued candidate, turned out in droves.
They did it, not so much with advertising, though there was that, but with good old-fashioned shoe leather. The Jones campaign, the NAACP, and related groups worked hard to turn out the African-american vote in particular. They contacted every registered voter and went door-todoor canvassing.
This is something we don’t see enough of. Democrats have a registration advantage in most states, but they fail to deploy it because their constituencies don’t reliably turn out. They are especially unlikely to vote in off-year, non-presidential elections, where votes actually matter more, and in special elections.
Of course, turnout goes both ways. You can affect turnout on the other side by demoralizing their supporters. That was part of the Russian social media operation during the 2016 campaign. They spent their money portraying Hillary Clinton as corrupt. As she has been part of the Washington establishment for decades, it wasn’t a difficult argument to make.
In the case of Alabama, depressed turnout among Republicans was a self-inflicted wound. They nominated a candidate far outside the mainstream, even for Alabama, and then he made it worse by having a past they didn’t know about when he was nominated.
Though both sides have done it on occasion, I’m not cynical enough to advocate for attempting to depress your opponents’ enthusiasm and reduce their turnout. I’d rather all sides vote.
But there are things the parties can do to increase turnout among their own. Karl Rove and the Republicans managed this brilliantly in 2004 when they sponsored a series of anti-gay marriage initiatives. Gay marriage was still unpopular at the time and this had the result of increasing turnout among their core constituencies and giving George W. Bush a popular vote win he couldn’t manage the first time around.
Democrats did a similar thing, though with not quite the same success, a few years later, attempting to improve turnout among young people with marijuana legalization initiatives.
There are many reasons for the election result of 2016. Given how close it was, you can say any one of them was likely decisive. But it’s hard to rule out the turnout problem, particularly among African-american voters.
Perhaps Clinton couldn’t expect the same success as Obama achieved in 2008 and 2012. He had the status of being the first black president and I’m sure that increased black turnout. But some of her choices, from her past comments, to her campaign decisions, may have further reduced the turnout she needed.
Perhaps the most obvious choice was her decision for a running mate. Given that she was facing Trump in the general election, she seemed to think the election was in the bag and she chose a middle of the road, bland senator from Virginia, a swing state.
While there was nothing particularly wrong with Tim Kaine, might Democratic turnout have been higher if she had chosen Cory Booker or perhaps Julian Castro? We’ll never know now.
Democrats rightly point out that Republicans are engaged in a nationwide effort to suppress the vote. It’s true, from voter identification laws to scaling back polling place days and hours, the scheme is both obvious and transparent.
But Democrats must also take some responsibility. They would win far more often if they — meaning their constituencies — would consistently vote. And the money they spend on TV ads would often be better allocated toward old-fashioned get out the vote campaigns. They should go door to door, contact every voter, provide transportation if necessary, and get every eligible voter to vote. And they should engage in massive voter registration campaigns to make sure that their voters are on the rolls and informed.
No more excuses. Our democracy depends on it.