You sometimes hear that something or other (these days likely involving Barack Obama) will boost black turnout in the South and put heavily black states like Mississippi into play. I used to think something like this was possible until I read Tom Schaller's book which convincingly argues that black turnout in the South is actually already quite high and that the blacker a southern state gets the more fanatically Republican the state's white population becomes so this is basically hopeless. At any rate, go read the dime store version of his argument. I'd like it to be true that winning Mississippi was a good reason to back Obama in the primary, but it's not.
« The Cost of Egotism | Main | Obama's Pragmatism »
The Turnout Myth
10 Mar 2008 10:55 am
Comments (34)
I'd like it to be true that winning Mississippi was a good reason to back Obama in the primary, but it's not.
A better reason to back Obama is that his nomination (and, one hopes, election) will force the Democratic party to build a coalition that does not depend nor believe it should depend on the South. Democrats can pick up soft Southern states after they've established a dependable Northern/Western base on which they can depend, and from which they can be more coherent.
Well said. I respect the rhetorical flourish behind a "50 state strategy" but let's be realistic and concentrate on flipping some flippable red states: Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, maybe, in a perfect storm situation, Colorado, and hope Clinton doesn't go so scorched earth on Obama in Pennsylvania she kills his chances there.
Keep your eye on the ball, Matt. Winning MS by a healthy margin is simply about adding to Obama's delegate lead, period. This is a delegate contest, as Hillary USED to say before she fell hopelessly behind in it.
Good post. The whole idea of turning out your base is kind of stupid. So what if the evangelical turnout is 80% of what it was four years ago? McCain still wins the south and those same evangelicals are less of a force in northern swing states like NH and Ohio where turnout is much higher because of campaigning. Same thing with black people. The only states that they matter in are swing states. I suppose this matters in Virginia, but all the other swing states have fairly small black populations. Turnout is overrated.
The countervailing factor here is that Southern white conservatives think John McCain is basically Democrat-lite, and might not be able to hold their nose to vote for him. Given an Obama-McCain matchup one can imagine a scenario where both the white turnout is low and the black turnout is high, thus putting these states "into play." Also, even if the high turnout doesn't overcome the Republicans, an Obama campaign might at the very least force the GOP to expend some resources in these states, leaving less available in more traditional swing states. Oh, and if indeed the above scenario came to pass, it would force McCain to move further right, thus leaving him worse off in the traditional swing states.
This projection of course comes with the caveat that it is entirely possible that I have no clue what I'm talking about, that southern whites will fear a black president enough to come out in droves.
I suppose this matters in Virginia, but all the other swing states have fairly small black populations.
Blacks may be only about 10% of the population in most non-southern states, but good black turnout is essential for Democratic victories in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri.
Schaller's too meta on this. The argument is:
"Black southerners who don't vote will vote for Obama."
The only applicable datum is the turnout percentage among black southerners--its correlation to anything else is tangential.
If turnout is 50%, Obama can increase that.
I did an analysis of turnout in heavy-R areas in Missouri and heavy-D areas in Missouri in the 2008 dem primary as compared to those who voted for Kerry in 2004.
In rural republican areas, turnout in the dem primary was around 73% of 2004 numbers. In St. Louis and Kansas City, it was 62%. Had those areas been 73%, Obama would have won Missouri by a much larger margin.
Does that make sense?
Anyway, just an FYI.
Thank you Matt for making this point. It is my understanding that democratic primary results reveal very little information about general election results in those same states but almost everyone is going around pretending there is some high correlation.
My weekend was almost ruined by having to hear pundit after pundit repeat the idiotic and baseless argument that Hillary winning democratic primaries in big swing states has any bearing on general election success in these same states.
Thankfully The Wire finale was so great I forgot all about it until this morning.
Clinton is already attempting to marginalize Mississippi alongside Wyoming, Idaho and South Dakota as "the kinds of states Obama wins" but that will never go Democrat in the general election. The press largely parrots this "wisdom." But what about Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and Missouri? All of those states went for Bush in 2004, and all of them went for Obama in 2008. And what about Wisconsin and Minnesota? Don't Democrats need to win those states that Obama won, as much as they need New Jersey and Massachusetts, which Clinton likes to point to as examples of states that she won?
And is anyone in the press ever going to point out that Obama has won 6 primaries in states that are among the nation's 20 largest? He has won more primaries than she has. How is it that people who cover politics for a living are so misinformed? Is it just laziness/groupthink?
"maybe, in a perfect storm situation, Colorado"
I'd actually put Colorado far ahead of Virginia and behind only Iowa. (And recent polls confirm a 5-10 point lead in the state for Obama).
Basically, the older Coloradoans are dying off or moving away and being replaced by highly educated younger transplants from California and the technology centers of the Midwest and South. The Front Range really is turning into the "Bay Area" of the Interior West. That's the reason that Dems have the majority of the House seats, the governorship, both state legislative bodies, and probably both Senate seats after the 2008 elections. (It's also why Kerry was an idiot not to focus on Colorado in 2004 -- he was born here, and if he had flipped the state, NM probably would have gone with it).
Two points of clarification to my above post:
1) Obviously, going for Bush in a general election and going for Obama in a primary/caucus are not the same thing, but Clinton is the one who wants us to ascribe great weight to primary results as November harbingers for specific states.
2) When I say that Obama has won 6 primaries in the 20 largest states, I meant to emphasize that these were primaries, as opposed to caucuses, so the line that he can't win big-state primaries is demonstrably false.
It isn't Obama's appeal to black voters that makes him a good candidate for the Democrats; it's the effort he's put into building a ground operation in nearly every state. Win or lose, he can turn his operation over to the party and it can build on that for the next time.
There is a chunk of voters in every election who "cheer on the home team". The more solidly a state lines up behind one party, the more of these voters there will be and the happier they are to see the home team kick the snot out of the other party every four years.
There is another block of voters who vote automatically for whoever they think is going to win. In a swing state, they may split evenly, but in states like Utah or Alaska, they will vote 100% Republican.
The object of having a functioning party in every state is to lower the number of these voters who will vote automatically for the other party each election. If 10% of Mississippi's voters currently vote Republican simply because the Democrats come across as foreigners or because they don't have a chance of winning, Obama has a big pool he can reach into by building up the party within the state.
Other Democrats, obviously, can do the same thing. The main difference between Obama and Clinton, in fact, is that she is NOT doing the same thing. This is why Obama seems to peel off some Republican votes in many states which go right back to McCain if Clinton becomes the nominee. Obama strikes many Republicans as a rare Democrat who actually "gets it", while Clinton supporters like Mark Penn have made her look like a clueless idiot (meaning: a typical Democrat) by diminishing most of the country's "significance".
Schaller's argument makes sense only if you assume that a) you need some seismic change to win these states, or b) the Democrats already have squeezed out every last black vote they can. Neither is true.
Sure, black turnout is strong already, and sure the Democrats get most the black votes. But what if an Obama candidacy can boost black turnout by three percent, and what if instead of getting 80 percent of the black vote, he pulls in 85 percent? Doesn't sound like much of a difference, but it may very well be just the additional push that the Democrats need to flip a state like Virginia from red to blue.
Blacks may be only about 10% of the population in most non-southern states, but good black turnout is essential for Democratic victories in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri.
If Obama isn't on the ticket, blacks are gonna stay home. And it might be a while before they come back to the Democratic Party. The same is true, to a lesser extent, for the young voters that are increasingly turning out.
Obama needs to make it clear to everyone that the only way he'll be on a ticket is at the top. That clarity can only help him and hurt Clinton.
I agree with Splitting Image. It's not about boosting black turnout (which is still something that's possible), it's about contesting these states in order to build ground organizations that can be used to the benefit of local campaigns or congressional candidates. It's about reaching out to those voters that can be won and convincing them to begin volunteering for the party, donating to a candidate/cause, and getting an organization and local infrastructure together. And it's about even reaching out to the voters that can't be won and at least making a case so the seeds are there.
Contesting every state isn't about just winning them on the presidential level. This is something I keep coming back to -- look at those comments Jill Derby made after Nevada, where she talked about how Obama built infrastructure in a part of rural Nevada where the party essentially didn't even exist anymore. That's now going to give them an organization they can use in local races and in the next House campaign. Same thing in Georgia, where, while Obama may not win the state, his turnout and organization efforts will help narrowly elected officeholders like Reps. Barrow and Marshall.
"But in any event, the better version of this argument is that Obama as the nominee would help downticket candidates in those states."
Exactly.
"It isn't Obama's appeal to black voters that makes him a good candidate for the Democrats; it's the effort he's put into building a ground operation in nearly every state. Win or lose, he can turn his operation over to the party and it can build on that for the next time."
Exactly.
Here in NC, the Democrats (who hold most statewide offices), have for many years held the D national candidates at arms length, usually finding an excuse to be out of town when, say, Kerry comes to town. No way that happens with Obama, and between enhanced turnout all around (young, black, Democrats in general), in part because of all of the above and in part because of Bush fatigue, D's stand to do well across the board, including (for example) Larry Kissell sending the execrable Robin Hayes packing, which he almost did in 06 in spite of no support from national. I think there's even an outside chance that Dole could lose; remember that Jesse Helms at his height only beat a black candidate (Harvy Gant) by 5 points.
Mark this; if the cards fall right, North Carolina can go D nationally this time. At a minimum, they can make McCain spend considerable time and treasure holding it.
"But in any event, the better version of this argument is that Obama as the nominee would help downticket candidates in those states."
Exactly.
"It isn't Obama's appeal to black voters that makes him a good candidate for the Democrats; it's the effort he's put into building a ground operation in nearly every state. Win or lose, he can turn his operation over to the party and it can build on that for the next time."
Exactly.
Here in NC, the Democrats (who hold most statewide offices), have for many years held the D national candidates at arms length, usually finding an excuse to be out of town when, say, Kerry comes to town. No way that happens with Obama, and between enhanced turnout all around (young, black, Democrats in general), in part because of all of the above and in part because of Bush fatigue, D's stand to do well across the board, including (for example) Larry Kissell sending the execrable Robin Hayes packing, which he almost did in 06 in spite of no support from national. I think there's even an outside chance that Dole could lose; remember that Jesse Helms at his height only beat a black candidate (Harvy Gant) by 5 points.
Mark this; if the cards fall right, North Carolina can go D nationally this time. At a minimum, they can make McCain spend considerable time and treasure holding it.
Mississippi won't be in play. Somewhere like Virginia, with it's relatively large black population but also big urban districts and affluent liberals in the DC suburbs who also support Obama, certainly could be. Georgia isn't out of the question, either - remember that Bill Clinton won Georgia and between the African American vote, students and the greater Atlanta area (which may have joined the 21st century by now), it could be in play at least enough to require McCain to defend it.
The rather ugly implication of Tom Schaller's analysis is that Democrats shouldn't worry about black turnout because we always turnout and vote for the Democratic nominee in high percentages. Moreover, Obama's ability to turnout black voters in the primaries so far shouldn't be regarded as a special phenomenon, particularly in Southern states. I think it's rather revealing that no one is considering what would happen to black turn out in states where blacks do often mean the difference for Democrats(ie states with major urban populations)should their preferred candidate be somehow denied the nomination after winning so much while playing by the rules. If the Clintons somehow manage to edge Obama out, they are sorely mistaken if they assume that blacks will still turnout in their typical numbers. Precendent isn't a good indicator because black voters have never been as invested in a candidate as they are in Obama. At this point, I think its the height of folly for Democrats to assume that they can depend on the black vote regardless of who the nominee ends up being. Superdelegates and Clinton strategists beware.
Oh, and having lived for four years in Madison, I think that Clinton would lose both Wisconsin and Iowa to McCain. Obama would win both states.
Remember that Iowa went to Bush in 2000 and 2004, but Obama is very popular there. The student population is a real factor, and there's an element of regionalism too (Iowa farmers will vote for an Illinois pol given shared interests between those states). Kerry won Wisconsin by only 20,000 votes for years ago, out of 3 million votes cast. These two states together have 17 electoral votes, vs. 20 in Ohio. Minnesota, with another 10 electoral votes, would be an Obama win but very close in a Clinton/McCain race. Lose Minnesota as well, and she'd need Florida's 27 electoral votes just to make up for losing the Upper Midwest.
I just don't see how the electoral map favors Clinton over Obama, especially if he could pull in a Colorado or Virginia (which becomes less of a Southern state and more of a Northeastern state every year).
"his operation over to the party and it can build on that for the next time.
There is a chunk of voters in every election who "cheer on the home team". The more solidly a state lines up behind one party, the more of these voters there will be and the happier they are to see the home team kick the snot out of the other party every four years."
Very true. Growing in Mass, I love that we Dems control everything (except for the Governor's mansion, but except for Romney and Swift, those were non-crazy Republicans) even if we are a bit corrupt. However, you really get the feeling sometimes that a lot of non-political people just vote Democratic out of some type of Massachusetts pride. I would definitely say the reverse happens in Texas.
I'd ask you to reconsider your position, Matthew, but other posters have done an excellent job. The constant exhortations of the "meaninglessness" of Obama's higher vote count, delegate count, 50-state organization, GOTV efforts and outreach to AMERICANS rather than strictly Democrats may be confounding to the party Illuminati; however, it is an absolute necessity to steering this country back on course.
That Clinton et al are staking everything on the political calculus that lost us the last two elections is confounding and exceedingly short-sighted. Obama represents a return to the idea that political leaders are elected BY THE PEOPLE and thereby sworn to serve their best interests.
Lobbyists, special interests and off-shore donors necessarily take a back seat in an Obama administration. If for no other reason than he's proved they aren't essential to winning public office. That's a legacy worth fighting for and why Obama will be elected President in November.
"At this point, I think its the height of folly for Democrats to assume that they can depend on the black vote regardless of who the nominee ends up being. Superdelegates and Clinton strategists beware."
Concur. It's hard to make this point without looking like you're saying "if I can't win, I'll take my ball and go home!" in an especially unattractive racially-tinged way, but the fact is, if Obama wins the majority of pledged delegates but loses the nomination at the convention, Clinton is going to have to win in November with 2/3 of the black votes the Dem nominee usually gets.
"I just don't see how the electoral map favors Clinton over Obama, especially if he could pull in a Colorado or Virginia (which becomes less of a Southern state and more of a Northeastern state every year)."
This is why the SUSA polls showing both candidates winning are very misleading. Clinton wins a lot of states very narrowly. The tendency is to think of her strategy as win-either-Florida-or-Ohio, but it's not. She has to do that, AND hold Wisconsin, Minnesota, and maybe even Michigan (which will be difficult if black voters do not come out for her in the numbers that Dems are used to seeing).
What about a state like Georga where there is both a high black population, and a large city that is bound to have at least a few yuppies? I don't know much about southern politics, but it is frustrating that states where 30% of the population votes 90% Democratic are completely out of play. You'd think there'd be some way of shaving off enough of the white vote to at least put the state in play.
I guess I just don't know much about race politics having only lived in Vermont (basically all white), and D.C. (big majority black).
There is a really big difference between simply reckoning on whether black or Democratic turnout in Southern states can win a particular state under discussion in the general election and realizing that Congressional and local elections also depends on that turnout.
The Democratic Congress owes a lot to its African American Southern representatives, and although the presidential candidate does have to be very careful about devoting time & resources to the most fertile soils for electoral college victories, this should be done only in a very rational manner -- not a hasty overgeneralization that all those other areas 'don't matter'.
To Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, one can also add Oregon and Washington (and maybe Hawaii), and NH and Maine, as Kerry states McCain could potentially take from Clinton. Add it all up, and she could win Ohio and Florida plus all the other Kerry states and still get wiped out.
I'm not entirely sure, but weren't the Congressional districts gerrymandered by an quasi-alliance of Republicans and (some) black Democrats after the last couple of censuses so as to heavily increase the concentration of black voters.
If that's the case, then black turnout wouldn't really that much for Congressional seats, though it still might make a difference for the Senate and the Presidency.
Could someone please explain how a democrat wins the general if African American turnout in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania is low? Screw Mississippi, how is Clinton going to do any better in Maryland than Kathleen Kennedy Townsend?
RKU,
The thing about gerrymandering is that making safe seats works at cross purposes to maximizing your likely seat count. So, it is true that the majority party typically works with the minority party to create several safe seats for the minority and a higher seat count for the majority. But if the numbers they were using when gerrymandering change significantly (say, because of migration, or a major change in political dynamics), often a lot of the majority's seats can suddenly come into play. Indeed, in a worst case scenario they could find themselves having accidentally gerrymandered things in favor of the other party's seat count in a subsequent election.
That is all just in theory, though. I have no idea in practice how these states have been gerrymandered.
My compliments to Matt for actually making sense (for a change).
[i]My compliments to Matt for actually making sense (for a change).[/i]
Because comment that supports Clinton = makes sense? Is your support for Clinton really that superficial? Is it just a coincidence that you happen to agree with Matt on the post that he happens to say something that would help Clinton?
I’ve been unsure whether you’re sincere in your bias, or are simply a troll, but I’m starting to lean towards troll. Or at the very least you're making tactical rather than sincere arguments (arguing every point for your candidate, even in areas where from a neutral standpoint you would disagree with them).
Say what, JK? Saying that a pro-Obama argument is nonsense isn't being pro-Clinton. It's being pro-truth.
Comments closed March 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Fair enough, although I think blaming the South's black residents for the Republicanism of the South's white residents present a correlation versus causation issue.
But in any event, the better version of this argument is that Obama as the nominee would help downticket candidates in those states. I'm not sure that is true either (it all depends on issues such as precisely how the state in question has been gerrymandered), but it is at least possible. And, of course, the people to ask would be the elected and party officials in those states who have a direct interest in the question.
Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 11:06 AM