While the media are transfixed with matters like the choice of candidates vice presidents, the conventions and the polls almost-perfect parity, we should turn our attention to a far more interesting matter: Who will be able to fully mobilize his base on November 4?
The question is interesting because Republicans won the last two elections giving up independents and running campaigns whose goal was to bring every single evangelical, military man, security mom, tax-hater millionaire, and gun-obsessed crank to the polls. In other words, Karl Rove's strategy was based upon political cynicism (highly negative campaigns depress the turnout) and upon technical virtuosity (the so-called micro targeting of segments of the electorate potentially leaning Republican). This combination allowed GOP's candidates to bring to the polls all the faithful who, with the help of the over-representation of Republican-leaning rural states in the electoral college, and some tricks here and there, propelled George Bush to the White House.
At this game, the Democrats were handicapped by their poor choice of candidates, by their inability to conduct aggressive campaigns, by their lack of solid, easy-to-understand, programs. Nevertheless, they were able to mobilize an important number of young people in 2004, and this year Obama should bring millions more to the polls. Will this be enough to make the difference?
First, let's focus on some general factors that influence turnout.
The perceived closeness of elections has a positive effect on the turnout. Citizens who believe their candidate can win are enthusiastically standing in line for hours. Citizens who feel that the guy they support is doomed to defeat are less motivated to do the same.
This latter feeling tends to have a cumulative effect were numerous messages from trusted sources exacerbate pessimism among supporters, if for example the media tell voters that one candidate has no chances. The closeness effect is more strongly felt by the challenger than the incumbent. This means that the opposition party will see greater mobilization if the election is considered close.
Another factor in determining turnout is the state of the economy, and during the run up to the election, a topic explored by Daniel Stevens in his 2007 paper Mobilization, Demobilization and the Economy in American Elections in the British Journal of Political Science.
Depending on the incumbent party, the economy has different factors. Democrats are more interested in unemployment numbers and joblessness, where Republicans are more closely tied to inflation. Bad economies have a demobilizing effect on the supporters of the incumbent party (as it is the case in 2008). High inflation demobilizes Republicans and mobilizes Democrats, to a limited extent, while high joblessness drives down Democratic turnout. Obama should play up the bad inflation numbers to help depress Republican turnout.
What is Obama doing in the field?
First, his campaign is registering voters. Then he is contacting potential voters via phones, mail, and volunteers' contacts. The registration of voters is very important as people can vote only if they are registered. Being registered and identifying with a particular party is also positively associated with casting a vote for that party (and, this year, self-identified Democrats outnumber Republicans 41% to 31%). However, it is also true that for irregular voters, those who do not vote in every election, the longer the time between registration and voting day the less chance that person chooses to vote. That is why the second part of Obama’s game plan is important.
The most effective way to motivate voters is through face to face contact. Obama’s field offices and volunteers going door to door will have, potentially, the greatest impact on turnout. The two big studies regarding the effectiveness of the door-to-door canvassing were conducted by Yale’s Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber. Their findings indicated a significant increase in turnout: 12 successful face-to-face contacts translated into one additional vote. So for every twelve people that are contacted Obama gains a vote. That is 83 votes per 1000 face-to-face contacts. Everything depends on how many volunteers you have, in how many locations, for how long.
Obama clearly plans to bust the turnout records in the states he targets with large scale ground games, that are several because of his large fund-raising advantage. Given that the GOP base should have a lower turn out, due not only to the economic factors but also to a general tepidness towards their candidate, the surge in Obama turnout could be the difference in several states where Gore and Kerry didn't have a chance like Virginia, Indiana, even Montana or North Dakota.
McCain has not been investing heavily in the ground game and is instead focusing mostly on negative TV ads, somehow effective so far. There is some evidence that negative advertising has a demobilizing effect on the casual or independent voter, and the whole question is if Obama's effort to mobilize will be stronger or weaker of Republican efforts to demobilize.
It is important to add that the effects of contact are fully felt only in the days immediately preceding the election. The effectiveness of the contacts now may be less. However, Obama’s ground game will indeed be a very important part of this election and this is why polls at this time are much less importance than journalists and pundits tend to believe.Turnout alone will not be enough for Obama to overcome McCain but it will show its importance in the swing states.
