Mobilization, volunteers and turnout: Will that make the difference?

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.

Clinton, The Candidate of Seniors

The brawl for the Democratic nomination may be about to stop: numbers leave no chance to Clinton of snatching the nomination. However, Obama may have several concerns to think about in the coming weeks (aside the fact that Hillary hasn't withdraw yet). One is his trouble in convincing the 65+, voters, who in Indiana preferred Clinton by a massive 71% to 29%. This pattern was already established in the first primaries and caucuses and was particularly apparent in Ohio, where Hillary crushed Obama in this age group by a whopping 46-point margin, and Tennessee, where she got 40 percentage points more than her opponent.
Obama still has an overwhelming support among the 18-29 years-old, but this age group is smaller, and less inclined to vote than seniors. In 2004, for example, two over-65 citizens voted for every under-29 one. That means that facing McCain (an appealing figure to seniors, at least because he is over-70 himself) Obama may have a potentially dangerous weakness in the general election. Seniors count for much in some key states like Florida and Ohio, that in 2000 and in 2004 went to George Bush, tilting the electoral college to Republicans.

Obama gets about 60% in Wyoming

Barack Obama won with a substantial margin the Wyoming's caucuses, where Hillary Clinton campaigned vigorously (her radio commercial about health care, here). Democratic officials reported a turnout about 11 times higher than the one in the 2004 primary. Wyoming is the less populated State in the U.S. but the most Republican: George W. Bush won 69% of the popular vote both in 2000 and in 2004. The last time a Democratic candidate got a majority here was with Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The next primary is now scheduled on March 11, in Mississippi.

A LARGER, BIGGER DEMOCRATIC COALITION/1

While the interest of the media is focused on the candidates, political scientists should look at the tectonic shift under way in the American electorate. Seven years of Bush Administration have played the role of midwife to a new coalition of groups that is making the party younger, more affluent, more liberal, and more responsive to women, Latinos, and African-Americans. Of course, many of these constituencies were heavily tilted toward the Democrats already in the 1970s, but what is new is the growth of Latinos, and there commitment to the Democratic party. It is worth noting that still in 2004 Republicans scored some successes among them, playing the religious card (most of them are catholic, and traditionalist).

This shift, well described in a recent National Journal article, can be measured both by looking at the participation in the democratic primaries so far and by checking the polls about party affiliation.

We already noticed the surprisingly large turnout on the Democratic side ("Let's Crunch Some Numbers", below) but now Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International polls offer evidence that in 18 the states where it is possible to compare 2004 and 2008 caucuses and primaries, the share of the vote cast by young people has risen by substantial margins. Women's share of the vote has grown in 17 of the 18 states, albeit by smaller increments because the "gender gap" was already significant. In 12 of those states, Latinos have cast a larger percentage of votes, as have the voters who consider themselves liberals. African-Americans have boosted their share in 11 of the 18 states. Look at this chart, courtesy of National Journal, that shows how the movement was under way already in 2006.

LET'S CRUNCH SOME NUMBERS

With 99% of the votes counted in Texas, it looks as though the number of votes in the Democratic primary will largely exceed the number of votes cast for Al Gore in 2000, and match John Kerry's vote total for the 2004 general election. Kerry received 2,832,704 votes in Texas in 2004. At this writing, Clinton and Obama are at 2,812,289 between them. A primary that has a party turnout similar, or larger, than a general election is simply unprecedented in American politics and, indeed, Republicans voters on March 4 were about ONE THIRD of the voters who supported Bush in the 2004 general election.
Let's look at the 2004 Presidential Primary: four years ago Kerry got about 560,000 votes, Edwards 120,000, Dean 40,000 and other candidates about 115,00 for a grand total of 835.000 ballots cast. That is two million less than the number of votes cast this year. Or, Democratic voters seem to be this year more than three times the number they were in 2004. Hillary Clinton received more votes than all Republican candidates combined in Texas last night, Barack Obama received nearly as many. Clinton doubled the vote total of Republican nominee John McCain, Obama nearly did as well.
Remember, this is Texas, home of George W. Bush, who got 61% of the vote in 2004. Here, no Democratic candidate for President won the state's electoral votes since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Democrats haven't won a Senate race since Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, or a Governor's race since Ann Richards in 1990. Next Fall, observers may well throw their political maps out of the window.

Does Negative Political Advertising Pay?

One field of political communication that developed enormously in the last 20 years is related to TV commercials attacking political competitors: "negative campaigning" in the professional jargon. While there is no consensus on the general effect of smear tactics, several scholars maintain that they indeed damage the political process, shrinking and polarizing the electorate. What seems certain is that politicians hit by them, particularly if they are slow or timid in responding, do lose support. There are few doubts that Michael Dukakis's campaign was put in disarray by the "Willie Horton" and "Dukakis in the tank" commercials, produced by George Bush's consultants in 1988.
Compared to those, or to the "Swift Boat" ad aired by Republicans in 2004 against John Kerry, the "It's 3 AM and the telephone is ringing" commercial broadcasted in Texas by Hillary Clinton was not stronger than a cup of tea. And, in truth, it did not prevent Democrats from breaking any previous record of mobilization in Texas. However, while the last polls predicted a tie, with Obama catching up and maybe surpassing her, in the end it was the former First Lady who won. Part of her success can be explained by the effect of the commercial on precisely those voters it targeted, the Democrats and Independents, mostly female, who made up their mind only at the last minute.
The exit polls suggest that Obama and Clinton were tied among Democrats who made up their mind early (50-49), but there is evidence that she won handily among those voters who decided in the last three days, that is when her attacks were hitting Obama the hardest. In this category (one voter in five) Hillary got 60% of ballots, a huge margin. A pocket calculator is enough to show that it was this group which put her over the top, 51% to 47%. Obama's campaign responded, and You Tube quickly filled up with spoofs and parodies. No matter, the ad worked where it was supposed to work. Remember that before making any predictions about the results in November.

Ohio and Texas strenghten Clinton in key constituencies

It was good night for senator Hillary Clinton, all the more so because of Texas's and Ohio's exit polls. According to NBC's interviews, she had her usual strong support from women, and won white males in both states (see "Will 2008 Be a Remake of 2004? The Role of Working Class White Men" below). In Texas, she prevailed in this key constituency,50% to 48% and in Ohio with the larger majority of 58% to 39%. This gives her a strong rationale for continuing her campaign, because her major liability -the difficult relationship with white male voters- seems to fade. At the same time, one of Obama's most important assets -his ability to speak to a constituency that has been mostly favorable to Republicans in the last decade- is weakened.
Barack Obama made a great effort to win the Latino vote, but apparently he failed. The Texas Latino turnout was very large and these voters went Clinton in a landslide: 67% to 31%. And if Latinos will vote at this level in November Texas, that went by a large margin to Republicans in the last 32 years, would become a Democratic state (sealing victory for the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she is).


At the time of this writing, it is too early to say where the delegate count rests. Vermont and Rhode Island (where there were also primaries) cancel each other out. So it comes down to Texas and Ohio, but it is not clear whether Clinton has eaten into Obama's lead: it is still possible that he had won the delegate count last night. In this case, Clinton would have ended her good night with an important psychological result, but without making ground where it actually matters for the convention.
The good news for the party is that Democrats turned out in droves again: in 2008 the mobilization factor seems to be largely on the Democratic side. The bad news is that the enthusiasm must survive what can become a bitter political fight in the next weeks, or even months. Now, Obama has to prove that he can bounce back from his setbacks. He has had a charmed political season and a little political adversity is important to prepare for the brawl in the Fall. For Hillary Clinton, as the New York Times writes this morning, "the battle ahead is not so much against Mr. Obama as it is against a Democratic Party establishment that had once been ready to coalesce behind her but has been drifting toward Mr. Obama. The party wants a standard-bearer now."

Independents and Reagan Democrats: do they matter?

There is much talk, these days, on Independents and "Reagan Democrats," and about which of the potential candidates will have more appeal to them in November.
Apparently, the pundit class is not interested in looking more in depth into the issue, which has been throughly analyzed by political scientists and pollsters. One problem with the theory "You can win a Presidential Election only convincing the independents" is the fact that Karl Rove (above in a mock-photo, courtesy of About.com) won many an election doing precisely the opposite, that is polarizing the contest to the extreme. Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal, for example, points out that, "Bush-era Republicanism was all about suppressing the center and mobilizing the extremes, on the (correct) assumption that conservatives outnumber liberals. It worked, for a while, because of 9/11 and because the Democrats unwittingly cooperated. Forced to choose between the Republican Right and the Democratic Left, independents leaned Republican or just stayed home."
Rauch is correct in saying that "It worked, for a while," but this strategy is not a consequence of 9/11: it was advocated by Barry Goldwater as early as 1960, and put in action by Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan ran on the same platform of Goldwater in 1964, and won because a combination of different factors: the split in the Democratic traditional base after 1968, the hostages in Iran, the rallying to the conservative cause of a small number of intellectuals previously Democrats, and last but not least his personal appeal: it is well known that Americans liked the guy, much less his policies.
In the long run, however, the traditional support for the Democrats by workers and low-income families remained strong, as Larry Bartels of Princeton demonstrated. Contrary to the opinion of Thomas Frank in his much-hyped What's the Matter with Kansas?, Bartels maintains that less-fortunate Americans do vote Democratic, the problem is that they often don't vote in numbers large enough to win (here). It is well known that 90% of millionaires do vote, while individuals with an income under $30,000 often skip the ballot box (maybe, voting on Sunday, or making Election day a holiday would improve the turnout of those who must take 2 or 3 jobs just to stay afloat).
Therefore, a strategy that doesn't antagonize independent voters but counts primarily on the democratic base is perfectly reasonable. The trouble is that Democratic candidates really don't have an economic platform appealing to workers and low-income families: anybody is aware of Clinton's, or Obama's, proposals to save from catastrophy the millions of American families that lost, or are about to lose, their home in the subprime mess? Are they talking about reregulating the financial sector in any meaningful way? Obama is an inspiring orator, but platitudes about "change" will not rally displaced workers behind him in Ohio.
Politically, this year the situation in the field is this: a Democratic candidate not too weakened by a long battle in the primaries can easily win in November. It will need only to keep the blue States where John Kerry prevailed in 2004, and win in states like Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico (white or pink on the map): that would make 273 votes in the Electoral College. In Iowa and New Mexico a few thousand votes more (or, a few thousand votes LESS in the Republican column) will suffice. Colorado has been leaning Democratic in recent years, electing several smart politicians like governor Bill Ritter and senator Ken Salazar. For good measure, one can bet that Nevada and Ohio are winnable in 2008, creating a large majority in the Electoral College for a Democratic President who will have reinforced Democratic leaders in Congress (the party should pick some seats in the House and in the Senate as well).