An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Guest Voice: The Enthusiasm Gap

NOTE: This is a special Guest Voice sent out by Political Scientist Larry Sabato, whose Crystal Ball is required — and reliable — reading for all political junkies and concerned citizens. Read and get it HERE.

THE ENTHUSIASM GAP
Voter engagement in the presidential race


By Alan I. Abramowitz
Special Guest Columnist

Dr. Alan Abramowitz is one of the most distinguished and best known political scientists in the United States today. He has a rare talent for distilling data into appealing, fascinating accounts about American politics, as you will see in his guest column for the Crystal Ball today. Alan is the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University and the author of Voice of the People: Elections and Voting Behavior in the United States (2004, McGraw-Hill).
–Larry J. Sabato, U.Va. Center for Politics

There is a large enthusiasm gap between Democratic and Republican voters in this year’s presidential campaign. The gap is evident in polling data, crowds at campaign rallies, turnout in primary elections, and campaign contributions. In a January 10-13 Gallup Poll, for example, 74 percent of Democratic voters said that they were “more enthusiastic than usual” about voting this year compared with only 44 percent of Republican voters. Forty-eight percent of Republican voters said that they were “less enthusiastic than usual” about voting this year compared with only 15 percent of Democratic voters.

The Democratic advantage has also been evident in turnout in presidential primaries. On February 5th, Super Tuesday, almost 15 million voters participated in Democratic primaries compared with fewer than 9 million in Republican primaries. One week later, more than 1.8 million voters in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia participated in Democratic primaries compared with fewer than 800 thousand in Republican primaries. Even in Virginia, until recently considered a solidly red state, Democratic turnout more than doubled Republican turnout.

The Democratic advantage in turnout represents a big change from the 2000 presidential primaries, the last time both parties had competitive nomination races. In that year over 19 million votes were cast in Republican primaries compared with only 14 million in Democratic primaries.

Last but certainly not least, the leading Democratic candidates have raised far more money from individual contributors than their Republican counterparts. During 2007, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised a combined total of 208 million dollars from individual contributors. During the same period, the three leading Republican candidates, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, raised only 99 million dollars from individual contributors.

Like the Democratic advantage in primary turnout, the Democratic advantage in fundraising represents a reversal of the situation that existed during the 2000 presidential campaign. In that year, the two leading Republican candidates, George W. Bush and John McCain, raised a total of 130 million dollars from individual contributors while the two leading Democratic candidates, Al Gore and Bill Bradley, raised only 105 million dollars from individual contributors.

While the enthusiasm gap between the parties is real and important, there is also strong evidence of an enthusiasm gap within the Democratic Party: supporters of Barack Obama appear to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than supporters of Hillary Clinton. This difference is reflected in the larger crowds that Obama has been attracting at his campaign rallies and the larger number of individuals who have contributed to Obama’s campaign.

Although Obama and Clinton received about the same amount of money in individual contributions during 2007, 26 percent of Obama’s contributions came from individuals giving less than 200 dollars compared with only 12 percent of Clinton’s contributions. As a result, Obama’s contributor base was much larger than Clinton’s. And this gap appears to have expanded dramatically the first few weeks of 2008 according to reports issued by the two campaigns. As of the end of January, the Obama campaign claimed to have received contributions from over 350 thousand individuals while the Clinton campaign claimed to have received contributions from about 150 thousand.

Obama’s enthusiasm advantage may also explain his dominance thus far in the caucus states.
Read the rest of it HERE.

  • superdestroyer
    The Republican's lack enthusiasm is very understandable. All of the primary candidates were several flawed. The Bush Administration and the Repulbicans in Congress have showed no leadership. And last but most important, Republican politicians cannot stop lying. They talk about smaller government and spending cutbacks but then run up huge deficits and increase the size of the government. They have figuratively spit in the face of ever part of the Republican party and blatantly lied to the voters.

    The Republicans know that they are on the decline and that demographics will eventually make them totally irrelevant. How can anyone get excited about an organization that has no future?
  • DLS
    I've had to field and defuse various emotional arguments from lefties on here (including dishonest accusations of emotionalism by me, ironically), and I have to note that hatred of Bush is 99% triumph of emotion (hatred) over reason, and the same thing, emotion, explains well over 50% (could be 70-80%+) of support for Obama. (Not only pro-Obama, but anti-Establishment. Many are sick of the status quo. Hopefully that doesn't lead to the delusion that what's needed is more, not less, activism and interventionism by Washington. The sane want less, not more.)

    The lack of enthusiasm for the GOP this year is indeed understandable. The field was weak. Superdestroyer has it right. It continues to be Business As Usual in Washington. Neo-conservaties (older, broader definition) and 1994 so-called "revolutionaries" corrupted by power and money in DC find things just fine the way they are. They're happy too often to behave just like the Dems when it comes to money and power, as well as behave frequently as Dems Lite when it comes to politics.

    I don't know about having no future, Superdestroyer -- bear in mind that while the numbers are against them, particularly in future decades, there will always be a normal, decent, intelligent, healthy opposition to Business As Usual in DC, which the GOP can catch by default, even if it fails to fulfill the right role. In particular, as our demographic problems and unsustainable universal entitlement programs result in an unprecedented demand for additional taxes or debt (and we may face a debt trap if we undertake the debt alternative), there will develop a great conflict between the beneficiaries (particularly the elderly, whose conservativism from aging will be overruled by devotion to the Democratic Party for their entitlements along with other beneficiaries) and the taxpayers, who will face what Americans have not faced before when it comes to taxation levels (and possible higher debt), with no prospect of seeing the same entitlements they will be paying (too much) for in the present. There will be a need to reach some kind of ugly "equilibrium" of howling between beneficiaries and taxpayers (tax increases and benefit reductions). The Democrats are the benefits, free-lunch, more-more-more party; the GOP should still have a rule as the Opposition and the defender of the taxpayers, those paying the bills (even if they do a poor job for us currently).
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC