The emerging Iowa primary semi-results have tempted me into committing punditry -- that is, poorly moored speculation on partial observations. Take this with a big grain of salt or skip if you don't want it.
Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post highlights that, whatever the end result, the Iowa caucuses did not produce the elevated turnout that Sanders, in particular, was predicting. The 170,000 people voting didn't come near the 240,000 that turned out in the simpler, more Democratic leaning, year of 2008.
I'd say it indicates a lack of voter enthusiasm of some sort -- in particular a lack of enthusiasm for those candidates, Biden and Klobuchar, who were supposed to be the "sensible" choices. The total would have been much higher if their voters had thought they had to turn out, even if it didn't change the final results. Biden's polls said he had a lot of such voters in his camp, but evidently they were no shows. They didn't think it was worth going through the hassle (about which they are all fully alerted) to caucus? Apparently so.
This makes me think about what I have learned over many years about the salience and content of enthusiasm in elections.
No doubt about it: you always want to be on the more enthusiastic team. You will feel the excitement while turning out voters on Election Day, though sometimes not so much during the long slogging weeks before.
Voters are moved by two different sets of emotions and both can drive turnout. One is hopeful promise. Primaries are usually the arena for inspiration; rather than what is, strong primary candidates strive to offer what could be. Looks like Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren won the night with this one.
Voters are also moved by fear. Fear is what we'll be up against in November: the terror of another term of Trump's cruelty, greed, and -- yes -- carnage aimed at those with the least defenses. Fear can be paralyzing, but it can also drive voter action. It's no fun, but it can spur movement.
Iowa seems to have brought out those who could find energy for hope in a muddled field. The general election will be different. It will be a referendum on Trump. That's what we have to win. And all the polling says we can win, if we work smart and very, very hard.
Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post highlights that, whatever the end result, the Iowa caucuses did not produce the elevated turnout that Sanders, in particular, was predicting. The 170,000 people voting didn't come near the 240,000 that turned out in the simpler, more Democratic leaning, year of 2008.
Oops. But what does that mean?Even as the Iowa Democratic Party was trying to sort out the chaos in its reporting system, a party official announced that turnout was “on pace” with what they had seen in 2016.
In other words, it was mediocre. About 170,000 people participated in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses, far short of the unprecedented 240,000 voters who turned out in 2008 and launched Barack Obama on his way to the White House.
I'd say it indicates a lack of voter enthusiasm of some sort -- in particular a lack of enthusiasm for those candidates, Biden and Klobuchar, who were supposed to be the "sensible" choices. The total would have been much higher if their voters had thought they had to turn out, even if it didn't change the final results. Biden's polls said he had a lot of such voters in his camp, but evidently they were no shows. They didn't think it was worth going through the hassle (about which they are all fully alerted) to caucus? Apparently so.
This makes me think about what I have learned over many years about the salience and content of enthusiasm in elections.
No doubt about it: you always want to be on the more enthusiastic team. You will feel the excitement while turning out voters on Election Day, though sometimes not so much during the long slogging weeks before.
 |
| What we wish the electorate would feel -- in another season. |
Voters are also moved by fear. Fear is what we'll be up against in November: the terror of another term of Trump's cruelty, greed, and -- yes -- carnage aimed at those with the least defenses. Fear can be paralyzing, but it can also drive voter action. It's no fun, but it can spur movement.
Iowa seems to have brought out those who could find energy for hope in a muddled field. The general election will be different. It will be a referendum on Trump. That's what we have to win. And all the polling says we can win, if we work smart and very, very hard.
UPDATE: It's gratifying to see my theory of the low turnout confirmed by one of the Wapo's better reporters: "[Biden's] candidacy has lacked a spark of enthusiasm, whether that’s defined as vision or energy or fight." Here's hoping Dems can manage to nominate someone who creates enthusiasm!
3 comments:
Thank you for your thoughts on this, Jan. You are always a light in the muddy world of politics for me.
People like Stacey Abrams talk about inspiring people than focusing on Trump, are they off base?
Dhivajri: Candidates who succeed definitely are those who can inspire. The project of the Republican Party is too interrupt any hint of inspiration in our politics -- they need it to all be about fear. Dems (all the top three candidates actually) treat Trump as a herpe on the body politic and try to focus elsewhere because hope and inspiration are necessarily elsewhere. Biden also has an inspiration riff -- but he can't seem to move it.
Post a Comment