Florida VT statistics (2014) - in context

[Statistikhengst]

I want to make a mathematical point that has nothing to do with partisan preference.

It is often said that mid-terms are "base elections", meaning, only the base of the party comes out to vote.

And last night's primary vote in Florida proves the point very well.

First, in context, in 2012, 8,495,175 votes were cast in the presidential election, setting a Florida record for the most votes ever cast for president.

Here all of the prez voting in FL since 1856, you can see the numbers for yourself.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=12&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

According to the FL SOS website:

Voter Turnout Statistics - Florida Division of Elections - Department of State

that represents a 72% voter turnout rate in 2012, which, interestingly enough, is lower than the 75% from 2008, but more votes than 2008, which means that Florida's population grew between 2008 and 2012 more than people realize.

Now, fast forward to 2014, the primaries:

News from The Associated Press

In the combined GOP and DEM primaries last night, 1,785,847 votes were cast. At least that is the vote count to-date.

According to FL VR statistics:

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voter-registration/statistics/pdf/2014/pri2014_CountyParty.pdf

For this election in 2014, 11,807,507 Floridians were registered to vote.

1,785,847 / 11,807,507 = 15.12% voter turnout. Now, those are just preliminary totals, they are bound to go up some. But how do they compare to the primaries in 2010 (the last mid-term)?

Voter Turnout Statistics - Florida Division of Elections - Department of State

According to the FL SOS, in 2010, VT was 22%, considerably higher than this time around.

In the 2010 mid-terms, VT was 49%. So, we see around 3/4 of the FL electorate coming out in presidential elections, and less (or half) coming out for mid-terms. Soon, we will know what the VT for the mid-term was once November 2014 comes and goes.

Florida is just one example. In pretty much every state of the Union, especially states that do VR by party affiliation, the numbers show a considerably lower turnout rate for mid-terms than for presidential elections. Why? Because the base comes out for mid-terms, which quite often favors the GOP, and a much larger electorate comes out for Presidential elections, which has now favored the Democratic Party in the NPV in 5 of the last 6 national elections, but neither is a guarantee for the future.

For this reason, we should not use primary results to predict general election outcomes, and we should not use mid-term general election outcomes to try to predict the next presidential election. There is just too much disparity in the type of electorates that show up for these two different election cycles.

And on a side-note: when you consider the money and time that goes into elections, it really is a shame that VT is often so low.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP:

@AVG-JOE @Mad_Cabbie @JakeStarkey @Wolfsister77 @william the wie @Mertex @aaronleland @Bloodrock44 @daws101 @Delta4Embassy @MarcATL @Mr Clean @Nosmo King @Derideo_Te
@Nyvin @rightwinger @Sallow @oldfart @Thx @candycorn @Seawytch @C_Clayton_Jones @Barb @JoeB131 @editec @Flopper @Grandma @guno @bodecea @Pogo @Machaut @AceRothstein @kiwiman127 @bendog @PoliticalTorch @TheOldSchool @Jughead @cereal_killer

Anyone who doesn't want to be on this occasional mention (tag) list: just let me know, I will drop the name immediately. If you want onto the list, just let me know. I really am trying to make this a totally non-partisan list.

Thanks,

-Stat

Folks, please do not quote this posting, otherwise, you send out the mention list again. Thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GOP must take FL and OH to stand a chance in 2016, I think, and perhaps VA as well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

GOP must take FL and OH to stand a chance in 2016, I think, and perhaps VA as well.

And indeed, voter turnout is part of the equation as to which party wins in those key states.

In 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, it was often called the "Trifecta": OH-PA-FL. But PA did not swing in 2000 or 2004.

Instead, VA, NC and CO had really joined the battlegrounds, so I am considering calling it a Quintefecta:

CO-FL-NC-OH-VA.

Whoever wins 3 of those five is pretty much guaranteed the election.

 

[Nyvin]

And indeed, voter turnout is part of the equation as to which party wins in those key states.

In 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, it was often called the "Trifecta": OH-PA-FL. But PA did not swing in 2000 or 2004.

Instead, VA, NC and CO had really joined the battlegrounds, so I am considering calling it a Quintefecta:

CO-FL-NC-OH-VA.

Whoever wins 3 of those five is pretty much guaranteed the election.

The Republicans "have" to win Florida...winning CO, NC, OH, and VA is not enough without winning Florida. Even adding in PA to those four you still come up with 272 by giving the Dems the other swing states.

There is quite literally no possible route for the GOP to the White House that doesn't include winning Florida.

For the GOP it's really a 2 phase election: 1. Win Florida 2. Win the majority of the rest of the nation

Frankly though I'd really consider CO and VA blue-leaning states at this point, and everything about them shows them getting more blue. OH might start trending to the GOP though, and WI.

 

[william the wie]

now that the China housing data has confirmed a correction is underway the picture will change rapidly and drastically.

 

[JakeStarkey]

now that the China housing data has confirmed a correction is underway the picture will change rapidly and drastically.

William, please explain.

 

[william the wie]

China has built an estimated minimum of 1-2 US GDPs of mostly empty real estate since the meltdown. The range is based on different ways of measuring China's GDP. Plus there are nearly 30 years of legacy overbuilding issues. The meltdown involved 0.7 US GDPs in writedowns on less than 10% of unsalable empty investment real estate plus knock on effects. So this could be a much bigger problem than the meltdown. PMI (Purchasing Manager Index) numbers also look like an even bigger disaster may be brewing. The effects could be good or bad here in the US it depends on whether the region concerned benefits from the China bubble or from automating the jobs now in China to bring the revenues back here. But 40% overbuilt real estate in China seems to be in the ballpark.

 

[Statistikhengst]

China has built an estimated minimum of 1-2 US GDPs of mostly empty real estate since the meltdown. The range is based on different ways of measuring China's GDP. Plus there are nearly 30 years of legacy overbuilding issues. The meltdown involved 0.7 US GDPs in writedowns on less than 10% of unsalable empty investment real estate plus knock on effects. So this could be a much bigger problem than the meltdown. PMI (Purchasing Manager Index) numbers also look like an even bigger disaster may be brewing. The effects could be good or bad here in the US it depends on whether the region concerned benefits from the China bubble or from automating the jobs now in China to bring the revenues back here. But 40% overbuilt real estate in China seems to be in the ballpark.

I fail to see what this has to do with VOTER TURNOUT statistics.

 

[william the wie]

It doesn't yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

so we have the economic strength to stick the government knife into the financial heart of China and bring those jobs back to the US

 

[william the wie]

Don't know about the government but net jobs are moving this way and have been for the past 8 months. UE has also been decreasing. But since these are almost solely red state outcomes (3 to 1 advantage) at least during the Obama administration voter turnout numbers are going to change but I don't know when.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And indeed, voter turnout is part of the equation as to which party wins in those key states.

In 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, it was often called the "Trifecta": OH-PA-FL. But PA did not swing in 2000 or 2004.

Instead, VA, NC and CO had really joined the battlegrounds, so I am considering calling it a Quintefecta:

CO-FL-NC-OH-VA.

Whoever wins 3 of those five is pretty much guaranteed the election.

The Republicans "have" to win Florida...winning CO, NC, OH, and VA is not enough without winning Florida. Even adding in PA to those four you still come up with 272 by giving the Dems the other swing states.

There is quite literally no possible route for the GOP to the White House that doesn't include winning Florida.

For the GOP it's really a 2 phase election: 1. Win Florida 2. Win the majority of the rest of the nation

Frankly though I'd really consider CO and VA blue-leaning states at this point, and everything about them shows them getting more blue. OH might start trending to the GOP though, and WI.

Can't win florida with over 2/3rds of the hispanic vote going against you. Miami county will make sure Republicans don't win Florida.

Nev, Co for the same reason is gone...

Not to go into the reality that NC, Va and Oh are very hard to get...If at all.

2016 the vote will shift 2% into the non-white column. So it will be harder.

 

[Toro]

Scott's leading in the polls right now. Don't know if it means anything, but he has come from a long way back.

Crist is as smooth as silk and has a very good personal touch whereas Scott is more wooden than heart pine. However, Scott has far more money, the incumbency and the Republicans are far better organized. So if the polls are close on election day, I think Scott will win.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And indeed, voter turnout is part of the equation as to which party wins in those key states.

In 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, it was often called the "Trifecta": OH-PA-FL. But PA did not swing in 2000 or 2004.

Instead, VA, NC and CO had really joined the battlegrounds, so I am considering calling it a Quintefecta:

CO-FL-NC-OH-VA.

Whoever wins 3 of those five is pretty much guaranteed the election.

The Republicans "have" to win Florida...winning CO, NC, OH, and VA is not enough without winning Florida. Even adding in PA to those four you still come up with 272 by giving the Dems the other swing states.

There is quite literally no possible route for the GOP to the White House that doesn't include winning Florida.

For the GOP it's really a 2 phase election: 1. Win Florida 2. Win the majority of the rest of the nation

Frankly though I'd really consider CO and VA blue-leaning states at this point, and everything about them shows them getting more blue. OH might start trending to the GOP though, and WI.

Can't win florida with over 2/3rds of the hispanic vote going against you. Miami county will make sure Republicans don't win Florida.

Nev, Co for the same reason is gone...
Not to go into the reality that NC, Va and Oh are very hard to get...If at all.

2016 the vote will shift 2% into the non-white column. So it will be harder.

Though none of what you wrote is actually meant by the OP, I concur with your feelings on in.

72% of the electorate was white in 2012. It will likely be 69-70% white in 2016 which means that unless the GOP makes massive inroads into the minority vote, it is going to have to struggle mightily at a DEM column that STARTS at about 257 EV. This does not leave the GOP with much wiggle-room at all. And alone the fact that even Republicans are admitting that both VA and NC have gone from bedrock GOP states to bitterly contested battlegrounds shifts the math even more against the GOP.

By achieving, essentially, hyperdominance in the deepest of the deep South - the GOP has pretty much completely forfeited the East Coast, the Acela States, the West Coast, the upper Mid-West and two heavily hispanic states in the Mountain West. That leave the breadbasket part of the Midwest and the Big Sky states (+ Alaska) in addition to the Deep South as bedrock GOP states, but that does not add up to many electoral votes.

But back to the actual OP: the data from Florida, completely irrespective of party or winner, once again shows that a vastly reduced "clientele" shows up for mid-terms as opposed to presidential elections. And we see this trend pretty much all the way back to the early 20th century, once Senators were also elected per popular vote.

We have yet to see a mid-term election where the voter turnout was even close to the presidential election 2 years before or the one 2 years afterward.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

GOP must take FL and OH to stand a chance in 2016, I think, and perhaps VA as well.

We need to deStarkify the Republican Party and get back to what worked: the Conservatism of Reagan and Coolidge

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stay Cool with Cal...

 

[Statistikhengst]

CrusaderFrank: did you know that Calvin Coolidge set the all-time GOP record for it's highest winning percentage and margin in any one state?

Vermont, 1924.

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond GOP superlatives 1904-2004


The superlatives only to go 2004, but neither McCain nor Romney won a state with a superlative margin to surpass anything on the list. Not even Romney's % in Utah surpasses Reagan from either 1980 or 1984.

 

[ScienceRocks]

GOP must take FL and OH to stand a chance in 2016, I think, and perhaps VA as well.

We need to deStarkify the Republican Party and get back to what worked: the Conservatism of Reagan and Coolidge

I doubt hard core libertarianism is what Hispanics, blacks and Asians want. They're the ones making up a larger and larger percentage of the vote.

 

[Rikurzhen]

And indeed, voter turnout is part of the equation as to which party wins in those key states.

In 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, it was often called the "Trifecta": OH-PA-FL. But PA did not swing in 2000 or 2004.

Instead, VA, NC and CO had really joined the battlegrounds, so I am considering calling it a Quintefecta:

CO-FL-NC-OH-VA.

Whoever wins 3 of those five is pretty much guaranteed the election.

The Republicans "have" to win Florida...winning CO, NC, OH, and VA is not enough without winning Florida. Even adding in PA to those four you still come up with 272 by giving the Dems the other swing states.

There is quite literally no possible route for the GOP to the White House that doesn't include winning Florida.

For the GOP it's really a 2 phase election: 1. Win Florida 2. Win the majority of the rest of the nation

Frankly though I'd really consider CO and VA blue-leaning states at this point, and everything about them shows them getting more blue. OH might start trending to the GOP though, and WI.

Can't win florida with over 2/3rds of the hispanic vote going against you. Miami county will make sure Republicans don't win Florida.

Nev, Co for the same reason is gone...
Not to go into the reality that NC, Va and Oh are very hard to get...If at all.

2016 the vote will shift 2% into the non-white column. So it will be harder.

Though none of what you wrote is actually meant by the OP, I concur with your feelings on in.

72% of the electorate was white in 2012. It will likely be 69-70% white in 2016 which means that unless the GOP makes massive inroads into the minority vote, it is going to have to struggle mightily at a DEM column that STARTS at about 257 EV. This does not leave the GOP with much wiggle-room at all. And alone the fact that even Republicans are admitting that both VA and NC have gone from bedrock GOP states to bitterly contested battlegrounds shifts the math even more against the GOP.

I always find these types of analysis amusing for they are all built on what I call the "Hotel California Democratic Model" , that is, you can check in but never leave. What am I talking about? Your analysis that the only path forward for Republicans is to capture a higher share of minority vote. Why are whites who vote for Democrats permanently locked into the Democratic factional alliance? Every group the Democrats presently hold is open for a Republican raiding party.

After the 2012 elections we heard a lot of analysis about how the Democrats won the youth and women's vote but there was very little exposure of the news that staid old Mr. Romney won the white youth vote and the white women's vote and increased the share of the white vote.

The "Hotel California" model is not operational, voters can check out of the Democratic Party.

The real contest is going to be one focused on RATE of growth. Democrats are like to capture increasing shares of Hispanic voters and Republicans are likely to continue their trend of capturing larger shares of the white vote. Which process will show the best results? Whites start from a large base, so even a small increase in support results in millions of new votes whereas the smaller Hispanic base requires the Republicans to win over a larger share of the vote in order to capture the same number of voters. Secondly there is the issue of demographic distribution, if Hispanics are heavily concentrated in a few states and the Democrats do a stand-up job in winning their votes, that doesn't buy the Democrats anymore Electoral College votes. Contrast to a more diffused approach from Republicans who capture an increasing share of the white vote across the nation and such an outcome may be enough to tip the balance in contested states.

From where I sit the contest is bidirectional and its hard to predict how it will play out. One point though is certain - as the share of minority population in a state increases, the share of whites who vote Republican also increases. This will likely keep places like Vermont solidly Democratic but will introduce some unforeseen pressures into other states.