2008 Voter Turnout

[Tender Branson]

I´m wondering what the turnout figures for 2008 will be. From 2000 to 2004 the number of votes cast grew from 105.5 Mio. to 122.3 Mio. - an increase of roughly 17 Mio. votes.

With 2008 being an open election and the US population growth at a high level, there will be more eligible voters and thus the number of voters is likely to increase. But will we see another spike of 17 Mio. votes next year to reach the 140 Mio. ?

The second question will be if any candidate, Republican or Democrat, will reach 70 Mio. votes cast next year. I assume there´s no major 3rd party candidate running, otherwise this question is dispensable.

[SPC]

I'd say 135 million voters.

[Tender Branson]

I'd say 135 million voters.

But even with 135 Mio. voters, 70 Mio. for a candidate would be possible, just needs to get 52% of the vote.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Yes/No.  If either Barack Obama or Bill Richardson is on the Democratic ticket, one would expect higher African American or Hispanic turnout than usual.  Also Hillary Clinton would definitely get more votes from women, even if no higher percentage of women turnout. 

[BushKenya]

Yes/No -- With the vast and ever-increasing unpopularity of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration in general, I think we have much higher turnout than in past elections, with numbers possibly topping 140 million, if not 130 for sure.  I doubt any candidate gets 70 million votes, as I believe there will be a credible third party this time around that would suppress both major candidates to 65-68 million, just underneath the 70 million threshold you have.

[Tender Branson]

Just did some calculating on the recently released 2006 election returns by the FEC and now I think the most likely turnout will be 135 Mio. next year. A candidate would need 52% of the vote to reach 70 Mio. votes then ...

[Lіef]

I doubt we'll have very high turnout. I think that one side or the other will be clearly ahead at election day, and many people will decide to just stay home, thinking that one candidate or the other will win a landslide anyway.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I predict that Minnesota will have the highest turnout once again, possibly topping 80% of all voters. 

[Tender Branson]

I predict that Minnesota will have the highest turnout once again, possibly topping 80% of all voters. 

Wisconsin may give Minnesota a run for the money ...

MN: 76,8% Turnout 2004
WI: 76,2% Turnout 2004

[Verily]

I predict that Minnesota will have the highest turnout once again, possibly topping 80% of all voters. 

Wisconsin may give Minnesota a run for the money ...

MN: 76,8% Turnout 2004
WI: 76,2% Turnout 2004

What was turnout in 2006? Each state had one competitive race, so that part is even.

[ottermax]

They say on the news that there will be heavy turnout...

[Tender Branson]

I predict that Minnesota will have the highest turnout once again, possibly topping 80% of all voters. 

Wisconsin may give Minnesota a run for the money ...

MN: 76,8% Turnout 2004
WI: 76,2% Turnout 2004

What was turnout in 2006? Each state had one competitive race, so that part is even.

MN had a turnout of 60,8% in the 2006 midterms (Precentage of Voting Eligible Population)

WI had a turnout of 53,3% in the 2006 midterms (Precentage of Voting Eligible Population)

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2006.htm

When looking at the Precentage of Voting Age Population (18+), South Dakota had a higher turnout than MN - 57,1% to 56,3% ...

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

What is considered high turnout in the US?

[Verily]

What is considered high turnout in the US?

60.8% in a midterm election is astounding. That's high even for a Presidential election (though it varies from state to state).

[frihetsivrare]

It depends on the candidates.  If Clinton and Giuliani are the nominees and no third party breaks 2% of the vote, about 100 people will vote.  My wish is that the number of voters for president will be down in the 35-45% range.  That is IF those are the nominees.  Not voting sends a stronger message than voting for an establishment candidate, or writing in people who are either moderately bad dictators or dead.

If Ron Paul is the nominee of the Republican Party, voter turnout will be at the very least 140 million.  He would win the votes of the vast majority of those who did not vote in 2004 or the 2006 midterms.  At least 90%.  Many of these people don't vote because they don't see enough of a difference between the corporate parties.

As I stated in one of my predictions, third parties will probably have an impact.  Two or more parties will combine for at least 10% of the vote, all coming from new voters.  That will not push it to 140 million, but to at least 130.

[Secretary Polnut]

Yes/No.  If either Barack Obama or Bill Richardson is on the Democratic ticket, one would expect higher African American or Hispanic turnout than usual.  Also Hillary Clinton would definitely get more votes from women, even if no higher percentage of women turnout. 

Which would bode well.

Think about this. The swing from women to the Republicans in 04 was one of Kerry's biggest weaknesses. A 4% swing away from you, from your single biggest voting bloc is deadly. If whoever the democrat is can bring back those women who voted Gore but not Kerry. OK - women constituted 54% of voters in 2004 and roughly the same in 2000 - Gore got 55% of their votes, Kerry, only 51%. If the voter numbers increase in 2004, and that proportion remains the same - the Democrat should be able to expect a increase of about 1.3-5 million votes alone.

[Tender Branson]

Yes/No.  If either Barack Obama or Bill Richardson is on the Democratic ticket, one would expect higher African American or Hispanic turnout than usual.  Also Hillary Clinton would definitely get more votes from women, even if no higher percentage of women turnout. 

Which would bode well.

Think about this. The swing from women to the Republicans in 04 was one of Kerry's biggest weaknesses. A 4% swing away from you, from your single biggest voting bloc is deadly. If whoever the democrat is can bring back those women who voted Gore but not Kerry. OK - women constituted 54% of voters in 2004 and roughly the same in 2000 - Gore got 55% of their votes, Kerry, only 51%. If the voter numbers increase in 2004, and that proportion remains the same - the Democrat should be able to expect a increase of about 1.3-5 million votes alone.

Going back to the share of women who voted for Gore (+4%) is one thing for Clinton, not losing another 5% of male voter share that Kerry got is another one ...

Just did some calculating on the 2006 Spitzer/Clinton exit polls. Their winning margin was about the same, so it´s easy to compare:

Clinton's overall winning margin was 36%. Spitzer's margin was 41%.

Men elected Clinton by a margin of 25%, Women by 48% (69% and 133% of the winning margin)

Men elected Spitzer by a margin of 32%, Women by 50% (78% and 122% of the winning margin)

...

So, male voters contributed 9% less to Clinton´s victory than to Spitzer´s, while women contributed 11% more to Clinton´s victory than to Spitzers, or something like that ...

[MarkWarner08]

I´m wondering what the turnout figures for 2008 will be. From 2000 to 2004 the number of votes cast grew from 105.5 Mio. to 122.3 Mio. - an increase of roughly 17 Mio. votes.

With 2008 being an open election and the US population growth at a high level, there will be more eligible voters and thus the number of voters is likely to increase. But will we see another spike of 17 Mio. votes next year to reach the 140 Mio. ?

The second question will be if any candidate, Republican or Democrat, will reach 70 Mio. votes cast next year. I assume there´s no major 3rd party candidate running, otherwise this question is dispensable.

My gut is that this campaign will turn out like 1988 -- very negative with low turnout. The way the GOP can win is to relentlessly attack Hillary. Independents will probably stay home in larger numbers because they are disenchanted with the Democratic and the Republicans. candidates. If the campaign boils down to this: The Democrat wants to raise your taxes, choose to lose in Iraq, socialize Medicine, and do the bidding of the radical left vs. the Republican who supports the Bush agenda, staying in Iraq forever, doing nothing about health care. What will motivate indys to vote?

[Tender Branson]

When using Turnout of the 18+ crowd (Census Bureau Estimates) rather than the Current Population Survey, Turnout was even lower:

Aged 18+ on Election Day 2000:

211 Mio. (Census Estimate) - Voted: 105.4 Mio. -> Turnout: 50%
206 Mio. (CPS Estimate)  - Voted: 105.4 Mio. -> Turnout: 51%

Aged 18+ on Election Day 2004:

221 Mio. (Census Estimate) - Voted: 122.3 Mio. -> Turnout: 55%
216 Mio. (CPS Estimate)  - Voted: 122.3 Mio. -> Turnout: 57%

Aged 18+ on Election Day 2008:

probably about 232 Mio. (Census Estimate)
probably about 227 Mio. (CPS Estimate)

So, if we assume that 232 Mio. people will be above 18 in 2008 and the turnout is the same as in 2004 (55%), about 128 Mio. people will turn out to vote.

[WI_Dem]

My personal guess is that the winner will be in the 52-53% range on turnout of 135 million people so no on both counts then.

[Tender Branson]

My personal guess is that the winner will be in the 52-53% range on turnout of 135 million people so no on both counts then.

Actually, if you assume turnout of 135 Mio. and the winner to get at least 52%, the winner will have 70.2 Mio votes in the end. So No/Yes for the question ...

[Tender Branson]

For the 2008 Primaries I expect that there will be at least 40 Mio. combined votes. About 20 Mio. for Democrats and Republicans each. In the 2000 Primaries about 19 Mio. voted in the Republican Primaries and about 14 Mio. in the Democratic Primaries. 16 Mio. voted in the 2004 DEM Primaries. I think that Supertuesday 2008 will show higher than normal turnout due to the competetiveness of Clinton/Obama/Edwards and Giuliani/Romney/Thompson/Huckabee/McCain. Turnout on ST could be lower though, if lets say Clinton and Romney win every early state before Supertuesday ...

[Tender Branson]

Again, I did some calculating and I think that turnout likely won't reach 140 Mio. this year:

I think turnout will be somewhere between 130 Mio. and 134 Mio.

Some historic statistics for this explanantion:

Nov. '88 - Total pop: 245.4 Mio. - aged 18+: 182.0 Mio. - Turnout: 91.6 Mio. => 50.3%
Nov. '92 - Total pop: 257.6 Mio. - aged 18+: 190.8 Mio. - Turnout: 104.4 Mio. => 54.7%
Nov. '96 - Total pop: 270.5 Mio. - aged 18+: 200.0 Mio. - Turnout: 96.3 Mio. => 48.2%
Nov. '00 - Total pop: 283.3 Mio. - aged 18+: 210.7 Mio. - Turnout: 105.4 Mio. => 50.0%
Nov. '04 - Total pop: 294.2 Mio. - aged 18+: 220.8 Mio. - Turnout: 122.3 Mio. => 55.4%

Nov. '08 - Total pop: 305.4 Mio. - aged 18+: 231.3 Mio. - My Estimated Turnout: 56-58%

My calculations are based on Census Estimates of each year - projected mathematically to November of each election year, rather than the American Community Survey Estimates that Dave uses in his Election Statistics. The ACS uses lower estimates of the total population and the 18+ population - which are not based on the 1980, 1990 or 2000 Census - and therefore inflates turnout by about 1-2%. Based on my calculations I would recommend US election officials to brace for absolute turnout that is up to 10% higher than in 2004. So, make sure you print enough ballots ...

[Vasall des Midas]

I'd be surprised if turnout as a percentage reaches 2004 levels. Gross vote might be up anyways, but I seriously doubt it'll hit 130 mio.