Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General High Voter Turnout, Democratic Party advantage or an old wives tale

I have been embroiled in a debate about high voter turnout always helping the Democratic Party. I’ve stated that it was nothing more than an old wives tale. But had nothing to back my stance up. So here is the research result on that. I decided to share it without you all to find out what you think. I used VAP since VEP was only kept track of beginning in 1980.

Average voter turnout since 1960 in presidential elections 55%.
2020 62% high Biden winner
2016 55% average, Trump winner
2012 53% low, Obama winner
2008 57% high, Obama winner
2004 56% high, G.W. Bush winner
2000 51% low, G.W. Bush winner
1996 49% low, Bill Clinton winner
1992 55% average, Bill Clinton winner
1988 50% low, G.H.W. Bush winner
1984 53% low, Reagan winner
1980 53% low, Reagan winner
1976 53% low, Carter winner
1972 55% average Nixon winner
1968 61% high Nixon winner
1964 61% LBJ winner
1960 63% JFK winner

4 Democratic and 2 Republican winners when there was a high voter turnout, above average. 4 Democratic and 3 Republican winners when the voter turnout was low or below average. 1 Democrat and 2 republican winners when the voter turnout was average. Presidential wise, I see little difference between high and low voter turnout.

Midterm House elections. The average turnout for midterms is 40%
2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats
2014 38% low, Republicans gained 8 seats
2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats
2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats
2002 40% average, Republicans gained 8 seats
1998 37% low, Democrats gained 3 seats
1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats
1990 38% low, Democrats gained 7 seats
1986 38% low, democrats gained 5 seats
1982 43% high, democrats gained 27 seats
1978 39% low, Republicans gained 7 seats
1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats
1970 48% high, Democrats gained 12 seats
1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats
1962 46% high, republicans gained 4 seats

I still don’t see a correlation between high and low turnout benefiting one or the other party. What I see is when the house changed hands, control 1994, 2010 and 2018, turnout was high. But in 2006 when the democrats took control of the house with a net gain of 33 seats, turnout was low. Finally, I looked back at gains of one party or the other of 30 or more seats to compare that to voter turnout in the midterms.

2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats
2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats
2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats
1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats
1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats
1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats

4 with high voter turnout, 2 with low voter turnout. Interesting to note that in 3 of the 4 high voter turnout midterm elections, it was the republicans who gained 30 or more seats vs. 1 for the Democrats. The two elections that had low voter turnout, the democrats picked up 30 plus seats in both of those.

My conclusion, high voter turnout only benefiting the Democratic Party is an old wives tale that we all had bought into.

I am not convinced that its not "high voter turnout" but "low voter turnout" that tells the tale. My understanding, for instance, is that there was a recent election in Texas and only half of those on the left (Dems and friends) voted. This is not unusual on this side and its the reason the Dems work so hard to make sure everybody turns out. When they don't all turn out they simply do not win! its also my understanding that the Republicans, for the most part, usually turn out. Also, when the left don't turn out its obvious that they just don't give a damn. I'm also sure there is probably more to say about this but it would be more of the same.

Anyway...........

Interesting and you do have a point about low voter turnout for the democrats. I wasn't looking at it that way, just the generic high voter turnout equates to a big Democratic advantage. You're correct that democrats do have a history of not showing up to vote in general and I think I have the numbers to back that up. I'll stick with presidential elections as I didn't do this for the midterms. Democrats have always had since FDR a big party affiliation advantage, 20-30 point advantage for the most part, much smaller during and after Reagan which below shows.

2020 Democrats 1 point party advantage, 2 point actual voting advantage
2016 Democrats 5 point party advantage, 3 point actual voting advantage
2012 Democrats 8 point party advantage, 5 point actual voting advantage
2008 Democrats 8 point party advantage, 6 point actual voting advantage
2004 Democrats 4 point party advantage, 0 point actual voting advantage,
2000 Democrats 5 point party advantage, 3 point actual voting advantage
1996 Democrats 4 point party advantage, 2 point actual voting advantage
1992 Democrats 5 point party advantage, 3 point actual voting advantage
1988 Democrats 5 point party advantage, 2 point actual voting advantage
1984 Democrats 8 point party advantage, 2 point actual voting advantage

I'll stop it there as pre-1980 the Democrats had over a 20 point party affiliation advantage over the republican party. But this was a time when both parties had their conservative, liberal and moderate factions. Way before polarization, the great divide and the current mega, ultra high partisanship. Remember the old Rockefeller liberal republicans of the northeast and the solid Democratic conservative south. Hard to imagine today, that back in the 1950-1970's the northeast was fairly solid republican and the south very solid democratic

2020 is the only election when Democrats turned out a bit more than Republicans. Republicans have always had the higher voter turnout, percentage wise. That lower turnout of a drop of 2 points in 2016 and 2 points in 2000 probably caused Trump and Bush II to win. Now you do have to factor in independents which went for Trump by 4 points and to Bush II by 2 points. But not having the same percentage of turnout certainly hurt.

Keep in mind, I'm dealing with percentages, not total people turnout.

So running Black candidates like Clinton and Obama might have really helped Democrats by getting the Black voters to the polls, Probably Biden as well.

Maybe. I don't have the exact numbers of blacks who turned out to vote. But I do have the percentage of the electorate or the percentage blacks made up in those who actually turned out to vote.
1992 10%
1996 10%
2008 13%
2012 13%
2016 11%
2020 13%

blacks make up 13% of the population today. In 1992/96 blacks made up 12% of the population. I wasn't sure which Clinton you were talking about, so I included both. Some were saying back in Bill's day, he was the first black president elected if you can remember that.

With Bill, black turnout would be a minus 2 per their population. In 2008/12/20, black turnout was identical to the percentage of their population. With Hillary, another minus 2.

So I would say yes, with Obama at the top of the ticket and Harris as number 2, certainly the figures show your assumption to be correct. I'll throw the percentage of who blacks voted for in just for the heck of it.

1992 83 Bill Clinton 10 Bush 7 Perot
1996 84 Bill Clinton 11 Dole 4 Perot
2008 95 Obama 4 McCain
2012 93 Obama 6 Romney
2016 89 Hillary Clinton 8 Trump
2020 87 Biden 12 Trump

2020 is interesting in that even with Harris on the ticket, Trump received the most black votes of any GOP candidate going back to Reagan in 1980 when Ronnie received the same 12%. Ford in 1976 received 15%. Next highest Nixon 15% in 1968, 32% in 1960 with IKE receiving 39% of the black vote in 1956.

Actually, if you throw Bill Clinton out, 1992/96 due to the Perot factor, going with no viable third party candidate, Biden 87% of the black vote was the lowest since Carter received 86% in 1980.

So, perhaps having Harris on the ticket helped black turnout, but she didn't help getting blacks to vote for Biden. Which brings me back to an old adage, people vote the top of the ticket, not number 2 with the exception of the state from which number 2 is from. Harris being from California, didn't help the ticket since California was going Democratic regardless of who their candidate was.

Wrong forum.

You saying it doesn't belong here, alright.

Voter turnout is always determined by voter excitement about the issues of the day.

Whatever the issues might be, there are always voters who approve and voters who oppose.

It's more a matter of which party excites the most voters to get out and vote.

2020 was a moratorium on Trump. Both sides were excited. But more left leaners got off the couch. Coulda gone the other way if Trump hadn't been such a prick.

I moved it.

Reagan was interesting all on his own! I really believe that he won because he always seemed so damned nice and understanding! The movies trained him in this and it was his thing, in the movies and running for office. Hell, I voted for him! Nobody has even come close to the man when it comes to popularity although, I think, some figured it out the second time around.

Always thought that was pretty interesting.