At 538 Carl Bialik points out something interesting. Although early voter turnout rose in 2016, fewer voters cast votes as a percentage of those eligible particularly in states carried by Hillary Clinton:
The raw number of votes rose: About 1.4 million more Americans voted in this year’s election than in 2012, a total which itself was down from 2008. But the electorate was growing in the meantime: About 57 percent of eligible voters cast ballots this year, down from 58.6 percent in 2012 and 61.6 percent in 2008, which was the highest mark in 40 years. Turnout still remained well above levels for most presidential election years from 1972 to 2000.
The drop in turnout was uneven. On average, turnout was unchanged in states that voted for Trump, while it fell by an average of 2.3 percentage points in states that voted for Clinton. Relatedly, turnout was higher in competitive states — most of which Trump won. In the 14 swing states — those where either the winning party in the presidential race switched from 2012 or where the margin was within 5 percentage points — an average of 65.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. In the other 36 states and Washington, D.C., turnout averaged just 56.3 percent.1 That gap exacerbates a tendency for turnout to be higher in the places where candidates concentrate their travel, advertising and other get-out-the-vote efforts.
There’s clearly more than a single explanation for that. But it does throw cold water on any voter suppression hypothesis and adds credence to the explanation I suggested yesterday. So, for example, turnout fell in California and increased in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
It may be that there just weren’t as many voters to turn out as they thought there were.
The link claims around four million more votes to tally, more than half of them in California, but looking through the links it appears that if all of the votes go to California, there will have been less turn-out than in 2012.
Doesn’t this analysis suggest that the Democrats might have done better if they thought the race was tight? I don’t think its news that turnout is higher in battleground states, but unless one lives in one of the perpetual battleground states, under the definition applied here (decided by less than 5%), the increased motivation to vote has to come from a belief that the race will be close. How could that be?
There is the top-down view, that the media and Democratic leadership conveyed an over-confident view of the state of the race, possibly best articulated by the Huffington Post article claiming Nate Silver was putting his thumb on the election with his overgenerous poll analysis. Trump supporters didn’t read the same articles.
There is the bottom-up view, when you notice friends or family that traditionally voted Democrat saying they would be voting for Trump. American sorting means liberals in major cities are less likely to know someone crossing over.
An unrelated factor is that I don’t think anybody plausibly thought African-Americans would vote in the same numbers for anyone not named Obama.
The link claims around four million more votes to tally, more than half of them in California….
The general incompetence of California when it comes to counting votes is staggering.
Pocketbook. Culture. Arrogance.