Does It “All Come Down to Turnout?”
Party-switchers, ticket-splitters, and the decisive volatility waiting to be harnessed
American politics has become more polarized. What does that mean for winning elections?
Here is how CBS describes their House forecast:
You might ask, do Democrats have any chance to hang on to a slim House majority? The answer with that starts with the possibility they get bigger turnout from young voters, the way they did in 2018.
Those who shape the political narrative —- the media, hyper-partisan issue groups, ideologues on the fringes — crave the resulting conflict and benefit (often financially) from this frame of an ever-more-polarized electorate.
The hyper-polarized turnout hypothesis is false (summarized by Ruy Texeira in “Turnout Myths Are the Democrats’ Drug of Choice: Anything To Avoid Having To Actually Persuade Voters.”)
For the “trust the science” party, the social science - and basic math - is clear. Polarization is important, and so is turnout. But… from The Welcome Party’s 2019 launch:
An analysis by the data scientists at Catalist showed that 89% of the difference between 2016 and 2018 was persuading voters to switch (the remaining 11% was due to differences in voter turnout). Democratic congressional candidates stuck to core issues, engaged to a broad set of voters, and won seats in purple districts.
Now that we are one year away from the presidential election, Democrats have … basically ignored these lessons. And many are rightfully freaking out.
How is ignoring those lessons working out? In a recent CBS poll, a majority of voters believe that, if Democrats win, they will “Open the US Mexico Border” and “Cut Police Funding.”
Attacks on the GOP are getting through: a majority of voters also believe Republican victory will lead to impeaching Joe Biden, overturning elections, and passing a national abortion ban.
In the poll, however, Republicans are winning.
Volatility on Blue Turf
Republicans are also now competing in districts Joe Biden won by 20% or more — and Democratic resources are surging into districts of a deeper shade of blue:
This could be viewed as cause for alarm, for doubling down in the turnout myth. It should also be a reminder of not just volatility but of dispersion and idiosyncratic risk — of the need for defense in blue districts, but also of the potential for going on offense in red districts.
Meet Us On The Flip Side
In February, we asked you to “meet us on the flip side” of this polarization frame:
In many ways, we now live in a world shaped by the premise set forth by the polarization hawks in the media and echoed by candidates, issue groups, and “political hobbyists” who treat politics like sports. Democrats have, at large, moved to the left in recent decades as Republicans have moved to the right. Growing extremism at the fringes has also mobilized each party’s base to show up and vote against the other side’s base, contributing to historic increases in turnout across the board.
But meet us on the flip side: growing polarization also means that volatility among the shrinking (yet still substantial) population of swing voters in the middle still determines control of government. As more Americans become diehard partisans, we should place increased value on those depolarized voters — and the candidates who can reach them.
What is on the flip side? Party-Switchers and Ticket-Splitters
Nick Reynolds writes for Newsweek on analysis from The Welcome Party on split-ticket voters - and split election results - in “Split-Ticket Voters Could Save Democrats in Key Swing States”
During the 2018 midterm elections, 13 of the 18 states with both a U.S. Senate and gubernatorial race on the ballot saw the Republican Senate nominee receive fewer votes than their party's gubernatorial nominee, with some states exhibiting disparities as high as nearly 17 percentage points.
In some races, that turnout—and the type of candidates running in the race—made all the difference.
And yesterday’s New York Times:
In Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent, holds a double-digit lead in his race against former Dayton mayor Nan Whaley. But Representative Tim Ryan, the Democratic Senate contender, is running neck-and-neck with J.D. Vance, the Republican candidate and author endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump.
A recent poll by the Siena College Research Institute found that 20 percent of Ohio voters who said they were pulling the lever for Mr. DeWine said they also intended to vote for Mr. Ryan, a showing that could give him a shot in a state that was expected to choose another Republican to replace retiring Senator Rob Portman.
The poll provided an opening for Mr. Ryan and his allies. NBC News reported that WelcomePAC, a Democratic group backing Mr. Ryan, took out newspaper ads asking voters, “Why are 1 in 5 Republican voters saying no to J.D. Vance?” and hitting Mr. Vance ...
That closing campaign for WelcomePAC in Ohio is asking that question: “Why No JD?” Elevating the data (more than 1 in 5 Republican gubernatorial voters are not with JD Vance in every single public poll) and empowering split-ticket voters. As Tim Miller has noted, split-ticket voters “are real and they’re spectacular.”
Welcome Volatility
The only thing more spectacular than ticket-splitters this election season? Party-switchers, those patriotic and independent minded fellow Americans like former GOP county chair Chris Gibbs:
Flipping a vote is worth two votes. Our democracy is worth trying to flip more.
Just to reinforce - party switching went the other way too. In Florida, "Democrats" voted heavily for Rs. Just look at Hialeah where DeSantis got 80% of the vote.