For all the talk of Republican Revolution 2.0, there is one greatly underreported story: low votes.
In 2008, the year of Obama/McCain, there were 3.03 million voters in the state of Washington.
In 2010, last night, there appear to have be 1.4 million voters (with a few left to be counted) but just about half of the 2008 numbers.
And before you jump to say that Obama was a huge revolutionary year, think about the ultra-boring Bush v. Kerry contest of 2004, which drew 2.85 million votes. Given that Obama in 2008 only drew a couple hundred thousand more is to show you that even in boring presidential years turnout is much, much higher than in mid-terms.
In 2002, with no president or senate race on the ballot, even the attractive and popular “$30 Car Tabs” initiative only drew 1.75 million votes, or about 60% of the upcoming presidential election. The 2000 Bush v. Gore and Cantwell v. Gordon races drew about 2.46 million votes; the 1998 senate contest between Murray and Smith only drew 1.8 million votes. Even the 1996 Clinton/Dole contest drew 2.25 million to the 1.7 million for the last Slade Gorton race against Ron Sims which only drew 1.7 million voters into the fray.
1994 is an important year to note as it was Republican Revolution 1.0, the first Contract with America. The 1.7 million votes in the state of Washington was still 500,000 below the 2.2 million in the presidential years bracketing it in 1992 and 1996 (Bill Clinton’s first and second terms). This was the year when George Nethercutt upset Tom Foley as House Speaker in the big Newt Gingrich Republican fueled takeover. Newt engineered a government shut down a few years later and the republicans were on their way to legislative defeat but ultimate presidential wins for G.W. Bush’s two terms.
Why this is important is that the tenor of the reporting is breathless and sweeping in the “takeover” and “upset Americans”. Well, half of the voters who went out in 2008 didn’t give a shit to vote.
That might seem like a harsh way to put it, but that’s the truth. There was nothing, not a candidate, not the economy, not the tea party, not gays, not abortion, not race, judges, etc. (insert your important wedge issue here) that could get them motivated to put a ballot in the mail (it’s even easier to vote now than in 2008 or 2004 or 1994).
The real story of the 2010 elections is this: American’s don’t give a shit what happens in Washington D.C.
I say it in this way to make a point: the current reporting is so far off base as to be un-credible. Not incredible, because the republicans did win a bunch of races and control of the house. Good for them, way to go, you took back a lot of the ground you lost in 2008 with more independent/democratic turnout. That’s a fine story to report. But to try and say that this is any way a real “referendum on Obama” or a sign of where we are headed is really false to the numbers.
Imagine a vote in which 100 people cast a ballot. Then image another vote 2 years later when only 50 people cast a ballot. Would the lead story be the wishes of the 50 people who voted, or some consideration why 50 people sat out the election entirely. Were they angry, upset, unmotivated, or what? Whatever the reason, their sitting out certainly signals at least the natural inclination of about half of registered voters to totally check out and not care what happens in off election years.
A good proposal to deal with this would be to extend the term of the house of representatives to 4 years and the senate to 8 years. This would ensure that the natural bias of turnout to presidential years would have the fullest expression of voter sentiment for representatives as well as the president. Or leave it with the current 2 and 6, but then don’t report a major turning point election when you have half of the voters not even taking part. That is a ridiculous sentiment, and one not matched by the facts.
Given that tea party favorites O’Donnell and Angle were handily defeated, and an Alaska write-in have appeared to win, along with the most notable wins coming from former Bush administration officials, you can’t really say that it was tea party sentiment that carried the day. While it may have moved some to action, it clearly did not carry the day ideologically in most of America. Hispanic vote tended to keep trending to the democrats, unless you count the Latino candidates fielded by the republicans (which kind of makes sense). African-American vote also remained steadily democratic, as did the vote of those under 30.
Harry Reid, a very old and not very exciting candidate kicked Sharon Angle’s tush in the under 30 vote. So kids coming out in Nevada of all places realized that Harry Reid more closely represented them. For those over 60, Angle had a decided advantage. In California a similar story played out with Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman: Brown won the youth, woman, and latino vote in a state where there is already a natural democratic majority. Even with his 100 to 1 (or more) funding gap, Brown won easily.
These demographic tales show in the majority of the races in the West, and nationwide. Democrats retained a steady advantage of the under 35 vote, party identification, minority vote, and women under 45. Trouble was, they just didn’t show up very much to offset other votes. This doesn’t paint a story of a country upset with president Obama, it paints a story of voters who aren’t motivated to help him out. I would argue that the lack of turnout is a tacit endorsement of President Obama, and a declaration that many (if not most) voters don’t care about how hard it has been for him to work, bu that they don’t care how hard it will be for the next two years. The turnout numbers clearly show that most voters take a 4 year snapshot and then vote with their gut: they check in for presidential elections and vote how they feel. In 2008 voters voted for change, in 2000 and 2004 they narrowly voted conservative (although recount issues in both cast these totals into doubt, but that’s a separate issue). In 1992 and 1996, the country was far less divided (ushering in a democrat both times).
Presidential (and related) elections generate the turnout to make bold pronouncements about the wishes of Americans. Mid-term elections: important and worth reporting, but not in the breathless “revolution” type manner that we are seeing.
Isn’t this the coolest pic you’ve seen in a while. So cool it woke SpoVegas from hibernation just to post it. It’s so “Seattle Rip Off” but also very “East Side Chic” and it just looks awesome. Right down to the formless blue hippies and the VW microbus to add flavor to the scene.