The Brookings Institution hosted a live Web chat today with their voting guru Michael McDonald. Below are questions I submitted as well as a few other exchanges. Turnout and what prods that turnout seem, predictably, to be on everyone’s minds during these least few weeks.
Comment From Katy Steinmetz:
Are black voters going to turn out for Obama like they did in 2008? Why or why not? How big of a difference do you think this will make?
Michael McDonald:
Since we started surveying, pollsters have found that midterm electorates — compared to presidential electorates — tend to be older, wealthier, better educated, and composed of fewer minorities. Sometimes Democrats can overcome this hurdle, as they did in 2006, of course. It would be highly unusual for African-Americans to vote at the same rate as they did in 2008. In some key races, in states with large minority populations, lowered levels of minority voting could be a critical determinant to the outcome … Since we began surveying, polls consistently show that young people, minorities, the poor and uneducated tend to vote at lower rates — perhaps the most ironic thing about this election is that the people most affected by the economic downturn are the least likely to vote.
Comment From Dale Dean (Arlington):
I was wondering from the historical record how closely early results mirror the actual results. Are there systemic distortions in early voting that are the same over many elections or do they differ with each election?
Michael McDonald:
Early voting does not necessarily correspond with Election Day voting. Several data sources suggest the following: Overall, prior to 2008, more Republicans tended to vote early. In 2008, it was Democrats who voted early. We have to see 2010 will be a continuation of 2008 or a reversion to previous elections. Another important factor is the number of early votes. For high early voting states like Oregon and Washington, essentially ALL votes will be cast early. In other states that require an excuse to vote absentee, the early voting electorate will be much smaller, and have a partisan character more similar to pre-2008.
McDonald also pointed chatters to his project site, where you can check out early voting numbers, updated daily. For some races, the totals are even broken down by party, age, gender and other demographics. More than 2 million have already cast a ballot.
Comment From Katy Steinmetz:
When Republican pundits like Karl Rove predict gains of 60 or so seats in the House, does that help or hurt them (in terms of making Republicans complacent and driving Dems to the polls)?
Michael McDonald:
One of the big questions in this election is the relative effects of enthusiasm versus voter mobilization. Republicans are hoping the enthusiasm gap will help them to victory, while Democrats are banking on their organization to GOTV [get out the vote]. So far as I can tell, neither side has a distinct edge yet.
Comment From Rosemarie (NH):
Has there been any correlation between the level and campaign spending (especially on advertising) and the results? How do you think negative campaigning impacts turnout?
Michael McDonald:
A funny statistic is that the more an incumbent spends, the worse they do. This is because they are spending to counter a threat. from a viable challenger. This is why this is one of the most difficult questions to answer — surprisingly. We do not know the marginal effect of another dollar spent because the other campaign is also spending money.
It used to be that people thought negative campaigning decreased turnout, but since then, numerous studies have shown it increases turnout. People are apt to be interested in slowing down and watching the accident on the side of the road. The media certainly enjoy covering the most negative campaigns, too.
You can read the full Web chat here.