Political Campaigns: Turnout vs. Persuasion
John Sides had an interesting post
concerning the importance of turnout in the 2014 election for
Democrats. The post concerned Sasha Issenberg’s article
in the New Republic entitled “How the
Democrats Can Avoid Going Down This November” and responses to the article.
Here are the key paragraphs from Sides’ post:
So here is where I come down in
this debate. No one disagrees that “turnout matters,” and of course
Democrats should work hard at turning out Democratic voters in 2014. This
is what made Issenberg’s piece
and Bonier’s analysis
so interesting.
The question is how much
turnout matters. My sense is that commentators still put too much
emphasis on it. That is, there is not enough grappling with what changes
in the electorate do not explain — such as, perhaps, the majority of
Republican seat gains in 2010. There is not enough grappling with how
Democrats did so well in 2006 despite a midterm electorate, as political
scientist Michael McDonald has
noted. For more, see Mark Mellman’s four excellent columns on this, and especially
political scientist Seth Hill’s research.
Perhaps there is too much emphasis placed on the importance
of turnout, but I find Mellman’s posts on the importance of persuasion as
unconvincing and self-serving. It’s trite but true that election results depend
on who votes: one candidate’s supporters or the other candidate’s supporters
(assuming a two candidate contest). If you want to win, then you need to ensure
that more of your candidate’s supporters vote than supporters of the other
candidate. How do you do that?
First, you need to identify potential voters. This is
difficult because you’re dealing with a constantly changing set of people.
There are, of course, those voters from the previous general election that are
a part of the potential electorate, but some won’t vote, have died, moved out
of the electoral district, been incarcerated, or are otherwise disenfranchised.
So, good records are important
.
After determining the potential voters, you need to identify
those individuals who are likely to support your candidate. Party
identification, if people register as partisans, is good indication of their
voting preference or predisposition. When that is not available, records of
their voting history are important. One of Issenberg’s more important
contributions in his article is the distinction between “reflex voters” and
“unreliable voters.” Reflex voters vote in both presidential and
non-presidential elections. Unreliable voters are present for presidential elections,
but not non-presidential elections.
The chart notes the important
characteristics of each type of voter:
The unreliable voters appear very likely to vote for
Democratic candidates; so they need to be identified and mobilized. They also
need to be persuaded to vote for the Democratic candidate.
Issenberg
acknowledges that it’s not just mobilization (turnout) that’s important. You
also need to persuade:
The “it will all come down to
turnout” meme misapprehends get-out-the-vote operations as a form of ratification—the final frenzied push to ensure that the people whom
candidates have persuaded all year actually cast a ballot. The new playbook on
the left, as made evident in the Bannock Street budget, inverts that logic:
Democratic Senate campaigns will be designed to mobilize their way into
contention, then persuade their way across the finish line.
Furthermore, Issenberg recognizes that it’s not turnout
versus persuasion. It takes both for a candidate to be successful in receiving
more votes than his opponent. It’s the order of the effort: mobilization
followed by persuasion.
To nobody’s surprise, that is the strategy employed by Turn
Texas Blue (TTB) in its support for Wendy Davis’ gubernatorial campaign. First,
identify the unreliable voters and mobilize them by explaining how the election
of Wendy Davis is important to their interests. That is, identify and make
contacts. Then, persuade them to act on that knowledge by casting their vote
for Davis in November. We’ll see if the strategy is effective. Realizing, of
course, that other factors influence the outcome of a gubernatorial election.
Comments
Post a Comment