Thursday, December 3, 2009

The Great 2010 Voter Black Out

Nate Silver goes inside the numbers and pulls up a very disturbing trend:  where much has been made this week of the "enthusiasm gap" between Republicans and Democrats who plan to vote in 2010, when you look at black voters, the gap is significantly worse.
The racial demographics, however, are perhaps even more striking. Whereas 68 percent of white voters told Research 2000 they were definitely or probably planning to vote in 2010, just 33 percent of black voters did. Although whites have almost always turned out at greater rates than blacks, the racial gap has never been nearly that large, and indeed was at its smallest-ever levels in 2008 with Barack Obama on the ballot.



The highest turnout gap since 1978 -- 13.0 points -- came in 1994, an inauspicious year for Democrats, when 50.1 percent of white adults turned out versus 37.1 percent of blacks. The smallest gap came last year -- 64.8 percent of whites voted versus 60.8 percent of African-Americans.

It's commonly assumed that the race gap tends to be larger in midterm years and smaller in Presidential elections -- but there's not actually that much evidence that this is the case. Since 1978, the gap has been 9.4 percent on average in midterm elections and 9.0 percent in Presidential elections.
In other words, the worst the gap between Black and White voters has been 13.4% in 1994...not a good year for the Donks.  It was the lowest: just 4 points, in 2008...a phenomenal year electorally for the Dems.

That Daily Kos poll from the weekend shows the gap to be thirty-five points.  I'm betting given decades of data on this, the Kos poll is just too small a sample and that's why the numbers are hideous.  If they were true, if only 33% of blacks plan to vote in 2010, that would be an unmitigated disaster for the Dems, as in the Republicans would not only take the House back, but they'd put in current Dem numbers for the margin they would have.   They'd actually win the Senate, too.  It would be a bloodbath of biblical proportions, something like a 120 seat flip in the House and 20 in the Senate.

I just don't see that happening.

You know, unless health care reform fails again....or worse, the bill that does pass is a disaster without a public option, but has mandates with fines and no subsidies.  That of course would get the Dems drummed out of Washington for a generation.

But they're not that stupid up there in Washington, are they?

1 comment:

Paul W. said...

Well, one quick point. Any bill passed will boost Dems in 2010, because most of the effects won't be felt but Congressmen and women can come home and say they have delivered. Most voters aren't paying close attention, and for them anything delivered is good. Once the bills effects start kicking in then folks will no longer be voting on "is Congress doing its job" to "what kind of job did Congress do?"

Related Posts with Thumbnails