Texas Observer poll to show D primary turnout was 2/3 new voters
I returned from a day in Houston to find a release from the Texas Observer that touted a press conference that is scheduled for Thursday:
The Texas Observer will release the results of its first-ever Texas Observer Poll at a news conference at 10 a.m. Thursday, May 29, 2008, in the Speaker’s Committee Room of the State Capitol.
The poll surveyed 2,500 voters, half of whom never participated in a primary until 2008. The other half participated in previous Republican primaries, but this year voted in the Democratic primary. Results of the survey are in the next (May 30) edition of The Texas Observer.
I have heard some talk about the findings of the poll, which was basically an effort to determine the makeup of the voters who turned out in such overwhelming numbers on March 4. Here’s my understanding of what the poll is going to show:
* 66% of the Democratic primary voters either had NO history of voting in previous Democratic primaries (going back to 2002) or had previously voted in at least one Republican primary.
* The breakdown of these two groups was:
–No Democratic primary history 55%
–Republican primary history 10.8%
* 9.4% of the Democratic primary voters indicated their intention to vote for John McCain for president.
* The dropoff after the presidential race was extreme. Downballot races received very little attention from these voters.
These numbers have caused me to reevaluate the significance of the Democrats’ two-to-one advantage over Republicans in primary participation. If these voters had had a history of of voting in the Democratic primary, it would be reasonable to conclude that they were loyal Democrats. But 2/3 of the voters in the Democratic primary did not meet this description.
The voting pattern–a huge spike in turnout combined with little interest in downballot races–indicates that the presidential race was the main motivating factor for 2 out of 3 Democratic voters. No surprise there. The question is, Can the D’s reap the benefit of this huge turnout in the U.S. Senate race and in local races for courthouse positions and for legislative and congressional races? Two-thirds of the primary voters showed little interest in these races. The problem for Democrats is twofold: First, can they raise the money to educate these voters about the downballot races? and, second, can the enthusiasm that new voters exhibited on March 4 be sustained over the eight months between the primary and the general election?
I suppose that a different spin could be applied to these numbers, but my reading is that the poll is bad news for Democrats.
Wayne Slater says:
I think you’re right, Paul. There’s another, finer point here as well — the prospects of Obama at the top of the ticket in Texas poses a bigger challenge for Dems getting voters engaged down ballot.
The story we wrote in The Dallas Morning News found in in the March primary, Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot. More than 80 percent of Democratic voters in the Texas counties where Clinton had her largest victory margins went on to vote in the U.S. Senate race, the leading statewide contest on the ballot after the presidential race. But only 71 percent of voters in Obama’s strongest counties did.
Obama voters are there to vote for Obama; the task for Democrats is to make sure they keep voting down the ballot.
Reply »
houtopia says:
One thing that may explain the higher participation downballot by Clinton voters — a large chunk of her support came from South Texas, where the Democratic primary has been the de facto general election for years. Voters there are used to going down ballot in March to vote for Sheriff, DA, County Judge, etc. In the urban areas where Obama’s support was concentrated, Democratic primaries have been essentially meaningless, and attracted very few voters.
I agree there is a challenge in getting these new Democratic voters to vote in contests other than the presidential. There is a simple, easy option available to them, however, which was not there in the primary — voting a straight ticket.
Even though it is highly unlikely there will be a general election campaign in Texas between McCain and Obama, you almost certainly will see recorded messages (auto calls, etc.) from Obama in Houston and DFW, telling these folks to vote for him and all the other Ds on the ballot by voting a straight ticket.
Reply »
houtopia says:
One final thought…
A bigger challenge for Texas Democrats, in my judgment, will be getting Hispanics in South Texas and across the state to turn out in large numbers without Clinton as the nominee.
Again, since many of the races in South Texas are decided in the primary, and given the apparent lack of enthusiasm among Hispanics for Obama (I believe this situation can and will be improved, at least to some degree), lackluster participation from Hispanics in November is a real concern.
A well-funded Noriega Senate campaign could and likely would ameliorate much of this problem, but whether or not he will be funded is the $64,000 (rather, $10 million) question.
Reply »
Red says:
The trick is to educate Dems to vote straight-ticket, not just for President. Just a different box is all.
Reply »
Anonymous Lout says:
Alternatively, Paul, you could look at those numbers and see opportunity for the Dems. I don’t think anyone thought this huge turnout of primary voters was composed solely of closet Dems who’d just been waiting for the chance to vote in a primary. Rather, having an actually relevant contest for once inspired all sorts of people to vote in the Dem primary. The great opportunity for the Dems is that they were able to get people to put a “D” by their name for the first time. That, alone, cuts into the Republican advantage in Texas. And should still worry R’s going forward into the fall.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
As Obama continues to stumble on foreign policy, voters who were initially attracted by his rhetoric are starting to see that he is a lightweight we can ill afford to have as Commander in Chief. McCain is perfectly positioned to exploit this weakness as he has done to great effect on the campaign trail in the last couple of days. By the time we get to November, those lukewarm supporters of Obama will come back over and Dems wiil once again be muttering about making the same mistake again and again (nominating for president an unelectable liberal elite)
Reply »
JFK's Ghost says:
I disagree with the theory that huge turnout in the Democratic primary is bad news for Democrats. That many voters did not vote down ballot for mostly uncontested races in a primary is not the issue. The important factors are 1) these voters are mostly new voters and they are not voting GOP, and GOP numbers are down as well; 2) Dems now know where to focus their resources to get votes unlike the GOP; 3) Obama at the top of the ticket is trouble for GOP candidates in urban districts; and 4) if anyone has paid any attention to recent special elections from Dan Barrett in Fort Worth to the recent Congressional race in Mississippi, they should know that something is going on here. Dems obviously have to work these new voters and introduce themselves on a race by race basis. Worst case scenario is that they just do not vote down ballot at all. Whatever number that might be, it is worse news for urban GOP candidates than it is for their Dem opponents.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“The important factors are 1) these voters are mostly new voters and they are not voting GOP”
Yes, but because they are first time voters, they are not ideologically immovable. They can be swayed if the reasoning for their primary voting behavior no longer seems compelling. That is exactly what is happening now. These voters are up for grabs and they are increasingly moving over to McCain from Obama because moderates and centrists see McCain as a more acceptable candidate the more Obama reveals about himself on a substantive level
“Obama at the top of the ticket is trouble for GOP candidates in urban districts”
This advantage is undercut in Texas by Hispanics who are coming over to McCain because Obama does not reflect their conservative cultural values
Reply »
JFK's Ghost says:
I have seen nothing to make me believe that people who voted for Obama in the primary are now going to vote for McCain. In fact, the opposite is true. Everyone knows that McCain represents a third Bush term and let us not forget the little bombshell Mr. McClellan dropped yesterday. McCain’s lobby scandals continue along with his lack of understanding about how to deal with Iraq and the struggling economy. I am at a loss when it comes to understanding your claim that Obama is going down the drain, but then again, I do not watch Fox News. Do whatever you want to convince yourself “all is well” with the GOP brand, but the facts show something different and we all know that. McCain is McSame.
Reply »
Porteno says:
Primary turnour never matters.
Reply »
Porteno says:
turnout
Reply »
cow droppings says:
Most important issue: how many first-time D primary voters vote in the general election typically, or at least presidential years? If they are already have a history of voting D in the general then them voting in the D primary is a net gain of zero for voters in this category. Hence, there is the temptation to over-estimate the significance of high D turnout in the primary this year.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“Everyone knows that McCain represents a third Bush term”
Not really. This is a Obama talking point, but the truth is that McCain has never been known as someone who follows the ways of others. In fact, quite the opposite is true. This is why he has a lot of cross over appeal and is the one Republican candidate to whom the “third Bush term” nonsense just doesn’t stick. Voters see throught it easily.
“let us not forget the little bombshell Mr. McClellan dropped yesterday”
Scotty is a disgruntled opportunist. He cites himself as an authority on matters, such as strategy on the war, where he never attended meetings where the issues were discussed. It is interesting that when Scotty was press secretary you lefties were saying what an idiot he was, but now that he is singing your tune, he is suddely a well informed hero.
“McCain’s lobby scandals continue . . .”
??? What is your source on this? Could it be maybe . . Daily Kos? . . . truthout? . . . Puffington Host??
” . . .along with his lack of understanding about how to deal with Iraq and the struggling economy.”
Agreed that his discussion of the economy has not been first rate and he needs a VP who can be strong on this point, but your statement that McCain has a lack of understanding about how to deal with Iraq is just insane. You would trust Barack over McCain as Commander in Chief? Barack, who hasn’t even met personally with General Petraeus for a briefing or visited Iraq in the last 2 years since the surge has resulted in improved conditions in Iraq? Barack, who wants to dialogue with terrorist enablers like Ahmadinejad?
No, I don’t think all is well with the GOP and there are sure to be further losses in the House and Senate, but the Dems are in trouble at the top of the ticket in November.
Reply »
Niamh says:
Poll says 9.4% of D primary voters said they’ll vote for John McCain. Wouldn’t these be Republican voters carrying out the talk-radio campaign urging listeners to “go vote for Hillary” on behalf of McCain?
Reply »
Emptyk says:
It is a tortured trail that leads from this poll to a conclusion of bad news for Democrats. John McCain is stronger than other Republicans because he is not a very good Republican. Every special election,every poll from every part of the United States shows Republicans in trouble. The only place that they seem to be in good shape is in the offices of Texas Monthly and the Dallas Morning News.
In Texas we have experienced everything from a legislative meltdown to a Democratic tsunami.
Pablo, you and Slater are having to fight to remain in denial. When the special congressional election in Mississippi (MISSISSIPPI, for heavens sake!) resulted in a Democratic victory, the air went out of the Craddick victory balloon.
In Fort Worth Kim Brimer is plum beat for re-election and he can’t figure out a way back.
In Corpus Christi, you are just not going to beat a blond haired, blue-eyed Hispanic Gulf War vet who went to Harvard law with an old,fat insurance lobbyist.
Gentle friends in the capitol press corps, you are in serious danger of looking foolish. This is NOT 2000. Between them, as of March 31, 2008 Clinton and Obama have raised $435 million. Of that, $145 million was in contributions of less than $200.
The world is different and Texas is part of that different world.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis says:
This will be a change election.
The Democrats’ only chance of changing things in the state Capitol is to change the voting pool.
A huge turnout could do that.
This has the potential of benefitting of Demorat House candidates, for example.
One poster contends that McCain will sweep Texas. Maybe so. But I wouldn’t count on a large margin – unless you are counting on voters to keep the status quo…..you know –
an endless war in Iraq without either an exit plan or a definition of victory;
ever rising gas prices – along with ever rising costs for anything else that needs to be transported;
corporate enticements to move jobs oversees;
the list is long
Reply »
Leland Beatty says:
Paul, you’ve certainly framed the question right: can the downballot Democrats reap the benefit of such a huge number of new primary voters? But it’s too soon to jump to the end of the story and place a yes or no bet on that.
No, these voters aren’t loyal Democrats yet, but some share of them have that potential. And most of them will vote for the Democratic presidential nominee this fall, whoever that may be.
The question comes down to how well the downballots can reach out and gain the recognition and support of these voters. This is the learning moment for these voters; they have a new interest, and for a time they’ll take in new information. Most, given the chance, will find additional candidates to support. If they find several, they’ll likely be straight-ticket voters this fall.
The downballot Democrats I’m working with are already making contact with these voters, talking to them about state issues and the importance of the other races. They’re getting a good response, and I believe that in many cases they’ll do much better than the top of the ticket.
I might split a hair with you also on whether these voters, as you say, just didn’t care about the rest of the ballot. Another way to look at it is that they just didn’t know about the rest of the ballot. They aren’t political junkies; in fact, until this primary, they weren’t very interested at all. There were only a few downballots that had any money to spend in the primary, and so voter education stopped at the presidential race. As any classroom teacher will tell you, if half the class could only answer the question on the exam, don’t blame the students.
The good news is that it’s more efficient now to communicate directly with the self-identified new primary voters. My candidates tell me they’re getting the voters’ attention better now that most of the presidential distractions have faded away.
While I can see your point of view, the poll results left me with both a tremendous optimism about the fall, and an understanding of how much work there is left to do.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
This is NOT 2000. . . The world is different and Texas is part of that different world.
Lucy the Republican is teeing up the football for Democrat Charlie Brown. Again.
Reply »
José says:
Just like 2006, when Rove was talking victory.
Reply »
B/CS Observer says:
The real question is how many people who voted for Bush in 04 voted in the D primary this year.
I think the drop off for with Obama voters in downballot races reflects two things-
1. New voters who are independent or moderate D/R who like Obama for Obama and are not tied or very informed about the down ballot races.
2. Conservatives who were crossing over either to have a say in all the action or to sabotage the D primary.
This should be troubling for both parties.
For the R’s, they face a candidate (Obama) whose less committed followers are behnind him for his personality and charisma, which will not be easy to attack. They should be concerned that moderate R’s are attacted to him out of fear tat they might leave the party forever if they continue to be attracted to him. But it should make them feel somewhat better that people do not seem to be associating with Democratic ideas and values across the board.
For the D’s, this is an opportunity and a danger. They can attract many new people into their party if they can find a way to keep them. They have to find their own message and build a coalition on issues. Saying they are not the GOP and running against Bush will only last as long as he is in office. Obama is more of a personal phenomeon rather than a guy who has built a coalition on policy issues. Without Bush and Obama, they would be just as lost for a message as the GOP is now days.
As far as this goes for Texas House races, the lack of downballot voting and the victories for the Craddick forces in the primary tell me that the D’s have been totally unable to link Craddick to unpopular policies like tuition deregulation. People across the state immedetely think of Rick Perry and blame him when they hear of some policy development they say is negative. His personal magnetisim for criticism lets other state officials like Dewhurst and Craddick.
I’ll be honest, if D’s want to depose him, they are just going to have to take back the House by beating Republicans the old fashioned way- Running good candidates in swing districts. The problem for them there is that Texas is still 60-40 conservative, an that most conservatives are going to vote GOP.
Reply »
Charles Kuffner says:
Paul, have you checked the dropoff rate from the Presidential primary to the other statewide races for 2004? It’s not that different from what we observed this year.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Empty K says that McCain is strong only becuase he is not a “good Republican”. There really is not much truth to that when you consider that idea in terms of the issues voters care about most in 2008 which, accoring to a Gallup poll are:
1) Economy
2) Situation in Iraq
3)Corruption in government
4)Healthcare
5)Education
6)Terrorism
7)Social Security
On these issues, McCain’s policy positions are exactly those of a “good” Republican. The fact that McCain continues to draw centrist and moderate support away from Obama while hewing to orthodox Republican positions points to a couple of points: 1) for all the challeges that the GOP has had (exacerbated by the media love fest with Obama), this is essentially a center-right country; 2)Obama is now entering the “middle rounds” of the presidential race (to extend the boxing metaphor, he is fighting for the title). As with many young fighters who start out blazing, Obama’s glass jaw is starting to show and the the cagey master McCain knows how to take advantage. Too bad for the Dems. This would not be happening if Hillary had the nomination.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I think Scott McClellan’s book is just another nail in the Republicans’ coffin this year outside of Texas. Inside of Texas, however, Republicans will continue to hold power.
Reply »
paulburka says:
I would encourage readers to check out comment #17 by Leland Beatty. Mr. Beatty did the numbers crunching for the Texas Observer poll that is the subject of my post. He is a professional; the rest of us are just amateurs.
Reply »
John Robert BEHRMAN says:
Two Lumps of Coal
I agree w/ BEATTY that there is lots of upside here for my party and for all the down-ballot candidates, if the Democratic party can work like a real party.
There are two Democratic parties in Texas:
There is the usually demoralized, bottom-up, “bourgeois” party that is very loosely affiliated with the DNC and very different in parts of a state with some serious diversity. Then, there is a more homogeneous, trickle-down “aristocratic” one that centers on the DCCC in Washington, with money-driven, consultant-run clearing houses in five urban areas. They talk about “diversity” but are invariably white, male lawyers.
Both of these components — the “unregulated militia” and the “patronage-chain” were suprised and are still reeling from 4 March. Neither has the tools to raise the political participation rate (registration + turnout – vote suppression), and both usually lack the will to enforce ballot discipline in November considering their vested interests in either perpetual incombency or targeted campaigns, respectively.
The Obama campaign (in Chicago) has the right tools but is poorly led in Texas: It is strong in the five urban areas, but not supported by the DCCC wing of the state party there. The Clinton campaign is better distributed but now abandoned as the DCCC wing and the TDP/DNC fence-straddler (in Austin) climbs on the Obama bandwagon.
The party elites will nominally unite after the June 4 convention where there should be major but will probably be only minor change in party governance.
Rick Noriega has the biggest stake in what has to be a more unified party and proficient party. The central task of unification for him is consoling women Clinton supporters who can see plain enough that both wings of the state party are “boys clubs”.
The proficiency problem should ultimately pit some of the newer, more creative consultants attuned to the Obama campaign methods against the older, methodical consultants who were actually creamed in 1994, but have been prognosticating victory in two more years ever since, now in 2010. That should not be a matter of unification but of selection. The women who stuffed envelopes for Hillary should be consoled and all those Obama delegates who were misled into thinking they had a chance to go to Denver should be consoled.
But, at least half of the mercenaries hanging out at the officers mess in the boys clubs in Austin and Dallas should be fired. Yes, they are the professionals. That is why there should be no tears over firing the least proficient and most wrong-headed of that lot.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“Rick Noriega has the biggest stake in what has to be a more unified party and proficient party. The central task of unification for him is consoling women Clinton supporters who can see plain enough that both wings of the state party are “boys clubs”.”
No, the real “unification” problem for the Dems in Texas will be the same problem they had in 2004– they have a bad candidate as their nominee. The more voters get to know him, they more they question who he really is and how much they trust him. This blog entry by William J. Bennett perfectly sums up the problem:
“And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.”
Reply »
Ed Weirdness says:
I have a fool proof 3 step voter self defense philosophy for voting that eliminates all the problems that eventually bite voters:
1. In a primary, allways vote against the incumbent (incumbency is a disease).
2. Never re-elect anybody (incumbency, and long term staff are a disease).
3. Never allow one party to control Congress and the White House (I submit both recent Presidents as evidence).
Following my philosophy, there is no point to “throwing money at a candidate. More “joe six pack” types might actually run for office and get elected. Without entrenched agenda’s and bureaucratic self interest, the will of the people might actually be observed, and something might actually get done. And foremost, it would eliminate most of the impediments to third party and independent candidates running for office.
See, all fixed!
Reply »
phoppidge says:
Hallo !!
check this out here geile Amateure
Best Regards from UK
Reply »