Before the campaign heats up, and before Donald J. Trump's trial begins, we're still in a post-primary lull. I'll include some quick notes at the end of the week.
Joe Lieberman and the Butterfly Ballot
Former Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman died this week at the age of 82. He was Al Gore's running mate in 2000, when Gore and Lieberman came within 600 votes of winning the White House in Florida.
We will never know what would have happened if the Supreme Court had allowed the recount to continue. But it's always been clear that we probably know that if it weren't for the infamous “butterfly vote” in Palm Beach County, Mr. Gore would have won Florida and, by extension, the presidency. I don't think it's being appreciated.
You may not remember, but a long time ago, butterfly voting was a very rare thing. Candidates were listed on both sides of the ballot, and voters punched a corresponding hole in the center to cast their votes. What made this so unusual was that the order of candidates on the ballot paper did not have the same logic as the corresponding punch holes. George W. Bush and Mr. Gore were the first two candidates listed on the left, but they correspond to his first and his third holes in the punch. The second punch dealt with the first candidate on the right side of the ballot, Pat Buchanan, a paleo-conservative running as the Reform Party candidate.
After the election, many Palm Beach voters claimed they had inadvertently voted for Buchanan when they intended to vote for Gore. This is clear from the data. Mr. Buchanan fared much better in Palm Beach County than he did on the other side of the county line. In fact, Mr. Buchanan fared much better in Palm Beach County than in politically or demographically comparable areas of the country.
This pattern can be seen very clearly in this map courtesy of Matthew C. Isbell, a Democratic data strategist and consultant.
Buchanan also fared much better among Election Day voters who used butterfly voting than absentee voters who did not use butterfly voting, a pattern not seen elsewhere in the state. There wasn't. Although Buchanan was a very conservative candidate, his support was concentrated in Democratic areas.
Looking at the data, this case is a complete failure. At least 2,000 voters who had intended to vote for Gore-Lieberman ended up voting for Buchanan. That would have been enough to easily decide the election.
No shifts after the State of the Union
Last week, I wrote that there were some hints that perhaps, just maybe, President Biden's numbers were creeping up after the State of the Union.
Maybe not. It's becoming increasingly difficult to see any signs of a Biden charge. The latest polls from Fox, CNBC and Quinnipiac combined suggest that the presidential race is essentially unchanged, with Trump still holding a narrow lead nationally. The president's approval rating does not seem to be particularly high.
As I wrote last week, that's not necessarily unexpected, nor is it terrible news for Biden. The State of the Union usually doesn't make much of a difference. And in some cases, the speech still served him well by allaying concerns among Democratic elites about his ability to run a vigorous campaign.
But this isn't really just about the State of the Union. Many of the ingredients for a potential Biden reversal have been in place in recent months, from improving consumer sentiment to a sense of certainty that the contest is Biden versus Trump. A Biden reversal could play out in a variety of ways, but one possibility involved these favorable conditions leading to a rise in the polls. The end of the primary season and the State of the Union were plausible opportunities for Biden to start realizing these gains. That hasn't happened yet.
The next opportunity is the trial of Donald J. Trump, scheduled for April 15, on charges related to hush-money payments to porn stars.
Reader Question: What will the voter turnout be in 2024?
Florida in 2000 is a reminder that every vote counts, but as I wrote earlier this week, many disinterested voters will undoubtedly choose not to participate in this election. That led some people to ask if there were any early clues about turnout this fall. For example, Judy Perowski asked:
Turnout is likely to be the biggest factor in who wins this year's election. Are there any signs that candidates will not participate this year because there is so much dissatisfaction with them? If so, what are the chances of low turnout?
It's still too early to say much about final turnout, but all simple early indicators suggest turnout may be lower than it was four years ago. Here are some examples.
-
Voter turnout in the primary and 2022 midterm elections was lower than the corresponding numbers four years ago.
-
Opinion polls show fewer voters prefer the candidates than they did four years ago.
-
Our early polling shows that the proportion of voters who say they are “almost certain to vote” has fallen compared to this stage four years ago.
Now, voter turnout in 2020 was very high for this era, so while November's turnout may be lower, it will still remain fairly high. But at this early stage, it's hard to make any case that turnout will match his 2020.
things on the internet
Cook Political Report's Dave Wasserman examined newly digitized archives to uncover Cook's analysis of key House races in each election year from 1984 to 2002.
It's only 1-2 paragraphs per election, so it's very quick and easy to understand. It's also a good test to see if you're a true political geek. Perhaps best of all, one of his highlights happens to be from Mr. Wasserman's childhood home district (then New Jersey's 12th District), and thus from his 1998 campaign. It features his own personal archive of athletic materials.