For proof of the enthusiasm gap, look no further than this graph

[DrSteveB]

How Democrats outnumbered Republicans in 2008 in the primaries, compared to primary turnout so far in 2010:



That's a 55%-45% in our disfavor this year in terms of attendance.

We have to do something to reverse this trend, if it is not too late.

[babylonsister]

1. Big difference, president vs. midterms. Historically, I think

it's always been this way. But I agree, Dems need to get fired up; the admin is working on it.

[Richardo]

2. I don't think that particular measure is relevant

In 2008 Democrats had an extremely long primary season extending into June, the GOP was wrapped up with McCain in February I think.

In 2010, the GOP has the teabaggers challenging incumbents a lot more than usual. I'd expect that in the general, the Baggers could sit out the races there they lost primaries, and the regular GOPs may sit out those where the Bagger won.

That said, I do want to see Dem enthusiasm and turnout a lot higher than polls are showing now.

[trotsky]

11. You hit the nail on the head.

Clinton v. Obama much, much longer than any other recent primaries.

Plus you have to look at individual races. Here in MN this year, we had three candidates for governor in the Democratic party running for the nomination, whereas just one on the Repuke side. Democratic turnout was like 3-4 times the Republicans. But yeah, we had better turnout heavily this year to retain our majorities.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Well, considering that we have more incumbents, we may not have had as many

primary battles to start with.

Meant to add that here in Arkansas where we did have a huge primary run against Senator Lincoln, our turnout was impressive (70%).

[Vincardog]

4. Bingo we have more incumbents, we may not have had as many primary's

[denverbill]

5. The Republican primary was decided by March. We had Obama v Clinton until much later.

Plus, their candidate was McCain. Who the hell would roll out of bed to vote for McCain when he'd been declared the winner 5 months earlier.

[sabrina 1]

6. There are a few things that would change this. Coming out

strongly against any cuts to SS benefits, or any talk of raising the retirement age. And, what the president has already done, let the Bush tax cuts expire and raise taxes on the wealthy.

It was a big mistake to go after the people who elected them. They are the ones who GOTV and when they are not enthusiastic, this is the result. Even though they will probably vote for Democrats, the loss of enthusiasm after nearly two years of attacks from WH personel is obvious, everywhere.

[Johonny]

7. I'm not sure that will change this

The voters not coming out, are likely not the base no matter how much they complain they are likely to vote and very unlikely to vote Republican. It's the mushy middle. People that rarely show up and often vote in contradictory patterns. They also rarely show up in off year and primary elections. It's very unclear what motivates these people because their voting pattern is so irregular. I think getting Clinton and Biden involved in fighting for the middle class would be a good idea, but it's far from certain they can win based on these voters alone.

It has been suggested Democrats should target the youth vote that usually doesn't turn out in these election cycles but does generally vote Dem in the past two elections. I don't think SS or tax cuts to the wealthy really motivate these type of voters. The question is can the Dems get the youth vote out and what issue would really attract the youth vote. Judging by the DU the youth vote these days seems rather defeatist unlike 2008. My guess jobs and college prices would be topics that attract them. But I'm not as young as I use to be so there maybe smarter targets for those voters :)

[defendandprotect]

8. GOP profits when turn out is low ... and pols know populist messages bring voters out --

[slampoet]

9. Absolute STRAWMAN you can't compare presidential and off year elections, PERIOD.

[JustAnotherGen]

10. I keep seeing these numbers

But if you only have one person running in a district - I believe some people don't show up. I know 3 solid democratic women whose sons were taught (a former high school teach in NJ) by our Dem Candidate. They WILL vote in the November election but they didn't go to the booth on Primary day. We only had Potosnak on the ticket.

[ThomWV]

12. Anyone looking at that graph can easily see that Democrats are at an advantage

The Republican's have shot their wad - they are at just about maximum participation now whereas we have a vast reserve of voters who have not voted yet in this election cycle to draw upon. If we can convince even a third of the Democrats who have not voted yet to come out in November we trounce the Republicans, whereas they (who are divided by the Tea Party) cold bring out all of their resources and still have great difficulity catching up with us even if a third of our people stay home. I'd call that quite an advantage.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. I have a problem with this statistic

The enthusiasm gap is very real but this doesn't strike me as a good way to look for it.

Don't we have an unusual number of incumbents? And there have not been a tremendous number of viable challenges to Dem incumbents.

Uncontested primaries do not generate a lot of voter interest in primary voting.

I don't know that my take is correct, but it seems a sound theory.

[Renew Deal]

14. Your interpretation is incorrect.

There were more contested primaries for the Democrats in 2008.