Midterm Elections: The Important Numbers

In the rush to analyze the midterm elections, most media and political pundits have stuck to a partisan script.  They have zeroed in on party control of Congress, the Trump factor and the impact on the 2020 presidential election.  Their interpretations missed some eyeopening numbers.

Voter turnout was the biggest surprise of this midterm.  Despite declining voter turnout in previous midterms, there was a sharp reversal of form.  According to the U.S. Election Project, an estimated 113 million voters cast ballots, making it the first midterm to exceed 100 million votes.

If those projections are verified, it means nearly 48 percent of eligible voters exercised their right in these midterms.  In the most recent midterm in 2014, the turnout was a paltry 36.4 percent.  The last time voter turnout reached 49 percent was in the 1966 midterm elections, more than 50 years ago.

Political forecasters were stunned by the size of the early balloting results in many states.

For instance, by November 1 the number of Texans who cast an early ballot had exceeded the state's entire turnout for the 2014 midterm.  Another 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, recorded higher early voter turnout than the entire total for the last midterm.

In previous years, early voting had no influence on total turnout. This midterm was clearly an exception to that rule.  One difference from previous midterms is that more than 3.3 million voters aged 18 to 29 voted via early ballot, a whopping 188 percent increase from 2014.

However, seniors were the largest demographic to vote early.  By some estimates, seniors aged 65 and up comprised more than half of those who cast ballots before November 6.  Voting early is a trend that is likely to mushroom as people decide to skip the dreaded lines on election day. 

Turnout for this midterm hopefully signals a renewed desire for people to become engaged in democracy. America, forget the political parties, wins when people vote.  America needs citizen participation for democracy to succeed as the founding fathers intended.  

More women were elected to Congress and state legislatures than ever before.  There were 3,379 females running in midterm races nationwide, according to a report from Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics.  That represents a 25 percent increase from the last midterm.

As a result of these midterms, more women will serve in Congress than at any point in our nation's history.  There will be at least 118 females in the House and Senate.  The total includes 31 first-time House members, seven more than the previous high established in 1992.

The majority of the women in the House are aligned with the Democratic Party--84 of the 96 females that will represent state districts.  And 30 of the 31 female newcomers in the House are Democrats.  But the first Korean-American ever elected to Congress is a Republican from California.

The House and Senate will be the most diverse in history.  That bodes well for a country that embraces diversity.  These midterms ushered in a new era for women in politics. And it portends a day when a woman soon will occupy the White House.

The 2018 midterms were the most expensive in history.  The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that the two political parties raised a record-breaking $5.2 billion.  That smashed the previous mark of $3.7 billion in fundraising in the 2014 midterms.

Democrats benefited from the numbers of retiring Republicans.  The media tried to pin the blame on President Trump for Democrats flipping the House.  However, Republicans had the largest number of congressional retirements since the Brookings Institute began tracking the statistic 88 years ago.

There was an exodus of 39 before the midterms.  Most of them were House members.  Many, but certainly not all, represented suburban districts where the demographics have changed in favor of traditional Democratic voters.  GOP newcomers faced steep odds to hold these districts.

Incumbency is a sizable advantage in any election.  As a result, Republicans lost 31 seats in the midterms against well funded Democrats.  Historically, the party of the sitting president loses the House and Senate in midterms, however, the GOP survived a catastrophic defeat.

In 1994, President Clinton lost 54 House seats in the first midterm after his election.  President Obama suffered an even worst fate as his party surrendered 63 seats in 2010.  Measured against those midterms, Mr. Trump's party fared better than previous first-term presidents.

Although Democrats will control the House and Republicans will be the majority in the Senate, there are 14 Congressional races that remain unsettled a week after the polls closed.  This may be the most contests hanging in the balance in election history.

As of this writing, Democrats will have a 227 to 198 majority.  There are still 11 House races that are awaiting final tabulation of votes.  Despite all the advances in technology, counting votes remains a labor intensive process that often leaves neither political party satisfied.  This must be addressed.

In the Senate, there are three races undecided, all likely headed for recounts.  For now the Republicans hold a 51-46 majority.  The Democrats had more seats to defend in battleground states that President Trump carried in 2016, giving the GOP the upper hand.

By now your head is spinning with numbers, so here is an antidote for data overdose.  In Nevada, a dead man won a seat in the state assembly.  Republican Dennis Hof, owner of a brothel, passed away a month before the midterms.  Officials ruled it was too late to scratch his name.  It didn't matter.

Voters overwhelming elected Hof.  Apparently, having a pulse is not a requirement for election to the state assembly in Nevada.   Truly a sad state of affairs.  But nothing should surprise anyone after the tumultuous midterm elections of 2018. 

Sizing Up the Midterm Election

Leading up to the November midterm election, the most hackneyed headline is: "Democrat Voter Enthusiasm Surging." Virtually every mainstream media propaganda machine has churned out stories predicting a Blue Wave sweeping Democrats into power.  Forecasters are ignoring the past.

In the last midterm election in 2014, the country recorded the lowest voter turnout in history.  Even by midterm standards, turnout was a clunker.  An anemic 36.4 percent of eligible voters bothered to go to the polls.  That was five percent less than 2012, another disappointing year for turnout.

Going back to 1916, midterm voter turnout has been significantly less than presidential election years. Since 1970, midterm election turnout has been sinking.  In every single one of those years, both political parties claimed voter enthusiasm was soaring off the charts.  Reality always bites.

Midterms since 1970 have generated turnout in the 40-percent range.  By comparison, presidential election years historically attract higher turnouts, mostly in the 60-percent range. The highest voter turnout in the midterms in recent history was the 1962 election with 47.7 percent.

The 2014 midterm is a likely predictor for the upcoming election.  That year was the most expensive midterm in United States history with an estimated $3.7 billion lavished on election campaigns.  Even gobs of cash failed to nudge the enthusiasm needle.  Turnout was the worst in 72 years.

Experts have analyzed midterm elections and written weighty tomes about why voters stay home. Voters lack interest.  Midterms don't have the sizzle of a presidential campaign.  There are fewer candidates on the ballot.  There are more excuses than votes cast.  (That's hyperbole by the way.)

So why will this midterm be different?  Because the media tells us so?  New polling data indicates that despite all the  media hype, this midterm may see an uptick in turnout, but mostly in Blue states. The rest of the country may follow the midterm norm. Expect frosty voter interest.

Already the two parties are hyperventilating about the long lines of early voters foreshadowing a record turnout.  However, analytics have shown there is no correlation.  In fact, a Pew Research analysis of past elections concluded that heavy early voting indicates a reduction in total turnout.

Early voting is billowing because growing numbers of people prefer to skip the long lines on election day. In the 1996 election, Pew found an estimated 10.5% of voters cast early ballots.  By the 2012 election, the number had zoomed to 36.6%.  In some states, more than 50% of people vote early.

There is no scientific evidence that early voting signals an inflated turnout, regardless of media claims to the contrary.  None.  Nada.  Perhaps this election will prove to be an outlier.  But claims that swollen early ballots is a precursor to heavy turnout should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Millennials may be a better barometer of turnout.  A poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic found that only 28 percent of young people aged 18-29 say they will "certainly vote."  That compares with 74 percent of seniors.  Midterms are a snooze for Millennials.

Latinos, another reliable Democrat voting bloc, normally sit out the midterms. A Pew Research analysis found a record 29 million Latinos are eligible to vote this year.  However, Latino turnout in the midterms has declined every year since 2006, tumbling to a historic low 27 percent in 2014.

Despite all the hubbub over the influence of the Latino vote, no one mentions that 71 percent of Hispanics who are eligible to vote live in six states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona and Illinois.  At least three of those states are traditionally Blue Dog Democrat strongholds.

In recent elections, the media point to the power of suburban professional women voters. Democrats traditionally do well with this group.  But even with this geographic solidly in the Blue corner, Democrats have to energize young and Latino voters to gain a clear advantage.

History may turn out to be the Democrats' best friend.  The president's party has lost seats in Congress in 40 of the 43 midterm elections held in the United States.  It's almost impossible to buck the trend.  The exceptions to the rule occurred in 1934, 1998 and 2002. Will 2018 follow the script?

One unknown factor is  the rising voter approval for President Trump.  In the most recent national poll his approval scaled a peak of 47 percent.  Going into the 2014 midterms, former President Obama's approval stood at 43 percent.  Will that three-point gap made a difference?  No one knows.

Pundits are making predictions based on outdated forecast models.  Put no faith in them because their sophisticated tools have been proven wrong too often. (See 2016 Presidential Election.) Tell me which voters will turnout and I will be able to forecast the winning party with 100 percent accuracy.

Ignore the polling, excessive campaign spending, targeted voter appeals and the media hype and party evangelism. This midterm will hinge on how many people actually go to the polls.  It's that simple. The rest is just mind-numbing political mumbo jumbo.