Counting the votes in Nevada's Republican presidential caucuses turned out to be more difficult than expected, but this morning, the final results were announced. The tally largely reflects what we already knew: Mitt Romney won easily, finishing with 50% (16,486 votes).
Associated Press
What was far more interesting was the turnout.
Total turnout was 32,930, far less than the 44,000 Republicans who voted in the GOP caucuses in 2008.
Going into Saturday's contest, Nevada GOP leaders told reporters they expected 70,000 Republicans to participate. The final tally shows the party failed to even reach half that total.
What's more, if Nevada were the only state that struggled, it'd be easier to overlook. Unfortunately for the GOP, though, the poor showing in the Silver State fits into a larger pattern.
The Republicans' primary in Florida last week, for example, showed a sharp decline in turnout (about 14%) as compared to 2008. In the Iowa caucuses, GOP turnout fell short of expectations, and in the New Hampshire primary, it happened again. Turnout in South Carolina was strong, but given the party's difficulties in the other four contests, it's proving to be the exception.
To reiterate a point from last week, this is not at all what Republican leaders anticipated. On the contrary, GOP officials in the states and at the national level assumed the exact opposite would happen.
Remember, Republican turnout was supposed to soar in these early contests because of the larger circumstances.
GOP voters are reportedly eager, if not foaming-at-the-mouth desperate, to fight a crusade against President Obama, and they had plenty of high-profile candidates trying to stoke their enthusiasm.
This, coupled with the boost from the so-called Tea Party "movement," suggested energized Republicans would turn out in numbers that far exceeded the totals we saw in 2008, when GOP voters were depressed and it was Democrats who enjoyed the bulk of the excitement.
But in four of the five contests thus far, that hasn't happened.
At this point in 2008, after Republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada picked their preferred nominee, 2,793,538 GOP voters had participated. As of this morning, after those same five states have held their nominating contests, the total of Republicans voting is 2,679,841. Despite the strong showing in South Carolina, that's still a drop off of 4% when party leaders assumed the opposite.
The last thing party leaders wanted to see was evidence of a listless, uninspired party, underwhelmed by their field of candidates. Republicans probably won't fret publicly, but the turnout numbers should give party leaders pause.
Leave a Comment:
The GOP has two kinds of enthusiasm: anti-Obama and anti-Romney. It makes sense that only South Carolina would have high turnout, since the anti-Romney feelings are stronger there. In the GE, Republicans tend to vote, whether they know anything or feel anything. Voting is a civic duty to them. Understanding issues is not.
The sad part is that the vast majority of the rest of the voters is they don't understand the issues nor vote. And IF they do vote, it will be based on 30-second negative ads or the number of lawn signs they see.
In other words, the Nevada turnout was roughly 8% of the total number of registered Republican voters in the state. So not only was the turnout just over half of what was expected, the actual number was heavily influenced by LDS voters who probably showed up because of Romney. Hardly a expression of very much interest - and certainly nothing close to a demonstration of burning anger.
Could it be that the GOP rank-and-file are as disgusted with, and replused by, their candidates as is the rest of the nation?
The local Cineplex showed five stinkers this weekend ( I now Pronounce you Chuck & Larry! Balls of Fury!), so we stayed home and watched the TeeVee.
Looks like the Nevada Republicans hit their snooze buttons for this 2012 Republican presidential caucus. Oops. Overslept. Oh well.
I don't know what this portends for the election. After all, an unenthusiastic vote is just as valid as an overenthusiastic vote. Republicans can be disgusted by their choices but still eager to vote Obama out of office, just waiting to be told who to vote for (baaaaahhhhH!) without taking responsibility for assisting in that decision (ba-gawk!). And of course, without a Democratic primary on the presidential level, we can't say for sure that a Dem turnout wouldn't also be lackluster compared to 2008.
But then again, the left isn't claiming to be all fired up about 2012, either. We've been inundated for months with reports about how desperate the right is to show they mean bidness about getting Obama out of office, yet there's no evidence of that, and even evidence to the contrary.
I do think 2012 is going to be an Obama blowout. I know that's the sort of prediction that comes back to bite you, but I really think the more the right sees Romney for what he is and what he's incapable of doing (leading, embracing policy that actually helps more people than it hurts, not coming across like a well-heeled boob in international affairs), the more they'll think, for once, the most patriotic thing they can do is stay home on Election Day. Why do you think the right is trying harder than ever before to suppress the vote?
I'd also argue that perhaps the reason South Carolina was the "exception to the rule" is that Newt got them fired up at just the right time, which is a phenomena we've seen more than once (and with more than just Gingrich). Someone comes and acts like the hero the right's base seems to want, his (or Bachmann's) popularity skyrockets, and then people come to their senses. It just so happened that the most recent Gingrich boost occurred within a week of a primary. Fortunate timing.
What this means is that, in a way, Newt is right, he could conceivably catch lightning in a bottle again. I wouldn't bet money on it, but if he finds a groove a few days before Super Tuesday (assuming he stays in to SEE Super Tuesday as a candidate), it could indeed change the direction of the campaign.
Again, I wouldn't bet money on it. But it would be funny to see.
Whatever else happens, I'm with Rachel on one thing for sure:
This election season has been an utter blast and has promise to keep going for many more bags of popcorn.
I suppose rethugnikans are suffering knowing that their "choices" leave them with a bitter taste in their mouths! Either vote for an incompetent, a Mormon, or stay home - gee what's on television come November 2012?!?
Ah, schadenfreude.
That's about a 25% loss of voters. Wow!
I can't help but hope that this lack of enthusiasm extends to the whole republican agenda. They certainly have not been subtle about their allegience to the 1%.
The talking heads say that the Republican primary and caucus voters are choosing Romney because he can has a better chance of beating President Obama. But they are turning out in low numbers and still seem to be hoping for someone better. If they can't get fired up about Romney (or any of the others in line) why do they think he will do better with independents and Democrats against Obama in a general election?
The Tea Party and the purported GOP voters who are eager to get Obama out of office are one and the same. The rest of the Republicans are not happy with any of the candidates. It further suggests that Romney may be unable to generate enough support to win the election because he is phony or Mormon or unprincipled. Elections ads may not be enough to motivate voters in the contested states.