The convention wisdom prior to June 5 was that a 60% turnout would mean a Walker win, and a 65% turnout would mean a Barrett win. The 2008 election had a turnout of 65%, translating to a 3 million voter turnout.
So, yesterday, when reports trickled out of historic levels of turnout, Dems felt that their chances of victory were very high - Dane County officials were suggesting a 119% turnout, suggesting mass numbers of newly registering voters. Such a turnout could obviate the polls, since newly registered voters would not be reflected in the polls.
But, it didn't happen.
more below
With officials in Milwaukee calling for extra ballots, and lines of voters still there well past 9 pm, we all expected a huge vote from Milwaukee and Dane counties. But, it didn't happen.
The actual vote was 2.5 million, close to 60 percent turnout, which was good for an off-year year election, but far short of 2008.
So, the early reports were misleading, at best.
How did this happen? Why were these reports so misleading?
I don't know. But there is a lesson for us as we rejected the polls in favor of anecdotes.
We do know that in presidential elections, the early reports always suggest heavy turnout, because in the four years the population grows, so election officials almost always see higher voter totals than the prior election. Of course, the Republican base grows as much as the Dems, so this "heavy turnout" does not reflect some mass numbers of new Dems showing up.
So, we need to stop grabbing onto one or two anecdotes about "heavy turnout" as proof that our side is going to win. One sparrow does not make a Spring.