The new Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll explains a lot about the voters that turned out in Massachusetts, last Tuesday, and the diary about it explains the poll very well. But both the poll and the diary based on the poll miss what may have been the real story.
As explained by the Washington Post article about the poll:
The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University conducted this poll to provide a more complete picture of the stated motivations of special-election voters.
In other words, the poll didn't include those that didn't vote. The importance of whom on the outcome the New York Times discussed, last week:
As expected, turnout was depressed for this special election compared with last year’s general election. About 54 percent of registered voters turned out, compared with 73 percent in November 2008. In President Obama’s strongest areas — towns where he received more than 60 percent of the vote — the number of voters was about 30 percent below 2008 levels. In the rest of the state, the number of voters was down just 25 percent. In Boston — one of the strongest areas for Democrats — the number voting fell 35 percent.
Of course, turnout was down in a special election, compared to a presidential election. But turnout was most depressed in Democratic strongholds. Many have been discussing the national enthusiasm gap, and that's where our focus needs to be. As Steve Singiser wrote, just two days ago:
The only positive statistic for Democrats this week is the Brown-Coakley affair might have awakened the Democratic vote ever so slightly. Last week, the spread between likely and and unlikely voters was at an all time low (51/46). Those numbers rebound a bit this week (54/43).
The bad news is that Republican interest in the 2010 elections is near an all-time high: 82% of Republicans are either certain to vote or likely to vote.
It would be easy to dismiss this as a "Brown bounce" and little more. And it goes without saying that the GOP had a wonderful media week (and the Dems, conversely, a brutal one) as a result of Tuesday's special election.
But the trend lines above make it clear that this is a political storm that has been long in the making. The Democratic brain trust would be well served to arrive at a solution to this electoral conundrum, and make haste in doing so. Their political future, quite clearly, depends on it.
To explain Massachusetts, you need to look beyond the polls of the people that voted. You need to look at the people that didn't vote. Because they're the ones that could have prevented the debacle from happening.
Update [2010-1-24 14:34:31 by Turkana]: I didn't see it, but the poll did interview non-voters. But it didn't ask them why they didn't vote. Given the NYT article, the point remains: a huge part of the story was the enthusiasm gap, and neither the poll nor the analysis discusses it. And it remains the flashing warning light, for the rest of this year.
Update [2010-1-24 14:47:40 by Turkana]: Frederick Clarkson has a great link from the AFL-CIO blog:
There was no outpouring for a right-wing agenda in Massachusetts. Brown only received 50,000 votes more than McCain. But Coakley received 850,000 fewer votes than Obama. The Republican based remained energized. The Democratic base and independent supporters stayed home.
That's the story, right there.
Update [2010-1-24 16:38:33 by Turkana]: Frederick has now posted a diary I highly recommend:
Why Did Coakley Lose the Union Vote?