Campaign Notes: Why low turnout is good for Mitt

By John Barron

The weekend caucus in Nevada has highlighted an interesting trend in the 2012 Republican presidential nominating contest.

In a year when the eventual GOP nominee has a much higher chance than the Republican standard-bearer in 2008, voter turnout in the primaries and caucuses has been underwhelming, to say the least.

Back on January 3, with the race still wide open, 122 255 Republicans turned out to caucus in Iowa on an unseasonably mild Tuesday evening — just 3 067 more than 2008.

But if you omit the non-Republicans taking part, participation actually fell.

A week later in New Hampshire there was just a 6 per cent increase on 2008 turnout.

South Carolina defied the flat trend; when Newt Gingrich surged to victory on January 21, there was a 35 per cent jump in turnout.

But ten days later in Florida, turnout was actually down 14 per cent on 2008, and the numbers voting in the Nevada and Maine primaries appear fairly static.

While the trend seems clear, the reasons for it are less so.

Opponents of Mitt Romney say an uninspiring frontrunner is to blame. Others suggest that the negative advertising blitz, lead by Romney but joined by Gingrich and others, has created enough doubt and disillusionment that voters simply stayed at home.

Maybe. But for Romney, looking ahead to the general election, it’s not a bad problem to have.

After all, he’s winning.

Meanwhile, Democrats who would like to see this as good news for Barack Obama shouldn’t count on it.

If Mitt Romney is the Republican Presidential nominee and unleashes a similar negative campaign against President Obama, he could conceivably highlight the disillusionment many Democrats already feel about the man they elected in 2008, and they will be the ones to stay at home in November.

And traditionally, in the Presidential election itself, low turnout is more likely to benefit the Republican nominee.

For Mitt Romney every vote not cast is effectively a vote for him.

7 February 2012