A friend (you remember young genius Vladimir Kogan don’t you?) had a great response to the turnout hypothesis I put forth other day:

– The only people voting today are people that actually care about their candidates (i.e., not the low-information voters). This would only hurt Francis if we believed that Sanders has more hard-core committed voters, which is not what his fundraising figures indicate. On this criteria alone, there is not necessarily reason to think Francis will be hurt.

– If there’s low turnout, it amplifies the effects of organized get-out-and-vote efforts — which bring out people who wouldn’t normally vote. And who excels at this? Labor unions. And who are the unions backing? Those that endorsed are backing Francis. So on this criteria, Francis actually stands to benefit.

On point one: I’d say it’s pretty hard to determine who has the more “hardcore” supporters between those two candidates. My point was that Francis’ relentless television ads would do a lot to sway those “low-information” voters. That’s the whole point of television ads, no? But Vlad makes a good point: Sanders’ lackluster fundraising was shocking.

On point two: I think Vlad’s correct about the assumptions underlying it. But does Francis have the kind of phone-banking, hard-charging, district-walking, passionate get-out-the-vote union support that does make a difference? Or does he have the cerebral, effortless, wanting-to-stand-on-this-side-of-history union support?

Only a few hours until we find out.

SCOTT LEWIS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.