A Nice Win, But the Numbers Suggest Caution
The New York Times, once known as the “old grey lady” of journalism, in its story following the Wisconsin Supreme Court election this month, quoted a national democratic official, “I’d be peeing my pants right now if I was the Trump campaign.”
Don’t start throwing clothes into the washing machine just yet.
The Times analysis took as “the best comparison point to the race [the] similar State Supreme Court election in April 2019, which Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative, won by 6,000 votes.”
By comparison, Jill Karofsky won this April’s election by 163,000 votes, a seemingly seismic shift in voter sentiment.
As the Times noted, “Ms. Karofsky improved on the performance by the liberal candidate in that race in 71 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties. She flipped three counties near Green Bay, a key swing area of the state, and cut into conservative margins of victory by at least 13 percentage points in each of the three suburban Milwaukee counties that represent the state’s Republican heartland.”
The problem with that analysis is the 2019 Supreme Court race is not the right race for comparison. There was no presidential primary that year to bring voters to the polls. The last similar court election was 2016 when Trump, Cruz and Kasich were still vying for the Republican nomination and Clinton and Sanders were in the last stages of their primary contest.
That year, 1,104,000 voted in the Republican primary and 1,007,000 voted in the Democratic primary. Some 97,000 more Republicans went to the polls than Democrats. The more conservative candidate for the Supreme Court won by 91,000 votes. The court race mirrored the primary contests.
Fast forward to 2020 when both Biden and Sanders were still in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but Trump was unopposed in the Republican primary.
The Democratic primary attracted some 924,000 voters; the Republican non-contest only 628,500. Some 296,000 more voters voted in the Democratic primary than in the Republican. The more liberal candidate for the Supreme Court won by 164,000. The court race again mirrored, although not quite so exactly, the primary contests.
In presidential years, turnout in April elections is driven by contests in the party primaries – which pretty much determines the winner in court races. The winner and the winning margin has little to do with anything else. Not the time yet for either party to celebrate, or to pee.
Hidden in the numbers, however, are four worth paying attention to.
The Supreme Court races are becoming more important to voters. In 2016, some 140,000 voted in the presidential primaries but did not vote in the court race; approximately 70,000 from each party. In contrast, this year only 3,000 of the 1,550,000 who voted in the primaries did not vote in the race for Supreme Court.
Second, about 68.000 voted in the Democratic primary for president but then voted for the more conservative candidate in the court race. One can only conjecture whether these voters voted more for Sanders or for Biden in the primary and what that might mean for November.
Third, about 76,000 voted for the conservative court candidate but did not vote for Trump in the presidential primary. Statewide, that is a drop off of about 11 percent. The drop off in Dane and Milwaukee counties was close to 25 percent. The drop off in suburban counties was a little more than the statewide average; in rural counties, less than the average.
Fourth, even though there were significant barriers to voting this year the turnout by Democrats in the presidential primary was not that much less than in 2016; about 924,000 compared to a little more than 1,007,000 in 2016. In Dane, where organizing has become an art form, the turnout was greater reflecting a trend in which Clinton in 2016 got more votes for President than any previous candidate, and Tony Evers in the off year 2018 election for governor got more votes than even Clinton.
The takeaway for November? Turnout will be key. The outcome is likely to follow recent experience when three of the last five presidential races and the last gubernatorial race were each decided by 30,000 or fewer votes. Will voters less than excited by their own party’s candidate stay home, as some did with both Clinton and Trump in 2016? Will voters who don’t usually vote, be persuaded to vote? What shift, if any, will there be by suburban voters?
An accurate understanding of past numbers is basic to strategy. We have to get them right.
Douglas Kane is the author of "Our Politics: Reflections on Political Life" published in 2019 by Southern Illinois University Press
[subscribe2]