Democratic Primary Turnout Correlates with Sanders' Support
From the beginning of the 2016 campaign, Bernie Sanders has been repeating the mantra that "we win when turnout is high." Well, Bernie hasn't been winning as much as he'd like—but turnout has been pretty low. As the media has pointed out, Democratic turnout is way down from 2008. Sanders has actually tried to downplay the significance of this trend, claiming that expecting a repeat of 2008's historic turnout would be unreasonable, but he shouldn't: he should be decrying this year's abysmal turnout—and pointing out that, if turnout were higher, he might be winning the primary. Because there is a clear correlation between Democratic primary turnout and Bernie Sanders' electoral performance.
| Primaries | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Election Type |
Date | VEP | Dem VEP | Dem Votes | Turnout Rate | Results | ||
| Total VEP | Dem VEP | Clinton | Sanders | ||||||
| New Hampshire | Modified | 02/09/16 | 1,035,734 | 523,046 | 254,776 | 24.60% | 48.71% | 37.67% | 60.15% |
| South Carolina | Open | 02/27/16 | 3,663,583 | 1,685,248 | 373,063 | 10.18% | 22.14% | 73.44% | 26.02% |
| Alabama | Open | 03/01/16 | 3,602,334 | 1,549,004 | 396,851 | 11.02% | 25.62% | 77.84% | 19.19% |
| Arkansas | Open | 03/01/16 | 2,137,115 | 918,959 | 221,020 | 10.34% | 24.05% | 66.29% | 29.74% |
| Georgia | Open | 03/01/16 | 6,900,387 | 3,243,182 | 765,366 | 11.09% | 23.60% | 71.30% | 28.20% |
| Massachusetts | Modified | 03/01/16 | 4,966,742 | 2,731,708 | 1,220,296 | 24.57% | 44.67% | 50.11% | 48.69% |
| Oklahoma | Closed | 03/01/16 | 2,781,841 | 1,212,883 | 335,843 | 12.07% | 27.69% | 41.52% | 51.88% |
| Tennessee | Open | 03/01/16 | 4,874,592 | 2,144,820 | 371,321 | 7.62% | 17.31% | 66.11% | 32.43% |
| Texas | Closed | 03/01/16 | 17,299,279 | 6,400,733 | 1,435,895 | 8.30% | 22.43% | 65.22% | 33.16% |
| Vermont | Open | 03/01/16 | 495,563 | 287,427 | 135,256 | 27.29% | 47.06% | 13.62% | 86.10% |
| Virginia | Open | 03/01/16 | 6,022,089 | 3,011,045 | 785,041 | 13.04% | 26.07% | 64.29% | 35.19% |
| Louisiana | Closed | 03/05/16 | 3,373,552 | 1,578,822 | 311,776 | 9.24% | 19.75% | 71.12% | 23.18% |
| Michigan | Open | 03/08/16 | 7,419,694 | 3,858,241 | 1,205,552 | 16.25% | 31.25% | 48.23% | 49.75% |
| Mississippi | Open | 03/08/16 | 2,181,159 | 992,427 | 220,560 | 10.11% | 22.22% | 82.64% | 16.46% |
| Florida | Closed | 03/15/16 | 14,445,578 | 5,604,884 | 1,709,183 | 11.83% | 30.49% | 64.44% | 33.28% |
| Illinois | Open | 03/15/16 | 9,015,796 | 4,868,530 | 1,948,877 | 21.62% | 40.03% | 50.46% | 48.72% |
| Missouri | Open | 03/15/16 | 4,518,767 | 2,146,414 | 626,077 | 13.86% | 29.17% | 49.61% | 49.36% |
| North Carolina | Modified | 03/15/16 | 7,266,734 | 3,524,366 | 1,143,012 | 15.73% | 32.43% | 54.58% | 40.76% |
| Ohio | Modified | 03/15/16 | 8,738,019 | 4,325,319 | 1,194,637 | 13.67% | 27.62% | 56.50% | 42.72% |
| Arizona | Closed | 03/22/16 | 4,659,373 | 1,346,559 | 409,013 | 8.78% | 30.37% | 56.29% | 41.39% |
| Wisconsin | Open | 04/05/16 | 4,282,271 | 2,183,958 | 1,001,925 | 23.40% | 45.88% | 43.11% | 56.57% |
| New York | Closed | 04/19/16 | 13,638,797 | 6,737,566 | 1,970,900 | 14.45% | 29.25% | 57.54% | 41.62% |
| Connecticut | Closed | 04/26/16 | 2,579,776 | 939,038 | 328,339 | 12.73% | 34.97% | 51.80% | 46.42% |
| Delaware | Closed | 04/26/16 | 695,642 | 330,430 | 93,647 | 13.46% | 28.34% | 59.75% | 39.15% |
| Maryland | Closed | 04/26/16 | 4,190,917 | 2,300,813 | 916,763 | 21.87% | 39.85% | 62.53% | 33.81% |
| Pennsylvania | Closed | 04/26/16 | 9,721,843 | 4,812,312 | 1,681,427 | 17.30% | 34.94% | 55.61% | 43.53% |
| Rhode Island | Modified | 04/26/16 | 780,998 | 433,454 | 124,960 | 16.00% | 28.83% | 42.21% | 53.61% |
| Indiana | Open | 05/03/16 | 4,855,984 | 2,306,592 | 638,648 | 13.15% | 27.69% | 47.50% | 52.50% |
| West Virginia | Modified | 05/10/16 | 1,434,982 | 624,217 | 219,472 | 15.29% | 35.16% | 35.55% | 51.39% |
| Kentucky | Closed | 05/17/16 | 3,265,260 | 1,743,649 | 454,568 | 13.92% | 26.07% | 46.76% | 46.33% |
| Oregon | Closed | 05/17/16 | 2,980,345 | 1,126,570 | 626,521 | 21.02% | 55.61% | 42.35% | 55.97% |
| South Dakota | Closed | 06/07/16 | 634,281 | 214,387 | 53,021 | 8.36% | 24.73% | 51.06% | 48.94% |
| New Mexico | Closed | 06/07/16 | 1,455,013 | 678,036 | 214,275 | 14.73% | 31.60% | 51.54% | 48.46% |
| New Jersey | Modified | 06/07/16 | 6,060,729 | 3,212,186 | 877,715 | 14.48% | 27.32% | 63.17% | 36.83% |
| Montana | Open | 06/07/16 | 798,787 | 371,436 | 126,639 | 15.85% | 34.09% | 44.21% | 51.50% |
| California | Modified | 06/07/16 | 25,126,973 | 13,694,200 | 4,385,091 | 17.45% | 32.02% | 54.94% | 44.14% |
| District of Columbia | Closed | 06/14/16 | 510,895 | 357,627 | 96,667 | 18.92% | 27.03% | 77.95% | 20.69% |
| Correlation Coefficient: 0.68 | |||||||||
| Caucuses | |||||||||
| State | Election Type |
Date | VEP | Dem VEP | Dem Votes | Turnout Rate | Results | ||
| Total VEP | Dem VEP | Clinton | Sanders | ||||||
| Iowa | Closed | 02/01/16 | 2,286,197 | 711,007 | 171,109 | 7.48% | 24.07% | 49.84% | 49.59% |
| Nevada | Closed | 02/20/16 | 1,936,072 | 768,621 | 84,000 | 4.34% | 10.93% | 52.64% | 47.29% |
| Colorado | Closed | 03/01/16 | 3,928,790 | 1,213,996 | 123,508 | 3.14% | 10.17% | 40.31% | 58.98% |
| Minnesota | Open | 03/01/16 | 3,967,061 | 2,023,201 | 215,000 | 5.42% | 10.63% | 38.31% | 61.69% |
| Kansas | Closed | 03/05/16 | 2,062,778 | 501,255 | 40,000 | 1.94% | 7.98% | 32.10% | 67.90% |
| Nebraska | Modified | 03/05/16 | 1,348,302 | 593,253 | 33,460 | 2.48% | 5.64% | 42.85% | 57.15% |
| Maine | Closed | 03/06/16 | 1,054,309 | 336,325 | 46,000 | 4.36% | 13.68% | 35.49% | 64.17% |
| Idaho | Open | 03/22/16 | 1,149,007 | 471,093 | 23,884 | 2.08% | 5.07% | 21.21% | 78.04% |
| Utah | Open | 03/22/16 | 1,963,474 | 765,755 | 77,344 | 3.94% | 10.10% | 19.81% | 77.19% |
| Alaska | Closed | 03/26/16 | 520,731 | 71,861 | 10,600 | 2.04% | 14.75% | 20.23% | 79.61% |
| Hawaii | Closed | 03/26/16 | 1,025,208 | 502,352 | 33,716 | 3.29% | 6.71% | 28.35% | 71.48% |
| Washington | Modified | 03/26/16 | 5,080,485 | 2,667,255 | 230,000 | 4.53% | 8.62% | 27.10% | 72.72% |
| Wyoming | Closed | 04/09/16 | 428,411 | 84,825 | 7,000 | 1.63% | 8.25% | 44.29% | 55.71% |
| North Dakota | Open | 06/07/16 | 578,789 | 240,197 | 4,000 | 0.69% | 1.67% | 25.63% | 64.21% |
| Correlation Coefficient: -0.34 | |||||||||
As you can see, Sanders clearly does better when turnout is higher—at least in primaries. The correlation coefficient between Democratic primary turnout and Sanders' vote share is 0.68. A correlation coefficient of 1 represents perfect correlation, while a coefficient of 0 means there is no relationship. On the other hand, there is actually a slight negative correlation between turnout and Sanders' vote share in caucuses. However, this is almost entirely due to the Iowa caucus, which is an extreme outlier in terms of turnout; if you remove the Iowa caucus, the correlation disappears.
What about the contention, commonly repeated in the media, that Sanders' lacks support among minority voters, particularly African Americans? The lowest turnout primaries have been in heavily African American Southern states. Could the apparent correlation between turnout and Sanders' performance be an artifact of the demographics of the low turnout states? Wouldn't higher African American turnout have hurt Sanders? Ultimately, is Sanders only benefitting from higher white turnout, or does higher turnout help him to do better with minority voters as well? Well, if we look at the exit polls, we can see that the correlation between turnout and Sanders' vote share holds, both for non-white voters in general, and African Americans in particular.
| State | Election Type |
Date | VEP | Dem VEP | Dem Votes | Turnout Rate | Non-White Voters | Black Voters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total VEP | Dem VEP | Clinton | Sanders | Clinton | Sanders | ||||||
| New Hampshire | Modified | 02/09/16 | 1,035,734 | 523,046 | 254,776 | 24.60% | 48.71% | 49% | 50% | N/A | N/A |
| South Carolina | Open | 02/27/16 | 3,663,583 | 1,685,248 | 373,063 | 10.18% | 22.14% | 85% | 14% | 86% | 14% |
| Alabama | Open | 03/01/16 | 3,602,334 | 1,549,004 | 396,851 | 11.02% | 25.62% | 89% | 7% | 91% | 6% |
| Arkansas | Open | 03/01/16 | 2,137,115 | 918,959 | 221,020 | 10.34% | 24.05% | 83% | 17% | 91% | 9% |
| Georgia | Open | 03/01/16 | 6,900,387 | 3,243,182 | 765,366 | 11.09% | 23.60% | 81% | 19% | 85% | 14% |
| Massachusetts | Modified | 03/01/16 | 4,966,742 | 2,731,708 | 1,220,296 | 24.57% | 44.67% | 59% | 41% | N/A | N/A |
| Oklahoma | Closed | 03/01/16 | 2,781,841 | 1,212,883 | 335,843 | 12.07% | 27.69% | 56% | 40% | 71% | 27% |
| Tennessee | Open | 03/01/16 | 4,874,592 | 2,144,820 | 371,321 | 7.62% | 17.31% | 85% | 14% | 89% | 10% |
| Texas | Closed | 03/01/16 | 17,299,279 | 6,400,733 | 1,435,895 | 8.30% | 22.43% | 73% | 25% | 83% | 15% |
| Virginia | Open | 03/01/16 | 6,022,089 | 3,011,045 | 785,041 | 13.04% | 26.07% | 76% | 24% | 84% | 16% |
| Michigan | Open | 03/08/16 | 7,419,694 | 3,858,241 | 1,205,552 | 16.25% | 31.25% | 63% | 34% | 68% | 28% |
| Mississippi | Open | 03/08/16 | 2,181,159 | 992,427 | 220,560 | 10.11% | 22.22% | 88% | 11% | 89% | 11% |
| Florida | Closed | 03/15/16 | 14,445,578 | 5,604,884 | 1,709,183 | 11.83% | 30.49% | 74% | 25% | 81% | 18% |
| Illinois | Open | 03/15/16 | 9,015,796 | 4,868,530 | 1,948,877 | 21.62% | 40.03% | 63% | 37% | 70% | 30% |
| Missouri | Open | 03/15/16 | 4,518,767 | 2,146,414 | 626,077 | 13.86% | 29.17% | 61% | 38% | 67% | 32% |
| North Carolina | Modified | 03/15/16 | 7,266,734 | 3,524,366 | 1,143,012 | 15.73% | 32.43% | 74% | 25% | 80% | 19% |
| Ohio | Modified | 03/15/16 | 8,738,019 | 4,325,319 | 1,194,637 | 13.67% | 27.62% | 67% | 32% | 71% | 28% |
| Wisconsin | Open | 04/05/16 | 4,282,271 | 2,183,958 | 1,001,925 | 23.40% | 45.88% | 57% | 43% | 69% | 31% |
| New York | Closed | 04/19/16 | 13,638,797 | 6,737,566 | 1,823,370 | 13.37% | 27.06% | 68% | 32% | 75% | 25% |
| Connecticut | Closed | 04/26/16 | 2,579,776 | 939,038 | 328,339 | 12.73% | 34.97% | 62% | 37% | 69% | 30% |
| Maryland | Closed | 04/26/16 | 4,190,917 | 2,300,813 | 846,056 | 20.19% | 36.77% | 72% | 26% | 75% | 22% |
| Pennsylvania | Closed | 04/26/16 | 9,721,843 | 4,812,312 | 1,652,961 | 17.00% | 34.35% | 64% | 36% | 70% | 30% |
| Indiana | Open | 05/03/16 | 4,855,984 | 2,306,592 | 638,648 | 13.15% | 27.69% | 64% | 36% | 74% | 26% |
| Correlation Coefficient: 0.76 (Non-White Voters), 0.70 (Black Voters) | |||||||||||
| Note: This table only includes contests for which exit poll data broken down by race is available. | |||||||||||
The strong correlation between primary turnout and Sanders' vote share holds across demographic lines, and raises an important issue with the narrative of Sanders' struggle to win over minority voters: the question of why minority voters tend to prefer Clinton is rarely addressed. This is my greatest complaint with the growing prevalence of demographic analysis in politics: it promotes identity-centric thinking (placing identity before ideology) and feeds the media's inclination to avoid real issues. (And before you jump to the conclusion that I think systemic racism and violence aren't real issues, remember that the media narrative has centered on Black voters' "familiarity" with Clinton and Sanders' "insensitive" tone.) Admittedly, even when turnout is high, Sanders doesn't do that well with minority voters (and that's largely his own fault,) but the fact that Sanders' support among minority voters is correlated with higher turnout not only calls into question Clinton's claim to being the candidate who represents the Obama coalition, but it suggests that Sanders' greatest problem may be his strength: he has attempted to position himself as the candidate of the disadvantaged and disenfranchised—exactly the people who are least likely to vote.
Update 5/3/2016: The results of the 4/26 primaries did not hold with the overall pattern—in fact there was a negative correlation (-0.53) between Sanders' performance and turnout in those contests—but this was entirely due to Sanders' strong showing in the low-turnout Rhode Island primary, and weak performance in the comparatively high-turnout Maryland primary. The results in the three other states that voted on 4/26 fit the earlier primaries' correlation between turnout and Sanders' vote share. "Outliers" like Maryland and Rhode Island just demonstrate how elections are a complicated process that can not be reduced to a single external variable. On the other hand, the 4/26 exit polls continue to support the correlation between turnout and Sanders' support among minority voters—in fact, the results were almost perfectly in line with what we would expect from the results in earlier contests with similar turnout levels.
Final Update 8/1/2016: Overall, the correlation between Democratic primary voter turnout and Bernie Sanders' share of the Democratic Primary vote declined, but remained high, with a correlation coefficient of 0.68 over all of the Democratic Primaries. Likewise, the correlation coefficient for non-white and black voters in exit poll data declined, but remained high (at 0.76 and 0.70 respectively.) The decline in correlation could be due to a number of factors, including political differences between early and later states, and the decline in enthusiasm among Sanders' supporters as his chances of winning the nomination became increasingly remote.
Notes: Voting-Eligible Population (VEP) numbers are from the U.S. Elections Project. Democratic VEP are my own estimates: for closed contests, I used state party registration statistics to estimate the Democratic VEP, for open and modified contests I used the Cook PVI to estimate "potential" Democratic VEP. Vote totals and candidate vote shares are from The Green Papers. Exit polling data are from CNN.
Jeremy Sarka is a writer, artist, programmer, attempted creative professional, and disillusioned Millenial.