non-voters

Nathan Newman nathanne at nathannewman.org
Wed Jan 15 04:16:24 PST 2003


Did a quick search and found this profile comparing general population and voting population from 1996. As expected, the voting population is more educated, wealthier and whiter than the general population.

How they would vote is a more interesting issue-- since they tend to be apathetic and detached from the political process, it's hard to take too seriously what they tell pollsters based on that general detachment, since it would likely change if there was serious outreach. But it's well known that likely voters vote more Republican than general voters.

But winning progressive campaigns usually do well not so much by increasing general turnout but by getting key supporting demographics (blacks, union voters, etc.) to turn out disproportionately, just as the GOP does well not so much by general turnout but my motivating their base.

-- Nathan

----- Original Message ----- From: "Reed Tryte" <reed_tryte at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:56 AM Subject: non-voters

I know there was some discussion of this earlier, but I wasn't paying close attention. Does anyone know of good information about how the non-voting population compares to the voting population in the US -- eg, in income, race, age, etc.? Has anyone ever figured out how the non-voting population would likely vote if they did vote? And have many winning progressive campaigns (Wellstone, etc.) been based on increasing turnout?

Nathan, I'm looking at you.

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list