THE ELECTION STEEPLECHASE

If youth knew, if age could. ~ Sigmund Freud 

The steeplechase, one of the most challenging races, is an obstacle-strewn running race, which derives its name from the steeplechase in horse racing. It’s the only similarly-named event in which two different animal species separately compete. For humans, it combines three different skills into one event: distance running, hurdling, and long jumping.

The human steeplechase consists of a 3000-meter (1.86mi.) run with 28 hurdles/barriers and 7 water jumps. In the 23 Olympic men’s steeplechase events since 1900, it has never been won by an American. In 2016, Evan Jager from Portland, Oregon received the Silver Medal, the highest-placed American in the Olympic men’s steeplechase. In the third Women’s Olympic Steeplechase (2016), Emma Coburn from Boulder, Colorado received the Bronze Medal, the highest-placed American in the Olympic women’s steeplechase. In 2017, she won the women’s steeplechase at the World Championships. Tiger Roll, shown here and ridden by Davey Russel, has won the two most recent Irish Grand National equestrian steeplechases. 

There’s another difficult steeplechase race that finally is headed for a finish, the 2020 US presidential election. Fortunately, neither Joe Biden or Donald Trump needs to soar over physical hurdles nor glide across water jumps, they simply have to survive the rigors of their campaigning until November 3. The voting public also has to finish the election steeplechase by casting ballots, and then having great patience before learning who actually won.

Some voters will find this more challenging than others, independent of the many outrageous obstacles being thrown onto the process by Republicans. Right now, the Dems must re-invigorate their ground game and re-energize their house-to-house virtual and/or real door-knocking efforts.

The table below shows the average turnout and electorate share for the last three presidential elections for several groups of voters. It’s important to remember that such broad groupings represent very diverse sets of real humans who have disparate political views. Each group’s varied political opinions are approximated by its “Average Voting Margin” in the table. This column describes how each group voted in the 2016 presidential election. For example, young people (18-29 years old) provided 29% more Democratic votes than Republican votes, hence D+29. The higher this number, the greater the predominance of the group’s average voting record for either Dems or Repubs.

Turnout, Electorate Share and Margin for the 

2016, 2012 & 2008 Presidential Elections by Group

Group	Average Election Turnout (%)	Average Electorate Share (%)	Average Voting Margin*
Non-Hispanic White	63.9	74.8	R+15
Non-Hispanic Black	65.5	12.6	D+83
Hispanic	44.8	8.2	D+45
18-29 years old	44.2	16.1	D+29
60+ years old	71.2	30.9	R+15

*2016 election. Sources: United States Elections Project and Washington Post

As shown, the average turnout of young people (18-29 years old) and Hispanics is much lower than any other group. The highest is elder voters (60+ years). Black voters have provided strong election turnout and an extraordinary voting margin.

This is not news; these turnouts have been an election participation fact for a long time. Voter turnout among younger voters has been grim since 18-year-olds earned the right to vote after the 26th amendment was passed in 1971. It continues to pose a particular challenge for the Dems, despite their significant voter-turnout efforts.

In the current election cycle, young voters have accounted for just 7.7% of the 17.7 million votes cast across the US through October 16. In Pennsylvania, one of the media-designated “key/swing” states, young voters placed merely 8.7% of the total votes.

As one experienced election analyst put it regarding the youth vote this time around: “Well, we can cross off the ‘What if young people really vote?’ option. Waiting for Godot is less of a time-suck than waiting for more active participation from the 18-29 group.” I hope this analyst’s assessment proves premature; but up to now, it’s not. In terms of overall national turnout so far, young voters are turning out less than they did in 2016.

To illustrate the abundant challenges and risks of the Dems’ again pursuing a young-voter focused strategy to win I used the Washington Post’s interesting Presidential Election Model (PEM). This interactive, “black box” model predicts Electoral College votes based on user specified voter group turnout rates and margins.

After examining young voter-oriented scenarios with the PEM, I learned that there are other, potentially more effective strategies for Joe Biden to potentially become #46.

First, I increased the laggard youth voting turnout from 43.4% in 2016, to the national average 2016 turnout (59%). That’s a mind-bogglingly large increase given too many young persons’ voting histories and apparent youth proclivities. I did not change the already-substantial youth voting margin, Dem+29. The result: #45 still wins in the Electoral College 290 v 248 for Joe. With the WaPo PEM, this huge increase in youth turnout shifted only one state’s election results from red to blue, Michigan. Sorry Joe.

Why? Because Democrat-friendly youth voters are not evenly distributed across states; fewer live in either Trump’s reddish lands or in swing states. They are not clustered in the closest-voting states. Generally, more young voters live in very blue urban areas, where their marginal voting matters less than if they lived in rural Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida or even Texas.

If the Dems placed all of their electoral marbles with youth voters (a daft strategy), Joe only would win the November election if youth turnout increased to an astonishing 61%, a 40% gain in young voters’ 2016 election turnout shifting both Florida and Michigan to blue. Does this mean young voters don’t matter for Dems? Not at all. But despite the media’s attention on youth voters’ importance, other voter segments with higher Dem turnouts and margins doubtlessly matter much more for the Dems’ and Joe’s victory, specifically Black and female voters.

If Black voters’ turnout can be increased to 67% (from 60%; a 12% increase) then Joe’s electoral college votes (EVs) in the PEM rise to 297 v 241 for #45, winning the presidency. This optimistically realistic turnout rise is powered by maintaining the Blacks’ massive D+83 margin. If the Dems’ campaign can increase female voters’ margin from D+9 to D+10 and increases female turnout from 63% to 67%, Joe can win in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. With this Joe can bring home the EVs bacon, 278 v 260, to begin eating in 1600’s Mess on January 20.

The 2016 election steeplechase has rounded the proverbial final turn. Every person who hopes to gain public office in two weeks continues swamping your mailbox, social media as well as large and small screens urging you to vote for them. Talk about decimating forests.

I’m wishing that Team Blue can convince enough voters and enough electors to shift America’s present and future into a better, brighter setting. The DNC and Dem voters can certainly do it with enough focus, discipline and effort. Now is the time for #46.