In my last post, I took a look at the turnout in House districts that the DFL lost. Today, a coworker asked me about districts that were close, but were won by the DFL candidate. Good question. So I put together the following table of districts where the DFL candidate won. I chose districts not by any particular mathematical criteria, other than they are districts that were either close in 2006 or close in 2010, and are generally your typical swing districts:
| 2006 Total | 2010 Total | ||||||||||
| District | GOP | DFL | Total | GOP | DFL | Total | GOP Raw Increase | GOP % Increase | DFL Raw Increase | DFL Decrease | Turnout Change |
| 4A | 4810 | 9990 | 14800 | 6808 | 7744 | 14552 | 1998 | 41.54% | -2246 | -22.48% | -1.68% |
| 12A | 7460 | 8987 | 16447 | 6924 | 9435 | 16359 | -536 | -7.18% | 448 | 4.98% | -0.54% |
| 20A | 6765 | 9030 | 15795 | 6818 | 7418 | 14236 | 53 | 0.78% | -1612 | -17.85% | -9.87% |
| 20B | 6512 | 8673 | 15185 | 6728 | 6893 | 13621 | 216 | 3.32% | -1780 | -20.52% | -10.30% |
| 23A | 8018 | 8834 | 16852 | 7007 | 8596 | 15603 | -1011 | -12.61% | -238 | -2.69% | -7.41% |
| 23B | 6254 | 9704 | 15958 | 6100 | 7835 | 13935 | -154 | -2.46% | -1869 | -19.26% | -12.68% |
| 26B | 6569 | 7110 | 13679 | 6459 | 6611 | 13070 | -110 | -1.67% | -499 | -7.02% | -4.45% |
| 27B | 6591 | 8529 | 15120 | 5716 | 7801 | 13517 | -875 | -13.28% | -728 | -8.54% | -10.60% |
| 29B | 7662 | 7761 | 15423 | 6829 | 7820 | 14649 | -833 | -10.87% | 59 | 0.76% | -5.02% |
| 30A | 6336 | 7106 | 13442 | 5527 | 6814 | 12341 | -809 | -12.77% | -292 | -4.11% | -8.19% |
| 47A | 6905 | 8106 | 15011 | 6813 | 7077 | 13890 | -92 | -1.33% | -1029 | -12.69% | -7.47% |
| 47B | 7301 | 9269 | 16570 | 7030 | 8278 | 15308 | -271 | -3.71% | -991 | -10.69% | -7.62% |
| 50B | 7769 | 9025 | 16794 | 7667 | 8455 | 16122 | -102 | -1.31% | -570 | -6.32% | -4.00% |
| 54B | 7969 | 9229 | 17198 | 6851 | 9022 | 15873 | -1118 | -14.03% | -207 | -2.24% | -7.70% |
| Averages | 6923 | 8668 | 15591 | 6663 | 7843 | 14505 | -260 | -2.54% | -825 | -9.19% | -6.97% |
The data is the same as before: You have 2006 totals, then 2010 totals, then a comparison of the raw vote changes, percentage change, and then turnout change. I’ve omitted the last column that the previous table had because it doesn’t really matter here. As stated, this data is the data for house seats where the DFL candidate won this year.
What’s interesting when we compared this to the previous table? A few things are immediately apparent. First, unlike districts where the DFLer lost, the Republican candidates in this list actually did worse than in 2006: on average, they lost 260 votes, compared to gaining almost 400 votes in the districts where the Republican candidate defeated the Democratic candidate. Second, the DFL vote did not decrease quite as much in these districts as the districts where the Republican won: an average loss of 825 votes, compared to 1052 votes. Third, the overall turnout in these districts dipped more than in the districts where the DFLer lost by almost 3 percentage points. Fourth, by and large, the data appears to have much more variance in this table.
What can explain the differences? I’m not quite sure. I don’t have access to the data on which districts the parties themselves dumped money into, although I’m willing to bet that compared to the previous list where the DFL candidates lost, less money was put into these races. There’s a finite amount of money out there, and the Republicans and Democrats have to focus their money on districts that are most likely to switch. If, then, we assume that the races above did not have quite as much attention (read: mailings and other advertisements) as the races more targeted, then perhaps the net effect of the extra attention in the races that the DFL candidate lost was to bump up Republican turnout significantly, moreso than depressing DFL turnout. In fact, barring district 4A, which is definitely an outlier, only two districts in this table saw an increase in Republican voter turnout.
I don’t know what conclusions one can draw from this, other than it’s all about turnout, turnout, and turnout. Especially in non-presidential years, getting your base to show up at the polls is really what matters.