In the previous two months, Putnam County’s eligible voters did--or did not--cast ballots in either the Republican or Democratic party primaries.
Mostly, they did not.
To be blunt about it, they stayed away in droves.
What is going on in our troubling political life? What are the ramifications? What might happen?
Tracking the statewide percentages almost exactly, Putnam County saw a total of only 31 percent of its 16,007 registered voters cast ballots in the two May 24 primaries. Translation: nearly seven out of 10 registered voters--not population, but already registered voters--stayed home. In other words, almost 70 percent of registered voters were no-shows.
Then, in the June 14 runoffs, the percentage of ballot casters dropped to just 11.5 percent. That figure represents nearly nine out of 10 registered voters—90 percent— opting out of helping choose our voices to make decisions at different levels of government.
Sadly, both figures are seen to be “about normal” for party primaries. Even in a general election with a presidential race on the ballot, a 70-percent turnout is considered “outstanding.”
Low turnouts are nothing new. Six years ago, a tight mayor’s race in Eatonton was won by a scant 15 votes in a decision made by only 46 percent of the registered voters living close together in a four- to six-miles wide circle.
One result of low turnouts is that those who do vote gain an outsized voice. Likewise, candidates with more extreme views in the intra-party bloodletting called primaries gain a better chance of election. And that is not to mention the usual political scheming to find any kind of advantage, a practice as old as the hills.
On the national level, the rule of thumb holds that each of the two major parties can claim about 30 percent of the electorate, leaving something like 40 percent waiting to be energized and perhaps even persuaded. Call this last group “the middle.”
So, who wants the middle, come November? Perhaps more importantly, who does the middle want when the parties’ candidates lean too far left or too far right?
This is just one man’s opinion, but what happened in the 2020 presidential race seems pretty simple. Donald Trump did not even try to shift more toward the middle with his my-way-or-the-highway views. Sure, he pulled more votes than ever before, some 73 million. But he also angered or scared the bejesus out of the huge block in the middle. And they came out in even larger numbers—some 84 million—to vote against him and for Joe Biden.
There was a time when each party’s “poohbahs” tried to steer their party’s primary toward a candidate who might have the best chance of winning in the general election. This outlook leaned toward somewhat more moderate candidates.
This time around, though, the ever-earlier March 24 deadline for qualifying to run in each party’s primaries seemed to motivate most candidates to re-fight the last election, either for or against Trump and his loud and devoted “base.”
Just two or three months later, however, there were signs that Georgia and Putnam County Republicans were moving in a more moderate direction, or at least rejecting the idea of outside meddling. In the May-June primaries and runoffs, Trump’s scheming and endorsements did not fare well at all. Yes, Trump-favored Herschel Walker won the GOP nod to face Sen. Raphael Warnock in November, but David Perdue got clobbered by Gov. Brian Kemp, with similar fates befalling former 10th District congressman Jody Hice against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and Vernon Jordan versus Mike Collins in the 10th District GOP race.
So it looks like Trump’s influence may be fading, just as he may be looking at more serious and much larger problems if the ongoing House Select Committee’s televised hearings on the events of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol are any indication.
In the last decade or so, technology has caught up and changed the ways political campaigns are waged. From cellphones and social media to the fragmentation and decline of “legacy” media and preaching-to-the-choir TV outlets, the trend has become more toward “energizing the base.” Care is taken to carefully stay away from saying anything publicly that might rile up the other side or even persuade the “middle.” Let sleeping dogs lie seems the prevailing view.
Candidates typically speak to invitation-only groups now, decline interviews with local media, even turn down questionnaires for publishing to a broader audience.
So, what of “the middle?” Who are they? Some simply may be disgusted with politics. Some may be confused and unsure. A healthy percentage just may not care.
But my suspicion is that another healthy percentage remains focused on the immediate pressures in daily living: getting the kids off to school, going to work, remembering to pick up a gallon of milk at the grocery store. This focus depends on stability and order and predictability. It hinges on the presumption that tomorrow will probably be pretty much like today.
Probably. Maybe.