If you've already voted, how long did you wait?

Ah, I found at least one exit poll for 2000 and 2004.

In 2000 Democrats made up 39% of turnout, Republicans made up 35%.

We saw roughly 20 million more people show up in 2004 than in 2000 (that's double the number that showed up for 2008 when compared to 2004). The numbers at that point? 37% Democrat, 37% Republicans. So +2% for the Republicans and -2% for Democrats with the massive increase in turnout.

Link

For 2006 compared to 2010?

In 2006 we had 36% Rep and 38% Dem. In 2010 Republicans stayed at 36% and Dem's went down to 36%. So -2% Dems, even for Republicans. However, looking at ideological ID and it gets a bit more interesting. In 2006 Conservatives represented 32% of the vote compared to 20% liberal and 47% moderate. In 2010? Conservatives spiked up to 41%, Liberals stayed at 20%, and Moderates dropped to 39%.

Link

So in recent history...the Presidential election with the largest jump in turnout was a net +4% in favor of the Republicans. In the Mid-term election with the largest jump in turnout Republicans saw a net of +2% in their favor and a +9% in favor of conservative ideology.

Don't know about the law of averages over a long period of time...but at least in recent elections, in the ones that had the biggest turnout spikes for their type of election, it's not been in the Democrats favor. 2008 was MASSIVELY in their favor, but mind you that was a smaller turnout spike than 2004.

Higher turnout is generally imputed to the dems because young/first-time voters tend to support the dems and the dems usually have huge GOTV efforts. That seems to be a wash though as the GOP has really gotten itself together on the GOTV stuff in recent years. This time it seems like the dems are only focusing on turning out in blue urban centers which was the undoing of both Al Gore and John Kerry IMHO.

AdamT said:

It's a truism that I've heard all my life -- surprised you haven't heard it. But looking for hard data, I'm not finding much to support it. Why voter turnout in 2012 is likely to be down

Click to expand...

It was something I had heard previously, but basically as an anecdotal thing without much actual info ever backing it up and something that, in the past decade or two, seemed to not coincide with reality I've never given much credence to.

I think all things being equal....IE if both sides are equally enthusiastic...that it would POSSIBLY be a reality (and that's questionable). However, we don't live in a bubble. I personally think enthusiasm in each individual base MIXED with turnout is the bigger issue. Higher turnout is something I think generally helps the party with a higher enthusiasm number for the election rather than a specific party.

Basically....if there's an increase in the turnout, and there's one side that's more enthusiastic to turn out, then there's a reasonable guess to be made that a majority of that increase comes from said party.

The past two elections clearly show wonderful examples as this, with 2010 being a bit screwy due to needing to look at ideological totals rather than "party" ID.

From the time I drove in the parking lot, to the time I drove out was about 15 minutes.

Had a chance to meet some local celebrities that I wouldn't otherwise get to meet. One old dude that was about 137 years old was the poll captain--or judge, or whatever--dressed like a classic buckaroo, with the high-heeled cowboy boots that came up to the knee with his pants tucked in, and a helt hat with actual sweat stains around the band. He and I visited for a couple minutes while I awaited my turn. He's a funny old feller.

Zyphlin said:

It was something I had heard previously, but basically as an anecdotal thing without much actual info ever backing it up and something that, in the past decade or two, seemed to not coincide with reality I've never given much credence to.

I think all things being equal....IE if both sides are equally enthusiastic...that it would POSSIBLY be a reality (and that's questionable). However, we don't live in a bubble. I personally think enthusiasm in each individual base MIXED with turnout is the bigger issue. Higher turnout is something I think generally helps the party with a higher enthusiasm number for the election rather than a specific party.

Basically....if there's an increase in the turnout, and there's one side that's more enthusiastic to turn out, then there's a reasonable guess to be made that a majority of that increase comes from said party.

The past two elections clearly show wonderful examples as this, with 2010 being a bit screwy due to needing to look at ideological totals rather than "party" ID.

Click to expand...

I think that's probably right. In this case I would find high turnout encouraging because folks were generally predicting that there hasn't been much Dem enthusiasm. A high turnout might (?) indicate that that Republican advantage was being watered down. Or not.

In any case, I'm surprised that turnout is high, assuming later reports bear that out.

I had one person in front of me.

Zyphlin said:

It was something I had heard previously, but basically as an anecdotal thing without much actual info ever backing it up and something that, in the past decade or two, seemed to not coincide with reality I've never given much credence to.

I think all things being equal....IE if both sides are equally enthusiastic...that it would POSSIBLY be a reality (and that's questionable). However, we don't live in a bubble. I personally think enthusiasm in each individual base MIXED with turnout is the bigger issue. Higher turnout is something I think generally helps the party with a higher enthusiasm number for the election rather than a specific party.

Basically....if there's an increase in the turnout, and there's one side that's more enthusiastic to turn out, then there's a reasonable guess to be made that a majority of that increase comes from said party.

The past two elections clearly show wonderful examples as this, with 2010 being a bit screwy due to needing to look at ideological totals rather than "party" ID.

Click to expand...

In a previous life when I worked for somebody somewhere doing something, we used an every election since WWII model and pro-rated turnout along the same ratio--for instance if dems had 51% performance over the elections we assumed 51% of GOTV would go to them. We didn't stop there, but that is where we started, and then added in weights to the algorithms for certain other factors. (BTW in states with no party registration, that is, at best, a shot in the dark method that was off the mark by a mile at times).

I live in a relatively rural area of Pennsylvania.
Went to the nearest polling place (which, quite literally, is now within 15-20mins walking distance, as opposed to past elections where it was ~15-20mins drive) on my way to work (left early).
Got there around 1300.
Parking lot wasn't full, although my father says it was earlier in the day.
No lines at all, polling station was open after I signed in and showed them my ID.
Voted in a few mins, then left.
All told it took me only about 15 mins for the entire process, if not less.

There was one guy standing near a table outside the building with pamphlets and the like. I didn’t pay attention, no idea which party (if any) he supported.