Gans is Wrong About Rock the Vote and the 1996 Election

Yesterday I was quoted in a Politico story about celebrity outreach to young voters. Curtis Gans was also quoted, making much the same argument he did in the report I blogged earlier today (emphasis mine):

But Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, cautions against concluding that there’s a causal relationship — and against ignoring the influence of the candidates themselves.

“It really depends on the fertility of the field,” Gans said. “The best example is that, in 1992, Rock the Vote claimed credit for a large surge in youth turnout. But using precisely the same methodology in 1996, youth turnout was the lowest ever. ... The same performers that got people to register in 1992 could not get people to register in 1996.”

Gans attributes the turnout spike in the last presidential election cycle to opposition to President Bush, even though it was not enough for John F. Kerry to defeat him.

Here's the problem - they didn't use the same methodology. In 1992, Rock the Vote had a huge field program. It was that field component, combined with the competitive election, the economic crisis, and the novelty of Rock the Vote as an institution that accounted for the large upswing in young voter participation. By 1996, the novelty had worn off and the field program had fallen into shambles. The Rock the Vote of 1996 was mostly a media campaign. It was not the same organization or the exact same methodology as in 1992.

Now, Gans is right that the economic upswing and the lack of a competitive race played a role in driving down youth turnout, but it was not the only factor by any means. The bottom line is this: Gans consistently ignores the role of traditional and non traditional field work aimed at young voters in increasing young voter turnout. It seems to be his blind spot.