Reported registration levels are the highest they’ve been since 1960-64. Most of this increased registration level is attributable to increased registration in the battleground states. Here’s Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate on the likelihood of increased turnout this year:

There is reason to believe that this year’s increased registration, coupled with heightened voter interest and intense feelings generated by the 2004 election campaign, will produce substantially higher turnout this year.

Speaking as an old turnout hand, Gans is usually right in this area, so I’d put considerable stock in this assessment.
Another piece of evidence: early voting is going through the roof. On to election day.

John Kerry leads George Bush 54.3-41.5 percent of Miami Dade County LV’s, according to a new Miami Herald Poll conducted 10/22-5. Miami Herald reporter Jim Defede notes “In 2000, Al Gore beat Bush by almost 40,000 votes in Miami-Dade County…According to the Herald poll, done by Zogby International, Kerry is positioned to win Miami-Dade by anywhere from 90,000 to 100,000 votes. A margin that large in Florida’s most populous county would be hard for Bush to make up across the rest of the state.”

John Kerry leads George Bush 49.9-44.6 percent of Pennsylvania LV’s, according to a Westchester University Center for Social and Economic Research Poll conducted 10/24-7.

Here are two things we can safely say about this election:
1. It will be a high-turnout election.
2. High turnout will benefit the Democrats.
Here’s how we know it will be a high-turnout election:
First and foremost, this is a very high interest election. Data across a wide range of polls have persistently shown that voters are expressing more interest in this campaign and are following it more closely than they were at comparable points in the 2000 and 1996 campaigns. These indicators suggest that, on the basis of interest alone, voter turnout could be comparable to that in 1992.
And besides high interest, this is an election where there have been high levels of new registrations and voter contact by the “ground games” of both parties. Therefore, not only are voters more interested, they are also more likely to have been provided with the opportunity to mobilize that interest and convert it into voting on election day (or before). This suggests that turnout could potentially surpass that in 1992.
Here’s how we know that high turnout is likely to benefit the Democrats:
The basic reason is simple. Democrats enjoy support from a number of “peripheral” constituencies this year whose participation levels are typically low and can be difficult to get to the polls. But in a high turnout election, electoral intensity draws these constituencies into the process and tends to produce not only an increase in their turnout–after all, most groups will experience at least some increase in turnout–but an increase in turnout that is higher than that of more mainstream constituencies. Therefore, the higher the turnout, the higher the payoff for the Democrats, because their peripheral constituencies are disproportionately mobilized into the process.
One such constituency is young voters (18-29). While there have been exceptions, and Kerry’s lead has varied over time, most polls most of the time have shown Kerry with a healthy lead over Bush among young voters in general, and college students in particular.
Another constituency is new voters. Again, while not all polls agree and Kerry’s lead has varied over time, most polls most of the time have shown Kerry with a strong lead over Bush among new voters.
Underscoring the new voters pattern is Democratic success in generating new registrations this year, particularly, of course, in the battleground states. While there is some dispute over who won these “registration wars”–and we may not have a final answer until after the election when more and better data will be available–I am persuaded that the Democrats have had greater success registering voters where they matter the most. And a high turnout election is just what is needed to bring these new registrants, whose participation rates are typically less than that of already-registered voters, to the polls.
Another key–perhaps the key–constituency is minority voters, whose support for the Democrats is exceptionally high. Bush’s black support generally registers in the 7-10 percent range (though there are exceptions; see my recent discussion of one of those exceptions) and Bush’s Hispanic support has been running around 30 percent in nationwide or multistate polls of Hispanics. (Such polls–as opposed to regular national polls–provide for the Spanish-language interviewing and other arrangements needed to get a proper sample of Hispanic voters and therefore provide better measures of Hispanic sentiment.)
Finally, recent work by Victoria Lynch of the DLC, based on National Election Studies data, shows that peripheral voters in general–those who are not highly committed to voting and tend to surge in and out of the electorate depending on their interest in the election–tend to lean naturally toward the Democrats, not the Republicans. As the DLC’s memo on the report summarizes these tendencies:

Peripheral voters are much more like Democrats than Republicans in supporting an activist government; in their commitment to equal opportunity; and in their rejection of cultural conservative “wedge issues.” Demographically, peripheral voters are more like Democrats than Republicans in that they are relatively younger, less educated, more likely to consider themselves “working class,” less likely to attend worship services regularly, and much more likely to self-identify as ideological “moderates” rather than conservatives. Indeed, this analysis casts a lot of doubt on Republican claims that non-voting Christian conservatives are a big part of the pool of “mobilizable” peripheral voters — in part because these voters are disproportionately disengaged from civic as well as political involvement, and do not readily follow opinion-leaders, much less the “voter guides” distributed in churches that they do not regularly attend.

The last point is important because it helps debunk Karl Rove’s infamous–and specious–claim that there were 4 million “missing” conservative white evangelical voters in the 2000 election who could potentially be turned out in this election. (If further debunking of the missing 4 million is needed, let me recommend Marisa Katz’ demolition job on The New Republic’s website.)
So, in sum, a high turnout election seems very likely and a consequent advantage for the Democrats very likely as well. And the Democrats’ ground game seems to be running in high gear and fully capable of maximizing that advantage (see Harold Meyerson’s excellent new piece on Democratic mobilization efforts). In a close election–and that seems a very distinct possibility–this turnout advantage for the Democrats could not only be important, but decisive.

But it’s still pretty damn important, so it’s very interesting indeed to note that both consumer confidence indices (University of Michigan and the Conference) fell sharply this month.
Here’s the Wall Street Journal on the University of Michigan index:

The recent surge in oil prices and heightened concerns about sluggish job growth helped push the University of Michigan’s consumer-sentiment index as of mid-October below the benchmark reading of 90 — a level considered by some political analysts important for an incumbent president’s re-election prospects. Of the six presidents seeking re-election since 1972, the three who lost faced voters when the Michigan index was below that figure.

And here’s Bloomberg News on the Conference Board index:

U.S. consumer confidence fell for a third straight month in October, a private survey showed, suggesting rising voter discontent with the economy a week before President George W. Bush seeks re-election.
The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index dropped to 92.8 from a revised 96.7 in September, lower than previously estimated. Americans’ assessment of the current economy and their outlook for the next six months fell.
The survey is the Conference Board’s last before the U.S. presidential election. Since the index began in 1967, every incumbent president facing re-election with consumer confidence below 99 on Election Day has lost.

Not good news for Mr. Bush, I’d have to say. And speaking of the economy, check out this very useful report, “Less Cash in Their Pockets: Trends in Incomes, Wages, Taxes, and Health Spending of Middle-Income Families, 2000-03“, from the indispensable Economic Policy Institute. A very complete analysis that makes clear why voters by 2:1 say the country is worse off, rather than better off, as a result of Bush’s economic policies (lastest LA Times poll). And why two-thirds of voters believe their family is not better off today than four years ago (latest CBS/NYT poll).
Unconfident consumers with sinking incomes. Sounds to me like a recipe for incumbent defeat.

Peter Dizikes had an excellent article on the sputtering Nader campaign yesterday in Salon. This excerpt from his article provides a nice summary of Nader’s woes:

As those of us who have seen Nader in person this month know, his campaign is a relatively low-energy, low-interest affair. Crowds are down. Campaign funds are minimal. The candidate who drew about 3 percent of the popular vote in 2000 is at 1 percent in this year’s polls and could finish lower.
To see just how Nader is struggling, consider the trajectory of his campaign in 2000, and contrast it to his 2004 effort. On Aug. 25, 2000, Nader drew 10,579 supporters, who paid $7 each, to a “super rally” at the Portland Coliseum. There followed a string of “super rallies” with five-figure attendance numbers: 11,500 in Minneapolis, 12,000 at the Fleet Center in Boston, 10,000 in Chicago, and about 15,000 inside New York’s Madison Square Garden, at $20 a ticket.
In 2004, Nader events are far smaller. On Oct. 5, for example, Nader spoke to about 65 supporters in Portland, Maine, before moving on to the University of New Hampshire event, where just over 100 supporters showed, and finishing the day speaking to an audience of about 500 at the University of Vermont. Nader’s largest crowd of the month appears to have been about 800 in Berkeley, on Oct. 11, but I counted a more typical 225 in the audience last Saturday as Nader spoke on the Rutgers campus in Piscataway, N.J. Nader will end October having held over 30 campaign events, yet his total audience for the month could comfortably fit inside Madison Square Garden. At many events, anti-Nader groups protest outside; inside, former supporters often confront him during the question-and-answer sessions.
Meanwhile, the celebrity supporters who adorned Nader’s campaign in 2000 — including Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and, yes, Michael Moore — have jumped ship. A long list of academics and public figures from Nader’s 2000 “Citizens Committee” — Noam Chomsky, Studs Terkel, Cornel West and dozens more — now back John Kerry. Even Winona LaDuke, Nader’s vice presidential candidate in 2000, endorsed the Democratic candidate this month, saying, “I’m voting my conscience on Nov. 2. I’m voting for John Kerry.”

But check out the whole article. It’s full of juicy stuff including Nader’s current fundraising strategy (begging penniless college students for money).

John Kerry leads George Bush 49-45 percent of nation-wide RV’s, according to an Economist/YouGov Poll conducted 10/25-27.
Kerry leads Bush 49-46 percent of nation-wide LV’s in a new Democracy Corps Poll conducted 10/26-27

Results of American Research Groups Polls of LV’s conducted 10/25-27:
Oregon – Kerry leads 50-46 percent
Wisconsin – Kerry ahead 48-47 percent
Iowa – Bush leads 48-47 percent

John Kerry and George Bush are tied at 44 percent of Florida RV’s, according to a new Quinnipiac University Poll conducted 10/22-26 .The Poll also found that, among the 16 percent of Flordians who have alread voted, Kerry leads by 56-39 percent.

By Alan Abramowitz
Here’s where the presidential race stands right now based on an analysis of the most recent national polls conducted by 10 leading polling organizations. For this analysis I have excluded all partisan polls, internet polls, and robo-dial polls. That leaves out Democracy Corps, Harris, Economist/YouGov, and Rasmussen. Some of these polls, especially Democracy Corps, are in my opinion very reputable, but for the sake of fairness I’m excluding them. Included in the analysis are the following polls: Gallup, CBS/New York Times, NBC/Wall Street Journal, ABC/Washington Post, Zogby, Time, Newsweek, Pew, AP/Ipsos, and LA Times. All of these polls except Zogby report results for registered as well as likely voters.
Among likely voters, Bush was leading in 5 polls, Kerry in 2, and 3 were tied. The average level of support for the candidates was Bush 48.2, Kerry 47.0, Nader 1.3.
Among registered voters, Bush was leading in 3 polls, Kerry in 2, and 4 were tied. The average level of support for the candidates was Bush 47.0, Kerry 46.0, Nader 1.9.
It is clear from these results that heading into the final weekend of the campaign, the presidential race right now is extremely close. George Bush appears to hold a very slight lead nationally, but his support remains below the 50 percent level that is generally considered necessary for an incumbent since undecided voters generally break toward the challenger by a wide margin.