Four years ago, in a nation gripped by a pandemic and locked out of most other social outlets in many areas, the electorate set records for turnout. This time around, will the electorate engage at the same level, or has the urgency disappeared in presidential politics? And who benefits from a lower turnout?

CNN's Harry Enten takes a look at some data on enthusiasm, so get ready for a couple of surprises. Despite the ramping-up rhetoric about The Descent of Fascism, it turns out that fewer people see this as "the most important election of our lifetimes" than four years ago. The question is where the enthusiasm has drained most, and Enten's not sure he knows:

ENTEN: Why? You know every single year people say, this is the most important election ever, right? Well, they actually polled this. The most important election of my lifetime. Back in 2020, look at this, 74 percent of registered voters said that, yes, it was the most important election of their lifetime. This time around, it's actually less. It's 65 percent. Now, that's still a pretty impressive number, but it's a drop of nearly ten points of Americans who are registered voters saying it's the most important election of a lifetime, despite the fact that we have all these politicians out there saying it. Voters are actually less - less - slightly less likely to agree with them, John.

BERMAN: All right, so the zillion dollar question here is, if turnout does drop, which candidate does that help or hurt more?

ENTEN: Which candidate does it help or hurt more? This is the million dollar question. And the million dollar answer is one that probably satisfies neither side. Harris versus Trump margin, lower turnout may not benefit either side. You know, if you look at the broader universe of registered voters, you see Harris up by a point, well within the margin of error nationally. If you look at likely voters, it's still Harris by a point.

Now, what's interesting here, of course, if you look historically, normally Republicans actually benefit with lower turnout. If you look at the polling earlier this year, as the Democratic coalition becomes more and more educated, it would have said that Harris would have done better with slightly lower turnout. But in the polling right now, it does not seem to me that either side would necessarily benefit.

I think the question ultimately is though, given how tight this is, who's going to get those few extra voters off the sidelines on that question. We're just going have to wait and see.

Lower turnout is probably inevitable from four years ago, just because we no longer have the pandemic fueling interest in politics. Until four months ago or so, the matchup itself would have been reason enough to predict a large fall-off, as the two parties combined to create the repeat that voters clearly didn't want. The soft coup that put Kamala Harris into Joe Biden's place momentarily stoked enthusiasm and interest, but that has pretty clearly evaporated.

Which side loses the most, then? Enten takes care to stick to the polling data at hand and never reaches a conclusion. However, he's right that Republicans generally do a little better with lower turnout, and there may be more reason for that this cycle than most. 

In the first place, as I have often mentioned, the right/wrong direction numbers in this election are off-the-charts terrible for the incumbent administration. Not only are they hitting historic levels of no-confidence, they have been sustained at that level for three years. Americans want change, and not just change that nibbles on the edges. That's why Harris keeps trying to distance herself from Biden, but keeps fumbling on just how she'll do anything different. Needless to say, voters are not going to be enthusiastic about endorsing the status quo, so enthusiasm for turning out in support of Harris won't be terribly high.

What about increased enthusiasm for Trump? That seems more likely, considering the right/wrong direction and the sharp difference in that metric between his term and the Biden-Harris years. Trump gets handicapped by his unfavorables, but those have dropped almost to even-up in this cycle. (So have Harris', thanks to Protection Racket Media coverage.) On top of that, voters have more confidence in Trump on their top issues -- economy, immigration, and crime. Voters looking for change from this administration will be more enthusiastic about Trump than four years ago, even with all of the shrieking over Trump's supposed "fascism" and Nazi references. 

And that's why the Democrats' strategy to Go The Full Nazi Hysteria is about as desperate as it gets. That is essentially a vote-suppressing argument, a dog-in-the-manger ploy to kill enthusiasm at all. Even for people who may be inclined to vote against Trump, the rhetoric for Democrats is so corrosive and tiresome that it might just push more voters into bailing out entirely this cycle, except the radical progressives for whom The Dark Night of Fascism is forever descending. 

Power Line's Steven Hayward probably diagnoses this correctly as a desperate measure to build enthusiasm on the hard Left, where Harris has squandered it:

The left probably really does believe that Trump is “literally” (as The Atlantic literally put it) Hitler, but the handful of adults in the Democratic playroom surely know that this hoary charge has lost its sting, because it is preposterous. So why did Harris herself make the charge?  I have a theory that so far I’ve not seen advanced. I think it is being done to shore up a small faction of the progressive base that might not turn out for Harris. It reflects the desperation of the campaign. ...

With the election possibly coming down to a margin of a few thousand votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, Harris can’t afford any attrition among progressive and young voters who ought to be in her pocket. Playing the Hitler Card is a desperate attempt to keep these voters from defecting or not voting at all.

Of course, this is analysis rather than data. Enten doesn't want to climb out on a limb and speculate without numbers directly relating to the question, which is understandable. However, the safe bet is that a less-enthusiastic electorate reflects on the status quo ... and that should worry Democrats, and not just in the presidential election either.