“She also thinks it’s axiomatic that ‘when more people vote, Democrats win.’”
If you study voting patterns, it is a fact more Democrats vote in presidential elections than in off year elections or special elections and that always helps Republican who tend to vote every time there is an election for anything. I used to watch voting patterns in Texas in order to plan how to win elections, and those were the facts. So, she was partially right but mostly wrong - there will be more Democrats voting in presidential elections but not this recall election.
Yes, I would agree that it is axiomatic that more people vote in presidential elections than off year elections, largely because presidential elections attract far more media coverage and the candidates are better known to the public.
But there is no hard and fast rule that more people voting (which, in Wasserman-Schultz's thinking, includes those legally ineligible to vote and those voted for by Dem hacks or even those no longer alive) in presidential elections necessarily means 'Rat success in presidential elections. Nor do less people voting in the official tallies necessarily mean Republican success in presidential elections. I don't think that there is much of a statistical correlation between official voter turnout as a percentage of the eligible population in presidential elections, on the one hand, and percentage of the popular vote going to the Dem candidate, on the other, especially when looked at over a very long period of time, say 100 years.
I would agree that maybe in recent years, there has emerged awareness of a new category of "low information voter" that might tend to vote only in presidential elections and tend to vote for the 'Rats, which is maybe what Wasserman Schultz has in mind. Then again, how many of them actually vote of their own volition and how many of them are voting as they are told or are voted for by Dem operatives is a question that Debbie and friends will avoid like the plague.