2012 Election Result Analysis

[Solecismic]

I'll be a bit indulgent, because this has become a hobby of mine over the past few elections, and I don't have people over like I have in the past - my girlfriend is actually out working in a precinct near her home, and the people I hang out with lately are either not into politics at all or too partisan to make this fun.

My goal here is to identify a few key elections and watch the results very closely as they come in, and post an analysis that is purely based on what's being reported. No exit polls, no surveys. Just a look at the votes, the counties they come in from, and an attempt to identify patterns in turnout.

Please leave any commentary on anything other than the results for the other threads. In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote in a candidate for the presidency myself, and my ballot had about as many Republicans as Democrats, with a few third-party candidates thrown in. I watch this stuff because I love simulation development and a national election is sort-of a Super Bowl.

I decided to focus on eight races tonight. All eight are expected to be close if it's a tension-filled night. If there's a landslide either way, this won't be a long thread.

The races are as follows:

Presidency:

Colorado (polls indicate Obama leads by less than half a point)
Iowa (Obama, +3)
New Hampshire (Obama, +1)
Ohio (Obama, +2)
Virginia(Obama, less than 1/2 point)
Wisconsin (Obama, +4)

Senate:

Virginia (Kaine, D, +2)
Wisconsin (Baldwin, D, +1)

A brief note on the polling. These numbers are my own averages of the poll data reported in the media. It's not meant to be a controversial average. It's not based on past performance, because a sentient pollster, in my opinion, will learn from past mistakes - the worse they do, the more changes they should make, in theory. All polls are weighted equally, but polling companies are adjusted based on how far they are, on average, from the mean for a race. In no case is this adjustment more than one point for an entire race, and in only one case it is more than half a point.

Based on these numbers, the six states are the ones that will matter if it's a very close election. If Florida and North Carolina are neck-and-neck, it's probably a great night for Obama and these states won't matter as much. If Pennsylvania or Michigan is the tipping point, it's probably a great night for Romney. That's not to say that Romney can't possibly win Pennsylvania or North Carolina can't possibly go for Obama. It's just to say it shouldn't be a very tight race if either happens.

The two Senate races I've chosen are the ones that interest me the most. Not because the Senate is going to tip Republican. It's just that I have those two states modeled and these are close races.

[Young Drachma]

It's like our own 538, but different.

[Solecismic]

In "calling" the other 45 states/district, the current total is Obama 243, Romney 235. There are 60 electoral votes at stake. I'm making no attempt to actually call those other 45 - just that if this is a very close race, results will probably be based on this subtotal.

According to the polls (and once results start coming in, the polls are not part of this analysis at all), Obama is ahead in all six states, so this would lead to a 303-243 victory. Romney has to outperform the polling released to the public if he is to have any chance of winning.

[tarcone]

I saw where Iowa expects a lot of conservatives to be voting because they are trying to vote out the 4th and last Judge that ojkayed same sex marriage.
That could be a game changer for Romney.

[GrantDawg]

CNN exit polls has Obama and Romney dead heat at 49%. Might be awhile before we know much there.

[Solecismic]

A quick note on Indiana, which I'm not following closely....

Mourdock is +2 over Donnelly in early results, Romney is +22. So that's a 10-point difference. The RCP average is +9.5 for Romney.

This could well be a very long night for Mourdock/Donnelly if Mourdock is 10 points behind Romney.

[Buccaneer]

CNN exit polls has Obama and Romney dead heat at 49%. Might be awhile before we know much there.

Not really. All that means is the number of voters that get out in California, Texas, New York and Illinois. You can have 50.1/49.9 and still have an electoral landslide, theoretically.

[GrantDawg]

Not really. All that means is the number of voters that get out in California, Texas, New York and Illinois. You can have 50.1/49.9 and still have an electoral landslide, theoretically.


Sorry, was just talking about Virginia. I didn't put the state there.

[Solecismic]

I'd imagine the race could be called hours, if not days, before we know who wins the overall popular vote. Especially with the situation in NY/NJ.

[Solecismic]

Just a tiny trickle coming from Virginia so far - with 4% of heavily-Republican Chesterfield county precincts reporting, there's no real meaning in the numbers even though Obama has a lead there. County numbers aren't significant at first.

However, what's interesting is that Allen (R) is outperforming Romney by quite a bit in those precincts.

[tarcone]

MSNBC just had an interesting analysis. The guy showed Cleveland and the county it is in. In 2008 Obama won Ohio by 260k votes. That, more or less, was how many votes he won the county Cleveland is in, by.

[Solecismic]

As I'm sure the television analysts are pointing out, the early returns from Virginia are largely coming from areas McCain won easily in 2008. My sense is that Romney is outperforming McCain, but McCain lost by 6.4 points.

[Solecismic]

Getting back to Chesterfield County in Virginia, which went 7.5 points for McCain in 2008. Right now, with 77% of the precincts in, Romney is up 8.5 points and Allen 5.6 points.

Not knowing what 77% is in, I don't know that it's significant. But the numbers closely match the polling in terms of the difference between Romney and Allen. He needs a higher margin from Chesterfield if he's to win the state.

[Swaggs]

Enjoying this thread -- thanks for putting it together!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Question: Did you give any serious consideration to tracking the MO Senate race as one of the keys? I'm guessing the poll indications shoved it off your radar, but I'll ask for your take about whether it's fair to infer much from it if it's notable closer than expected; i.e. Is there any real party/issue relevance in the outcome or is it entirely personality/image driven at this point?

[Solecismic]

Question: Did you give any serious consideration to tracking the MO Senate race as one of the keys? I'm guessing the poll indications shoved it off your radar, but I'll ask for your take about whether it's fair to infer much from it if it's notable closer than expected; i.e. Is there any real party/issue relevance in the outcome or is it entirely personality/image driven at this point?

That's an interesting question. No, I didn't track either MO or IN because it takes a while to set up a state model, and these are states Romney will win by a lot if he's to have a chance.

But both senate candidates made names for themselves in ways that could motivate further-right voters to come out, inadvertently boosting Romney. The question for the candidates is whether that turnout is worth it in terms of the middle-roaders who were turned off by the issue.

We saw Missouri, once considered a possible Obama pickup, move much more than most states in October. Was that measuring, in terms of likely voters, the extra right-side presence Akin may have generated? I'd look at turnout in the southern part of the state to check that. Turnout is a key part of the way I'm modeling this.

[Solecismic]

One county (a tiny one in the west) in Virginia indicates it's 100% in, and with 99.4% of 2008 turnout. Bland went +40 points for McCain in 2008, +49 points for Romney.

More a mild check than anything of serious interest so far. 3,000 out of 3.7 million voters is going to produce skew of some sort - can't measure it with any precision. But it's about what Romney needs to put Virginia into his column by a small amount, if it's a consistent outperformance of McCain.

[Racer]

A quick note on Indiana, which I'm not following closely....

Mourdock is +2 over Donnelly in early results, Romney is +22. So that's a 10-point difference. The RCP average is +9.5 for Romney.

This could well be a very long night for Mourdock/Donnelly if Mourdock is 10 points behind Romney.

I think Donnelly was favored post Mourdock's comments regarding rape and abortion. I don't think there more then a poll or two done after his comments though.

[SirFozzie]

As I noted elsewhere, looks like a very close race in the IN-Gov race as well.

[mckerney]

I think Donnelly was favored post Mourdock's comments regarding rape and abortion. I don't think there more then a poll or two done after his comments though.

It took a while for the first poll to come out on that race, the first one had Donnelly up 11, the next was Donnelly up around 5.

EDIT: There was also a poll that had Mourdock up 2, but that was one released by Mourdock's campaign.

[Solecismic]

I think Donnelly was favored post Mourdock's comments regarding rape and abortion. I don't think there more then a poll or two done after his comments though.

True. That's why it needs to be measured more as how much he trails Romney's performance than how he does compared to the very limited polling (which, IIRC, skewed heavily Republican based on who polled it). I think it will be very close, and I think Mourdock will have a lead late, because the northwest corner, which has a strong Democratic lean, always seem to report late.

[mckerney]

From 538 on Virginia

Just more than three-quarters of the vote has been reported in Chesterfield County, Va., an important suburban and exurban region southwest of Richmond. In the tally so far, Mitt Romney leads President Obama 54 percent to 45 percent. If those percentages hold, Mr. Romney’s performance there would match almost exactly Senator John McCain’s margin of victory in Chesterfield County in 2008: 53 percent to 46 percent. Former President George W. Bush, however, when he carried the state in 2004, won Chesterfield County with 63 percent of the vote.

— Micah Cohen

[Solecismic]

If I were an Obama supporter, I would start to feel pretty good based on Virginia results. Turnout is around 2008 level, and Romney is only slightly outperforming McCain. If I had to guess right now, with only a tiny bit of the information I need to make a call, I'd say Obama will wind up with a 2-point win in Virginia. Obviously, a long way to go, but it's not the turnout pattern Romney needed to see. Both Republican counties and Democratic counties (again, very early) are around the same as they were four years ago.

[Solecismic]

My sense of Allen/Kaine is that it's starting to look very good for Kaine. I'm going to move over to Ohio for a while, maybe check back in on Virginia in about an hour.

[SirFozzie]

update on VA, I'm seeing reports that they are Suspending reporting votes because there's still long lines.

[wade moore]

As a Virginian, the heavy emphasis on Virginia analysis is intriguing to me.

If turnout is similar, that's surprising based on my co-workers, facebook friends, etc - for many the polling lines were a disaster.

I think this state needs a LOT of work on streamlining that process.

[MrBug708]

Not sure where this goes, but the city where I am working as a teacher in, has a prop up for voting, in adding a 1cent tax for every ounce of sugary drinks

[wade moore]

My sense of Allen/Kaine is that it's starting to look very good for Kaine. I'm going to move over to Ohio for a while, maybe check back in on Virginia in about an hour.

I'd think a Kaine win is a good sign for Obama. Not 100% sign though because there is some genuine hatred towards Allen whereas Kaine was more a "meh" Governor.

[wade moore]

update on VA, I'm seeing reports that they are Suspending reporting votes because there's still long lines.

Funny that you post this right at the same time I was making my post ;).

[Solecismic]

I'm not very far into Ohio, but my sense of these very-early results is that Obama is actually outperforming how he did four years ago. Now, the big chunks of votes are coming in from his strongholds (like Cleveland), but the numbers are nowhere near what Romney needs to see.

So far, I'm thinking the fulcrum of this election is Florida and North Carolina, which, if true, means a rather significant Obama win.

[kcchief19]

Not among Jim's target races, but the exit polls are showing an interesting fallout from the Todd Akin episode.

The exits show a gender breakdown of 56/44 women to men. In the Senate and Governor race, men are breaking even but Claire McCaskill is up 56-39 over Akin among women. In the governor's race, men also are breaking even and Democrat Jay Nixon is up 54-45.

Last week, I heard a major GOP strategist in Missouri note that when the presidential race in Missouri is a blow out (more than 8 points), the winning party wins 88% of the other state races on the ballot. Exits suggest about a 10-point lead for Romney. In that case, Missouri Democrats should be lucky to win one race.

However, it looks like Democrats will certainly win the Senate, Governor and Attorney General. Granted, each of those races are incumbents. Another Democratic incumbent should hold his office. The other two races lean Republican (one is a Republican incumbent, the other is a Democratic open office).

In what the numbers for president should signal a wave election for Republicans in Missouri, it looks like the Democrats will hold all but maybe one office. And if they do, it looks like women will be the sole margin of victory. And women turned out and voted Democratic because of Akin.

[Solecismic]

It's a little harder to be precise about Ohio, because the %precincts reporting measure is seriously off. It reports Logan as 100% in with 30% of the 2008 vote in.

[tarcone]

Missouri is also voting on Prop B. This is a 90 cent tax on tobacco products. It is losing right now, 61% to 49%.
And to top it off, the money by law goes to education.

So our citizens are defeating a sin tax that will put anywhere from $239 million to $438 million (If I remember the numbers right from voting today) into education. GO MISSOURI!

[BishopMVP]

I'd think a Kaine win is a good sign for Obama. Not 100% sign though because there is some genuine hatred towards Allen whereas Kaine was more a "meh" Governor.Romney seemed to be about +3-4 on Allen in pre-election polling. Based on the scattered early returns I think Romney can still win Virginia while Allen loses, but Romney needed to win Virginia by enough to put Allen/Kaine in play if he wanted to really put Ohio+ into play and have a chance nationally, and it doesn't look like that's happened. Especially if there are still long lines, which tend to be in cities, which tend to go Democratic.

[sterlingice]

A quick note on Indiana, which I'm not following closely....

Mourdock is +2 over Donnelly in early results, Romney is +22. So that's a 10-point difference. The RCP average is +9.5 for Romney.

This could well be a very long night for Mourdock/Donnelly if Mourdock is 10 points behind Romney.

If Mourdock is beating Donnelly in the portion of state where Romney is +13, then Mourdock should win comfortably (~10%). That means the blue parts of the state like Indy aren't reporting in yet.

SI

[Swaggs]

Anyone know if there has been a noticeable Virgil Goode effect in VA yet? I know there was supposed to be a specific part of the state where he might have more of an impact (I think SW VA), so wasn't sure if that area is reporting yet.

[Solecismic]

If Mourdock is beating Donnelly in the portion of state where Romney is +13, then Mourdock should win comfortably (~10%). That means the blue parts of the state like Indy aren't reporting in yet.

SI

I don't see it. I think it's going to be very close. Without an Indiana model, though, I can't be precise at all.

[kcchief19]

Missouri is also voting on Prop B. This is a 90 cent tax on tobacco products. It is losing right now, 61% to 49%.
And to top it off, the money by law goes to education.

So our citizens are defeating a sin tax that will put anywhere from $239 million to $438 million (If I remember the numbers right from voting today) into education. GO MISSOURI!
Don't react too much yet. The first 90 minutes or so of Missouri results are always from outstate, which are always going to go Republican and are anti-tax. Once Columbia/Jefferson City comes in you get your first Democratic results, and Kansas City and St. Louis don't come in until after 10 or later.

Six years ago, Claire McCaskill was trailing with the City of St. Louis the last place to report results, and that city alone delivered her the winning margin.

That said, 60/40 is a larger margin than I would like to overcome.

[Solecismic]

Without any turnout numbers, or knowing if there's going to be an early-voting dump with a different skew, Ohio looks very favorable for Obama - almost on the level of calling it early favorable.

If I had to guess, again, with little to go on, I'd say Obama is +7-8 on Romney in Ohio, taken as a whole, down the road. This has nothing to do with the fact that the 200k lead right now is based mostly on 100k from Cleveland and 70k from Columbus in the reported votes.

[stevew]

If the tobacco tax money is going 61-49, it better be going to math education.

[sterlingice]

I don't see it. I think it's going to be very close. Without an Indiana model, though, I can't be precise at all.

I'm just going on Pres vs Senate projections. Romney's not going to win Indiana by 14%. That means a lot of the more Democratic sections aren't reporting yet. One has to think Mourdock has an advantage in those.

SI

[sterlingice]

If the tobacco tax money is going 61-49, it better be going to math education.

:D

SI

[Solecismic]

Still quite early, of course, but with a lot more data in Virginia I'm still not getting the numbers Romney needs to move this. It's projecting to about a 3-point Obama win in Virginia. Turnout seems about 1-2% over 2008 levels, almost uniformly.

[SirFozzie]

Fox calls Donnely over Mourdock in IN-Sen

[Solecismic]

This evening is turning out rather anti-climactic, isn't it? Some have already called Wisconsin for Obama (and Baldwin). I'll take a quick look over there.

[mckerney]

Very early in Missouri, but while Romney is up 58-40 McCaskill is up 51-42.

[sterlingice]

I don't see it. I think it's going to be very close. Without an Indiana model, though, I can't be precise at all.

HAHA. I just realized I was swapping the names between Mourdock and Donnelly

I re-read what I said and it made no sense (d'oh).

SI

[Solecismic]

It's so early in Wisconsin that the numbers aren't meaningful, but what I'm seeing is very much in Romney's favor. If someone called Wisconsin, it's completely based on exit polling. It looks like Wisconsin will be very close. But nowhere near enough data to do more than guess.

[tarcone]

If the tobacco tax money is going 61-49, it better be going to math education.

:)

[tarcone]

What type of voter does the legalization of marijuana issue bring out?
Will that sway a state to Obama or Romney?

[BYU 14]

What type of voter does the legalization of marijuana issue bring out?
Will that sway a state to Obama or Romney?

Think if any, Obama would be the safe bet there :)

[SirFozzie]

I'd say a younger, more liberal vote, but that's just me.

[Solecismic]

First look at Colorado: it's very close and Romney is outperforming 2008, but the margins in Denver and Boulder aren't close enough. It's all about turnout there. I think we're looking at a 2-3 point Obama win there, but that's a very early projection. I need much more turnout data.

[mckerney]

What type of voter does the legalization of marijuana issue bring out?
Will that sway a state to Obama or Romney?

Obama is far from pro marijuana unfortunately, though I'd guess those who would vote yes would be more likely to vote Obama.

[Solecismic]

What type of voter does the legalization of marijuana issue bring out?
Will that sway a state to Obama or Romney?

One who has trouble finding his polling place?

I can only answer from random conversations, but it is something that young people and people center to left think should be a no-brainer. It's not framed as stoners wanting drugs, it's framed as giving the elderly an organic and effective solution to manage pain. So I think it's something Republicans can't focus on in most cases.

Will it motivate the right? I haven't seen it, but my right-leaning friends never talk about the issue. Abortion, however, motivates them like nothing else.

[Buccaneer]

First look at Colorado: it's very close and Romney is outperforming 2008, but the margins in Denver and Boulder aren't close enough. It's all about turnout there. I think we're looking at a 2-3 point Obama win there, but that's a very early projection. I need much more turnout data.

I saw earlier today that my county (most populous in the state) will be up 17% from 2008.

[kcchief19]

But is the right in Colorado more family-values oriented or more libertarian oriented? If anything my thought is that that there may be more pro-marijuana people on the right than anti-marijuana.

I'm with Jim ... Obama is slightly underperforming versus his '08 numbers, but he won in '08 by 7. Slightly underperforming feels like a 3-point win this time.

[kcchief19]

Still quite early, of course, but with a lot more data in Virginia I'm still not getting the numbers Romney needs to move this. It's projecting to about a 3-point Obama win in Virginia. Turnout seems about 1-2% over 2008 levels, almost uniformly.
Is the largest chunk of Virginia not in yet the D.C. suburbs? This is as of 10:24 ET.

If all the votes that need to come in, it could be close. Obama is down 68k, and he could get a 40k margin in Fairfax. Prince William is 35% in, and is 49-all. Four years ago Obama took Prince William 58-42. If Romney breaks even there, it looks like he can take Virginia. But if all the vote coming in is heavily democratic, that along with Fairfax could draw Virginia dead even.

[Solecismic]

Going back to Virginia...

It's still too early to call. I'm now thinking Obama by about 1-2 points. We have nothing from Norfolk, and very little from Fairfax. Alexandria's not much in, either. These are all Democratic strongholds. That's why Romney can lead by 70,000 votes and still be behind.

[kcchief19]

Virginia is going to be very close. Now that I see where Norfolk is, it's going to be close. I'm still thinking at a glance compared to '08 that Prince William will be the difference. Obama needs the late vote to pile in for him. He's underperforming big time there.

[Solecismic]

I took a long look at Ohio, now that we have a lot of data. It's projecting to Obama +4 points now. Probably a margin of about 120k in Cleveland alone, which will protect the lead.

[Solecismic]

A much longer look at Virginia now. It projects to an Obama win by 1.4 points.

This is where Obama could get margins, even though he trails:

Alexandria: 10k
Arlington: 11k
Fairfax: 42k
Norfolk: 22k
Prince William: 10k

and Romney margins:

Hanover: 6k
Virginia Beach: 8k

What's left definitely favors the president considerably. We are seeing pretty much equal turnout in R-leaning and D-leaning counties, compared to four years ago. Romney needed a point there to turn Virginia around.

[Solecismic]

Iowa being projected. Because of where we were, I haven't even looked at it yet, but it doesn't look close.

Still not much in with Wisconsin.

[Izulde]

I'm stunned Baldwin knocked off Thompson in Wisconsin. Never would have seen that coming ever.

[Solecismic]

Just another late look at Virginia. Obama +78k in the end, maybe? Now +2.1 points as the D-leaning counties are coming in with slightly higher turnout.

[RainMaker]

Looks like Nate Silver will have called every single state correctly. So much for that NYT bias.

[Solecismic]

Looks like Cincinnati did come through for Romney, but it won't change Ohio. I have it Obama +1.6 points, or about 80k votes. I wonder if there are a lot of early voting or absentee voting ballots left to be counted, because turnout is uniformly down on both sides.

The areas with a lot of difference to make up, yet, are Cleveland still (another 25k margin for Obama) and Toledo (39k). Cincinnati, which favored Obama by 7 points in 2008, favored him only by 1 point so far today. If that kind of shift had held throughout the state, Romney would have won it easily.

[kcchief19]

Not a whole lot of upsets tonight but there is one brewing in North Dakota. Democrat Heidi Heitkamp has a 51-49 lead over Rick Berg. This seat was considered Safe Republican by virtually every prognosticator. The polls generally showed a single-digit race but consistently Republican.

Most of the vote is in except for two counties. Not a lot to draw upon from previous races, since Democrat Kent Conrad won every county six years ago. Both counties out were won by McCain. Once is in the eastern part of the state where Heitkamp has won everywhere else, the other in central North Dakota were Berg is winning.

[kcchief19]

At about 12:30 am ET, Obama has finally taken the lead in the popular vote. That lead should expand over the next few hours and days. Lot of votes still to come from California, and that should provide Obama a cushion of a couple a million votes.

If turnout is eventually similar to 2008, there's another 30 million votes out there to count.

[Solecismic]

Looks like Nate Silver will have called every single state correctly. So much for that NYT bias.

It still existed and I showed the numbers quite clearly. I have a hard time understanding why this escapes you. I asked that people not troll this item. I had hope that given the fact that Obama has won a fairly close election pretty much in line with the mainstream polling (the D-leaning polls called NC for Obama - Silver's weighting turned out well, but we all were within a half-point here) that the left-leaners here would try and read what I wrote and understand it.

So I ask again. I withdrew from the left-leaners' item after some fairly nasty posts from you and others. Life is too short to accept constant trolling. At this point, I think you're deliberately bullying or just being a jerk. You need to stop. I will now put you on ignore.

[RainMaker]

It still existed and I showed the numbers quite clearly. I have a hard time understanding why this escapes you. I asked that people not troll this item. I had hope that given the fact that Obama has won a fairly close election pretty much in line with the mainstream polling (the D-leaning polls called NC for Obama - Silver's weighting turned out well, but we all were within a half-point here) that the left-leaners here would try and read what I wrote and understand it.

So I ask again. I withdrew from the left-leaners' item after some fairly nasty posts from you and others. Life is too short to accept constant trolling. At this point, I think you're deliberately bullying or just being a jerk. You need to stop. I will now put you on ignore.

There was nothing nasty in my posts. You claimed he was bias, that his math was influenced by his employer. His predictions were spot-on, something that doesn't happen if you are fudging numbers or using bad math.

He was right, you were wrong. Be the bigger man and admit it.

[Solecismic]

Most Wisconsin counties still are reporting outstanding precincts, and my model relies heavily on assessing turnout. My numbers show Wisconsin at 4-5 points for Obama, but it could be more, because the turnout numbers will skew a little toward the small counties at this stage. I'd expect to be more precise in about an hour, if it matters. I don't think there's any reason to doubt the Obama call here, though. It shouldn't go below 4 and could be as high as 8.

[Solecismic]

Based on what's come in today, it looks like Heitkamp will end up with the same margin she has right now in the North Dakota Senate race.

She should get +600 from Barnes county, -400 from Mercer, and -200 from Williams. McKenzie is shown as not complete, but it has to be close as I'm not projecting any new votes there.

The turnout model actually shows an edge to Republican-leaning counties. If there are any anomalies, they lie in D-leaning Sioux county and Benson county. Turnout seemed too low there, that could add 100 for Heitkamp. On the other end, tiny Grant county seems to have increased tremendously in size. This amounts to about 300 votes on either side, though, so it's probably some real population phenomenon rather than a mistake.

So, unless there's a way to make up 0.9%, or about 3,000 votes in a state with about 300,000 voters, through absentee or provisional voting, this one is over. I'm guessing it remains uncalled because it is very close and not a lot of attention is paid to North Dakota.

[Crapshoot]

Not a whole lot of upsets tonight but there is one brewing in North Dakota. Democrat Heidi Heitkamp has a 51-49 lead over Rick Berg. This seat was considered Safe Republican by virtually every prognosticator. The polls generally showed a single-digit race but consistently Republican.

Most of the vote is in except for two counties. Not a lot to draw upon from previous races, since Democrat Kent Conrad won every county six years ago. Both counties out were won by McCain. Once is in the eastern part of the state where Heitkamp has won everywhere else, the other in central North Dakota were Berg is winning.

2cents on this one; it really wasn't. ND is small enough that retail politics do matter, and Heitkamp is good at that; I think it was rated at leans R, not safe by any prognosticator I read.

[Matthean]

Silver's weighting turned out well, but we all were within a half-point here) that the left-leaners here would try and read what I wrote and understand it.

By all accounts he nailed all 50 states. If you could do the same, maybe you should be investing in a different career. :lol:

Triumph of the Nerds: Nate Silver Wins in 50 States (http://mashable.com/2012/11/07/nate-silver-wins/)

[Blackadar]

It still existed and I showed the numbers quite clearly. I have a hard time understanding why this escapes you. I asked that people not troll this item. I had hope that given the fact that Obama has won a fairly close election pretty much in line with the mainstream polling (the D-leaning polls called NC for Obama - Silver's weighting turned out well, but we all were within a half-point here) that the left-leaners here would try and read what I wrote and understand it.

So I ask again. I withdrew from the left-leaners' item after some fairly nasty posts from you and others. Life is too short to accept constant trolling. At this point, I think you're deliberately bullying or just being a jerk. You need to stop. I will now put you on ignore.

So pointing out facts is now trolling? Maybe it's you who needs to stop and get some perspective.

Oh, and the only poll that called NC for Obama in the last month was Grove. Every other major polling institution had it going for Romney...even the "D-leaning" polls.

[Peregrine]

I found these exit poll numbers pretty amazing. Talk about a changing country - as CNN pointed out, in 1988 Dukakis lost the white vote by 19 points and lost in a 40 state landslide. Obama lost the white vote by 20 and won the election going away.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/9773/large/02.png?1352263865

[JPhillips]

Unskewed guy did an exit poll of battleground states.

4600 voters surveyed with a margin of error of 1.44 percent. All voters were surveyed via a web-based survey.

The swing states included in this survey are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Questions and results as asked of likely voters in all states:

If the election today, did you vote for the ticket of Democratic candidates, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, or the ticket of Republican candidates, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan?

Romney/Ryan

52.58
Obama/Biden

47.14
Other

0.28

Juuust a bit outside.

[JPhillips]

I found these exit poll numbers pretty amazing. Talk about a changing country - as CNN pointed out, in 1988 Dukakis lost the white vote by 19 points and lost in a 40 state landslide. Obama lost the white vote by 20 and won the election going away.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/9773/large/02.png?1352263865

Those charts should scare the hell out of the GOP. Their electorate is shrinking fast. Rove was right when he tried to do immigration reform. They can't win presidential elections without a significantly better showing among Latinos.

[cuervo72]

There was nothing nasty in my posts. You claimed he was bias

BIAS INCARNATE.

(Len Bias? Seriously, you're looking for biased here.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Unskewed guy did an exit poll of battleground states.
Juuust a bit outside.

Once you got to the phrase web-based survey you could have stopped.

[Philliesfan980]

Edited

[Philliesfan980]

edited

[KWhit]

Yeah, just let the perfect night Silver had speak for itself. It does a fine job all by itself of making all the "biased" conspiracy theorists look silly.

[BishopMVP]

Once you got to the phrase web-based survey you could have stopped.+1000BIAS INCARNATE.

(Len Bias? Seriously, you're looking for biased here.)Rainmaker's just trolling the grammar police.I found these exit poll numbers pretty amazing. Talk about a changing country - as CNN pointed out, in 1988 Dukakis lost the white vote by 19 points and lost in a 40 state landslide. Obama lost the white vote by 20 and won the election going away.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/9773/large/02.png?1352263865The left chart makes it look worse for the Republicans than the numbers bear out. Why split up 18-24 (11%) and 25-29 (8%) but keep a group like 50-64 (28%) together? I'm also pretty sure you could find a similar voting breakdown in almost any election - if movies have taught me anything, in 1968 and 1972 youth vote or culture was heavily in favor of the Democratic party - and now those voters are around 60 years old. I would be interested in seeing some historical polling asking people if/how their voting patterns have changed over time, but I suspect most would be too inaccurate or subject to respondent bias to be worthwhile.

Similarly, a focus on the electoral college is misleading - Obama did win going away there, but about a 2% difference across the board and Romney would be around 300 EV's.

Final point - I think people overestimate the "Hispanic vote". Not that there aren't increasing numbers of Hispanic immigrants or their population subset isn't having kids at a higher rate than other races, but it's a lot less of a uniform block than, quite frankly, the "Black vote".

[Blackadar]

Final point - I think people overestimate the "Hispanic vote". Not that there aren't increasing numbers of Hispanic immigrants or their population subset isn't having kids at a higher rate than other races, but it's a lot less of a uniform block than, quite frankly, the "Black vote".

It's not quite as uniform as the "black vote", but you're still talking about a 75% vote for Obama from Hispanics - one of the fastest growing voting segments and one that was over 10% of the overall vote for the first time this election. No, people aren't overestimating it.

[finketr]

I would be interested in seeing some historical polling asking people if/how their voting patterns have changed over time, but I suspect most would be too inaccurate or subject to respondent bias to be worthwhile.

There's the old joke:

If you're under thirty and not a democrat, you have no heart.
If you're over thirty and not a republican, you have no brain.

[lungs]

How about the issue that conservatives don't really have a decent President in recent memory for younger people to look up to? You see the demographic shift begin at 40-49 years old. Those people will fondly remember Reagan.

I'm 30 years old and the only Republican leadership we've consciously lived through is W. (I don't count being 6 years old when Reagan left office)

[Marmel]

Don't worry, after this he'll go back into his hole and continue to make a board game that nobody will buy.

(I guess I'm the one who's trolling, I guess I'm one of the ones who feels the need to call him out. I think we should just rename the board already, since it's apparent he'll never release another version of FOF again)

Wow, that was way out of line dude.

[CrimsonFox]

This is important:

Was Diane Sawyer Drunk During ABC's Election Night Coverage? (http://www.buzzfeed.com/tommywes/was-diane-sawyer-drunk-during-abcs-election-night?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=buzzfeed)

[Logan]

Don't worry, after this he'll go back into his hole and continue to make a board game that nobody will buy.

(I guess I'm the one who's trolling, I guess I'm one of the ones who feels the need to call him out. I think we should just rename the board already, since it's apparent he'll never release another version of FOF again)

Typical Phillies fan...










(JK. I'm really the first?)

[RendeR]

How about the issue that conservatives don't really have a decent President in recent memory for younger people to look up to? You see the demographic shift begin at 40-49 years old. Those people will fondly remember Reagan.

I'm 30 years old and the only Republican leadership we've consciously lived through is W. (I don't count being 6 years old when Reagan left office)



This is a very KEY point IMO. Republicans have no real sense of themselves anymore. After Reagan the GoP turned into the Mr. Hyde version of their basic platform of beliefs. Reagan started it and I honestly believe the euphoria surrounding how popular he was snapped something in the common sense sector of the GoP hive mind.

[CrimsonFox]

I don't look back on him fondly. He was a very big fool who was a good showman. But he was...well just an idiot. Not on a Dubya-scale of idiocy but his ideals were um...stupid. Yet he was very shrewd on inventing some things that helped his party (read, not his country) but his party win further elections.

[molson]

I don't look back on him fondly. He was a very big fool who was a good showman. But he was...well just an idiot. Not on a Dubya-scale of idiocy but his ideals were um...stupid. Yet he was very shrewd on inventing some things that helped his party (read, not his country) but his party win further elections.

Dude still won 49 states and presided over a pretty happy time in this country. His popularity has decreased over time, but c'mon, we're comparing those years to the Bush years here.

[lungs]

I think what matters is that there was a whole generation that was lost by the Republicans because of the Bush's 8 years in office. Reagan's eight years solidified a whole bloc of votes of people that happen to fall into that 40-49 year old range this year. But when you look beyond that, starting with 30-39 it's not even close.

[RendeR]

You also forget that his mental health deteriorated horribly in his second term, basically after his 3rd year in office overall he was no longer making policy, his cronies were and that is truly where the shit started rolling into a black snowball of ruin.

[lungs]

Does anybody have 30-39 figures from 2008?

[Arles]

Those charts should scare the hell out of the GOP. Their electorate is shrinking fast. Rove was right when he tried to do immigration reform. They can't win presidential elections without a significantly better showing among Latinos.
I think people are really underestimating the "Mormon" factor. Most pundits felt that independents and undecideds were going to break for Romney. In key states like Florida, Ohio and Colorado, it didn't go that way. This isn't very PC, but I feel like a lot of people just couldn't get over Romney being mormon when it came down to casting their vote.

IMO, if the republicans want to regain power in 2016, all they need to do is be a little smarter about the social issues and the religious background of who they nominate. Putting up senate candidates who say that they are against abortion even in cases of rape and Mormon presidential candidates are going to be easy fodder for democrat demagoguery. It's OK if their candidate is pro-life, but he has to be smart about explaining that. It's OK if he is religious, just not to the level that can be easily marginalized by the dems.

It seems to me that a lot of the hispanic/black vote was related to Obama being a minority race and the youth vote on how much people liked him. Neither Clinton, Gore or Kerry had the turnout or margins in those groups that Obama did. If I were a republican strategist, I would focus on getting more women and maybe have a better message for latinos - but I would think that the next democratic nominee isn't going to get the turnout that Obama did with minorities and young people. And, just nominating someone who isn't mormon or has crazy views on abortion (like some of their senate candidates) should be enough to take back enough women to win.

Obama, Clinton, W and Reagan were simply more likeable than their opponents (Dole, Kerry, McCain, Gore, Romney). W got re-elected in a bad military/economy time - as did Obama. Bush beat out Gore in one of the best economic elections in 20 years because people liked him more. At the end of the day, this country is going to be 50/50 from here on out on parties. Barring a transcendent candidate (ie, first black president Obama) or a serious recession/depression, not much is going to change that. Republicans will continue to have massive majorities in white men while democrats do well with women and minorities. I think each side can be smart about poaching 3-4% from each group - but at the end of the day the candidates likeability will be much more relevant than how each side campaigns (or if they change stances on issues).

[molson]

I think the whole Bush/Reagan point is a really good one (and I'm not looking at performance in office or anything here, just how the people reacted to those presidencies) - I was just thinking about Michael P. Keaton's (from Family Ties) infatuation with Reagan (I think he had a poster of him in his room). America looked at that as kind of cute, he was different than his liberal parents, and his character was smart, likable, and he was going places. There were probably Michael P. Keatons all over American in the 80s.

Today, if you engage in similar hero worship of Bush, that's not going to be viewed as cute at all. It will seem weird and scary and make people angry. The iconic Republican of this generation is a true villain, not just a partisan villain of the far left.

[JPhillips]

I think people are really underestimating the "Mormon" factor. Most pundits felt that independents and undecideds were going to break for Romney. In key states like Florida, Ohio and Colorado, it didn't go that way. This isn't very PC, but I feel like a lot of people just couldn't get over Romney being mormon when it came down to casting their vote.

IMO, if the republicans want to regain power in 2016, all they need to do is be a little smarter about the social issues and the religious background of who they nominate. Putting up senate candidates who say that they are against abortion even in cases of rape and Mormon presidential candidates are going to be easy fodder for democrat demagoguery. It's OK if their candidate is pro-life, but he has to be smart about explaining that. It's OK if he is religious, just not to the level that can be easily marginalized by the dems.

It seems to me that a lot of the hispanic/black vote was related to Obama being a minority race and the youth vote on how much people liked him. Neither Clinton, Gore or Kerry had the turnout or margins in those groups that Obama did. If I were a republican strategist, I would focus on getting more women and maybe have a better message for latinos - but I would think that the next democratic nominee isn't going to get the turnout that Obama did with minorities and young people. And, just nominating someone who isn't mormon or has crazy views on abortion (like some of their senate candidates) should be enough to take back enough women to win.

At the end of the day, this country is going to be 50/50 from here on out on parties. Barring a transcendent candidate (ie, first black president Obama) or a serious recession/depression, not much is going to change that. Republicans will continue to have massive majorities in white men while democrats do well with women and minorities. I think each side can be smart about poaching 3-4% from each group - but at the end of the day the candidates likeability and the state of the country will be much more relevant than how each side campaigns (or if they change stances on issues).

Voting patterns are set in our youth. Splitting the 40-49 and losing, by wide margins, everyone under 40 is really bad. Counting on turnout of their current voters is a doomed strategy. They have to find ways to appeal to young and ethnic voters.

[Subby]

This isn't very PC, but I feel like a lot of people just couldn't get over Romney being mormon when it came down to casting their vote.

You should know better than that. Our personal feelings and hang ups and experiences don't really mean shit. Come with some hard data on this. I haven't seen anything to suggest this was a meaningful issue in any way.

[Toddzilla]

It was cool seeing all the attention on Chesterfield County, VA. That's where I grew up, it's a moderately affluent suburb of Richmond south of the river.

Also, the third party candidates took it in the shorts this election. I would have expected the lot of them to have at least crossed 2% of the popular vote nationally, but they didn't get squadoosh.

Finally, the Barack Obama victory, paired with his victory in 2008, were the largest 2 victories by a Democratic candidate since before the Civil War - save FDR. His margin of victory both in the electoral college and the popular vote were higher than both GW Bush and Bill Clinton. If any president had a "mandate" or won "political capital", it's Barack Obama.

[Toddzilla]

You should know better than that. Our personal feelings and hang ups and experiences don't really mean shit. Come with some hard data on this. I haven't seen anything to suggest this was a meaningful issue in any way.Agreed.

There isn't one single shred of evidence that indicates Romney's religion had anything to do with how anyone voted.

Latinos didn't break for Obama because Romney is Mormon, they broke because Romney and the GOP has systematically shit on the Latino vote for 4 years.

[Easy Mac]

I doubt Mormonism had little to do with his losing. Most people who that bothered were hardcore evangelicals/Christians. They were voting for Romney over the black Muslim regardless.

[KWhit]

Putting up senate candidates who say that they are against abortion even in cases of rape and Mormon presidential candidates are going to be easy fodder for democrat demagoguery.

Demagoguery? From the left? Were you watching any of the campaign?

That's kind of funny.

[Arles]

I think it played a lot with independents. Polls in Florida, Ohio and Colorado had independents breaking hard for Romney on the weekend/Monday. Then, on Tuesday, the independents in those states flipped and moved more towards Obama. This is because Obama was more likeable and people felt more comfortable with him as person. Whether that's because of Romney's dimeanor, hangups on his religion or just a last second fear of voting for him - we don't know. But, something made independents do what has rarely been seen on election day in the history of voting - swing towards the incumbent more than the polls showed a day or two earlier.

[Blackadar]

I think people are really underestimating the "Mormon" factor. Most pundits felt that independents and undecideds were going to break for Romney. In key states like Florida, Ohio and Colorado, it didn't go that way. This isn't very PC, but I feel like a lot of people just couldn't get over Romney being mormon when it came down to casting their vote.

IMO, if the republicans want to regain power in 2016, all they need to do is be a little smarter about the social issues and the religious background of who they nominate. Putting up senate candidates who say that they are against abortion even in cases of rape and Mormon presidential candidates are going to be easy fodder for democrat demagoguery. It's OK if their candidate is pro-life, but he has to be smart about explaining that. It's OK if he is religious, just not to the level that can be easily marginalized by the dems.

It seems to me that a lot of the hispanic/black vote was related to Obama being a minority race and the youth vote on how much people liked him. Neither Clinton, Gore or Kerry had the turnout or margins in those groups that Obama did. If I were a republican strategist, I would focus on getting more women and maybe have a better message for latinos - but I would think that the next democratic nominee isn't going to get the turnout that Obama did with minorities and young people. And, just nominating someone who isn't mormon or has crazy views on abortion (like some of their senate candidates) should be enough to take back enough women to win.

Obama, Clinton, W and Reagan were simply more likeable than their opponents (Dole, Kerry, McCain, Gore, Romney). W got re-elected in a bad military/economy time - as did Obama. Bush beat out Gore in one of the best economic elections in 20 years because people liked him more. At the end of the day, this country is going to be 50/50 from here on out on parties. Barring a transcendent candidate (ie, first black president Obama) or a serious recession/depression, not much is going to change that. Republicans will continue to have massive majorities in white men while democrats do well with women and minorities. I think each side can be smart about poaching 3-4% from each group - but at the end of the day the candidates likeability will be much more relevant than how each side campaigns (or if they change stances on issues).

Arles,

There's a lot of incorrect stuff in your assumptions here.

1. There's zero proof that his Mormonism was a factor. Evangelicals voted in droves and overwhelmingly for Romney in similar percentages that they did for Bush. When the evangelicals had to choose between a Mormon and a "dirty Muslim" (and polls show 25% of evangelicals believe that he is), the choice was pretty clear. This is especially true in the deep south, where less than 25% of evangelicals believe Obama is a Christian at all and the majority in some states believe that he is a Muslim.

2. Since Mormonism wasn't a factor, your conclusions in your second paragraph are faulty. Obama carried only 39% of the white vote, didn't capture a huge number of the traditional white swing voters and still won. That's not something easily solved by the Republicans because the traditional victory demographics broke their way and they still lost. The demographic has shifted considerably and their path to victory has become very, very slim without changing their appeal. And that won't be easy...

3. We've already addressed why it will be difficult for Republicans to appeal to Hispanic voters. It's not that simple. Women voters will more easily come back into the fold, but there's zero chance the Republican party will nominate someone who is Pro Choice. That's going to be enough for the Democrats to continue to capture a larger percentage of the female vote.

4. If "likeability" is THE factor, then Bush Sr. wouldn't have won. Nor did W preside over a bad economy - when he was re-elected, the unemployment rate was 5.5% and we were having the strongest GDP growth in W's 8 years. Not to mention the war was still a net positive at that point for W.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but your assumptions are wrong and therefore your conclusions are wrong. I'd suggest you do some more research into the voting breakdowns, trends and causes for the vote. Simply put, this election was gift-wrapped for the Republicans from an economic standpoint. NO President had been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7% since FDR in 1936 (for obvious reasons this was seen as a vast improvement), yet Obama pulled that off last night. When the economy is everyone's #1 concern and it's growing tepidly at best, unemployment is at 8%, underemployment is closer to 15%, people are still upside down on their mortgages, the Republicans nominated their most moderate candidate and they STILL lose...well, that's a pretty damn big cause for concern for the Republican party.

[Arles]

I doubt Mormonism had little to do with his losing. Most people who that bothered were hardcore evangelicals/Christians. They were voting for Romney over the black Muslim regardless.
A lot of non-religious people were bothered by it as well. I'm not sure it was a major issue, but in an election where 1% mattered in 3-4 states, it played a part.

[Young Drachma]

I think people are really underestimating the "Mormon" factor.


Right dude, America decided for the black guy over the LDS candidate that many believe was/is a Muslim. Riight.

[Desnudo]

Dude still won 49 states and presided over a pretty happy time in this country. His popularity has decreased over time, but c'mon, we're comparing those years to the Bush years here.

I never get the perception of why the 80s were such a fun time jambaroo. Granted, I was a kid, but what I remember is that shit was still really hard to get done and your options - entertainment, food, jobs, education, were limited everywhere. People were a hell of a lot more intolerant and racist. Who thinks looking for a job in the Sunday paper and typing out resumes was a good time?

[BishopMVP]

It's not quite as uniform as the "black vote", but you're still talking about a 75% vote for Obama from Hispanics - one of the fastest growing voting segments and one that was over 10% of the overall vote for the first time this election. No, people aren't overestimating it.I started to type a lot, went looking for Hispanic population by state to back up one of my points, and found a 538 article that does a better job than I was doing - Hispanic Voters Less Plentiful in Swing States - NYTimes.com (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/hispanic-voters-less-plentiful-in-swing-states/)

Basically, people say "fastest growing" like Hispanics will go from 10% to 20% in one election, but in reality they'll maybe get up to 11% of the vote in 2016 and are decades away from hitting 20% of the electorate. And more importantly, the vast majority are in states that don't matter. (Say had Romney a 60-40 advantage amongst Hispanics as a whole which is probably the upper edge of even the more delusional GOP strategists going forward - while that 3% bump nationally would have easily given him the popular vote total it wouldn't have won him this election. It would give Romney Florida, and possibly made the difference in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and even Virginia with how close it was, but changed nothing in any of the Upper Midwestern states that were close, or done anything to put the outcome in doubt in California/Texas/New York/New Jersey/Illinois where the majority of Hispanic voters are.) Finally, the most prominent swing state with lots of Hispanics (Florida) is the one where a plurality are Cuban-Americans a.k.a. the most conservative of Hispanic voters, and I really don't think there's some easy way to pander to them and Mexican-Americans at the same time.

I think the biggest and best opportunity for GOP growth is amongst fiscally conservative urban-dwellers and middle-class college educated voters entering/leaving their 30's, but the social conservative wing dominating the talking points is too alienating to get them to actually switch over.

[Arles]

Arles,

There's a lot of incorrect stuff in your assumptions here.

1. There's zero proof that his Mormonism was a factor. Evangelicals voted in droves and overwhelmingly for Romney in similar percentages that they did for Bush. When the evangelicals had to choose between a Mormon and a "dirty Muslim" (and polls show 25% of evangelicals believe that he is), the choice was pretty clear. This is especially true in the deep south, where less than 25% of evangelicals believe Obama is a Christian at all and the majority in some states believe that he is a Muslim.
I'm not talking about Evangelicals. They would vote for anyone with an R by their name. I'm talking about independents who aren't very religious. This is a growing section of the electorate and a group that Romney had a big problem with (but W didn't).

2. Since Mormonism wasn't a factor, your conclusions in your second paragraph are faulty.
How can you say it didn't play a factor. People hope it didn't, but the massive late swing in independents (esp non-religious) to Obama means it *could* have played a factor in the swing states.

Obama carried only 39% of the white vote, didn't capture a huge number of the traditional white swing voters and still won. That's not something easily solved by the Republicans because the traditional victory demographics broke their way and they still lost. The demographic has shifted considerably and their path to victory has become very, very slim without changing their appeal. And that won't be easy...
If the minority/youth turnout goes down a tick and the women vote goes slightly up a tick, republicans win. The selection of the candidate (and not facing as transcendent a candidate as Obama) could easily change both in 2016.

3. We've already addressed why it will be difficult for Republicans to appeal to Hispanic voters. It's not that simple. Women voters will more easily come back into the fold, but there's zero chance the Republican party will nominate someone who is Pro Choice. That's going to be enough for the Democrats to continue to capture a larger percentage of the female vote.
Women broke hard for Bush and he was pro-life. It's not so much the stance on abortion as it is not saying something stupid (ie, "I am against abortion even in cases of rape") and being more likeable.

4. If "likeability" is THE factor, then Bush Sr. wouldn't have won. Nor did W preside over a bad economy - when he was re-elected, the unemployment rate was 5.5% and we were having the strongest GDP growth in W's 8 years. Not to mention the war was still a net positive at that point for W.
I mean personal likeability. Bush Sr won off of Reagan's coat tails. W was much more likeable than Gore and won despite the good economy under Clinton/Gore. Obama (next to maybe Reagan) might be the most likeable candidate in 30 years. That's how he overcame the issues with the economy.

The well-informed will vote R and D regardless of the candidate. Worst case, like for Kerry in 2004 or McCain in 2008, they just won't vote if they don't like their guy. But, well-informed people on the issues are rarely going to change their mind a month before the election and switch from D to R or vice versa. The "independents" or election procrastinators often don't pay as much attention as the die hards. So, at the end of the day, they will often end up voting for the guy (or girl) they trust/like the most and feel relates the best to them. W related very well to many people and Obama was extremely likeable and trustworthy in the eyes of many.

[sterlingice]

Right dude, America decided for the black guy over the LDS candidate that many believe was/is a Muslim. Riight.

The folks in the middle aren't the ones calling Obama a Muslim.

SI

[molson]

The Mormon thing is tough to measure, like the race thing. Isn't there still a sentiment that some people won't vote for Obama because he's black? Do we have data on that? How many people are predisposed to vote Democrat but then won't if it's a black nominee? I'm sure there's some, maybe a fair amount, but I don't know that the extent of that can be proven with data. But that doesn't mean it's not a factor.

Surely Obama lost SOME votes because of his race and Romney lost at least SOME votes because of his religion. Obviously those prejudices are out there, I'm sure data CAN back that up, it's just a matter of how much they influence votes, which I'm sure is way harder to measure.

[Arles]

I started to type a lot, went looking for Hispanic population by state to back up one of my points, and found a 538 article that does a better job than I was doing - Hispanic Voters Less Plentiful in Swing States - NYTimes.com (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/hispanic-voters-less-plentiful-in-swing-states/)

Basically, people say "fastest growing" like Hispanics will go from 10% to 20% in one election, but in reality they'll maybe get up to 11% of the vote in 2016 and are decades away from hitting 20% of the electorate. And more importantly, the vast majority are in states that don't matter. (Say had Romney a 60-40 advantage amongst Hispanics as a whole which is probably the upper edge of even the more delusional GOP strategists going forward - while that 3% bump nationally would have easily given him the popular vote total it wouldn't have won him this election. It would give Romney Florida, and possibly made the difference in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and even Virginia with how close it was, but changed nothing in any of the Upper Midwestern states that were close, or done anything to put the outcome in doubt in California/Texas/New York/New Jersey/Illinois where the majority of Hispanic voters are.) Finally, the most prominent swing state with lots of Hispanics (Florida) is the one where a plurality are Cuban-Americans a.k.a. the most conservative of Hispanic voters, and I really don't think there's some easy way to pander to them and Mexican-Americans at the same time.

I think the biggest and best opportunity for GOP growth is amongst fiscally conservative urban-dwellers and middle-class college educated voters entering/leaving their 30's, but the social conservative wing dominating the talking points is too alienating to get them to actually switch over.
This is exactly right. A lot of people in today's society can buy the republicans stance on economic and military issues, but the hard-line on abortion is what turns them off. Finding a way to have a softer stance on abortion (even just saying they are pro-life except in cases of rape,incest, mother's health) would go a long way - esp with women.

[KWhit]

How can you say it didn't play a factor. People hope it didn't, but the massive late swing in independents (esp non-religious) to Obama means it *could* have played a factor in the swing states.

What does the late swing have to do with anything?

Did they just find out he was a Mormon as they were entering the polling place?

Maybe I missed all the banners out front that said he was Mormon.

[Arles]

The Mormon thing is tough to measure, like the race thing. Isn't there still a sentiment that some people won't vote for Obama because he's black? Do we have data on that? How many people are predisposed to vote Democrat but then won't if it's a black nominee? I'm sure there's some, maybe a fair amount, but I don't know that the extent of that can be proven with data. But that doesn't mean it's not a factor.

Surely Obama lost SOME votes because of his race and Romney lost at least SOME votes because of his religion. Obviously those prejudices are out there, I'm sure data CAN back that up, it's just a matter of how much they influence votes, which I'm sure is way harder to measure.
I think that the combination of the youth/minority appeal of Obama with a very small % having reservations about Romney's religion is why Obama won. Now whether it was 90% Obama appeal and 10% Romney trepidation or 95-5 or even 85-15, no one will know. But, it did play a role and no one seems willing to say that.

I'll put it this way, if a minority candidate faced W in 2004 and the massive swing in independents towards the incumbent W occurred like it did to Obama in 2012 - you would have to look at the fact that race may have played a role (albeit a small one). That's what I am saying here in regards to Romney and his religion. I'm not saying it's right, but I think you have to at least consider it when looking at the possible reasons for the independent shift on the last day.

[molson]

I think that the combination of the youth/minority appeal of Obama with a very small % having reservations about Romney's religion is why Obama won. Now whether it was 90% Obama appeal and 10% Romney trepidation or 95-5 or even 85-15, no one will know. But, it did play a role and no one seems willing to say that.

I'll put it this way, if a minority candidate faced W in 2004 and the massive swing in independents towards the incumbent W occurred like it did to Obama in 2012 - you would have to look at the fact that race may have played a role (albeit a small one). That's what I am saying here in regards to Romney and his religion. I'm not saying it's right, but I think you have to at least consider it when looking at the possible reasons for the independent shift on the last day.

And there's the flip side of it too - people who only voted for Obama because he was black (probably mostly people who wouldn't have voted at all otherwise), and people who only voted for Romney because he's a mormon. (probably mostly related to turnout also). Every election is going to have factors like that. I have no idea if they can swing national elections or not. And I'm not sure which augment or factor has the burden of proof if there's no data either way.

[Blackadar]

I'm not talking about Evangelicals. They would vote for anyone with an R by their name. I'm talking about independents who aren't very religious. This is a growing section of the electorate and a group that Romney had a big problem with (but W didn't).

Hold on. Your premise is that "independents who aren't very religious" had a big problem with Romney's religion?

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?


How can you say it didn't play a factor. People hope it didn't, but the massive late swing in independents (esp non-religious) to Obama means it *could* have played a factor in the swing states.

Look at the demographics. There wasn't any massive late swing in independents.

If the minority/youth turnout goes down a tick and the women vote goes slightly up a tick, republicans win. The selection of the candidate (and not facing as transcendent a candidate as Obama) could easily change both in 2016.

Incorrect. Women voted 54-55% for Obama. Increasing the women vote does not help the Republicans.

Decreasing the minority vote would help the Republicans. In many ways you can thank the Voter ID initiatives for the minority turnout. Nothing drives people to the polls like trying to pass legislation making it harder for them to vote. Obama's skin tone most definitely had a factor, but it was both a positive and a negative. It helped motivate some minorities to vote, but it most definitely has cost him some substantial portion of the white vote. Kerry - who I'll remind you LOST - captured 41% of white voters. Gore - who LOST - got 42%. Obama - who WON - got 39%. That Obama could still win despite losing the white vote points to shifting USA demographics, not "likeability".

Women broke hard for Bush and he was pro-life. It's not so much the stance on abortion as it is not saying something stupid (ie, "I am against abortion even in cases of rape") and being more likeable.

Again, your facts are wrong and therefore your conclusions are wrong. Women did no such thing for bush. Women voted 51-44% for Kerry and 50-42% for Gore.

I mean personal likeability. Bush Sr won off of Reagan's coat tails. W was much more likeable than Gore and won despite the good economy under Clinton/Gore. Obama (next to maybe Reagan) might be the most likeable candidate in 30 years. That's how he overcame the issues with the economy.

Likeability helps, but that's an intrinsic factor. Not everyone finds Obama likeable. But your theory goes out the window very quickly. Was it likeability that drove 3/4ths of Hispanics to vote for Obama? Was it likeability that gave Obama 55% of the women vote? If that's the case, then why didn't he capture more of the male vote?

The well-informed will vote R and D regardless of the candidate.

No, those are called "sheep". If you're voting R or D regardless of the candidate, then you're very likely not well-informed.

Worst case, like for Kerry in 2004 or McCain in 2008, they just won't vote if they don't like their guy. But, well-informed people on the issues are rarely going to change their mind a month before the election and switch from D to R or vice versa. The "independents" or election procrastinators often don't pay as much attention as the die hards. So, at the end of the day, they will often end up voting for the guy (or girl) they trust/like the most and feel relates the best to them. W related very well to many people and Obama was extremely likeable and trustworthy in the eyes of many.

You can keep trying to say it's all about likeability, but the numbers don't bear that out in this election. While Bush may have won in 2000 because more people thought he'd be a good guy to sit down and have a beer with than Gore, that doesn't necessarily hold water when there are more pressing issues in a campaign - like a war and terrorism (2004), a recession (1992) or the economic doldrums (2012).

[sterlingice]

I think that the combination of the youth/minority appeal of Obama with a very small % having reservations about Romney's religion is why Obama won. Now whether it was 90% Obama appeal and 10% Romney trepidation or 95-5 or even 85-15, no one will know. But, it did play a role and no one seems willing to say that.

I'll put it this way, if a minority candidate faced W in 2004 and the massive swing in independents towards the incumbent W occurred like it did to Obama in 2012 - you would have to look at the fact that race may have played a role (albeit a small one). That's what I am saying here in regards to Romney and his religion. I'm not saying it's right, but I think you have to at least consider it when looking at the possible reasons for the independent shift on the last day.

Wouldn't this possibly be a case of fitting the "facts" to a narrative rather than the other way around? In 2008, Obama won convincingly. Why? As much, if not more, because the economy was in the toilet as who he was. That race was extremely close until the bottom fell out of the economy in September.

Bush was very beatable in 2004 but the Democrats went with John Kerry, a very unlikeable candidate. So, if they had gone with a more likeable candidate, they would have won, minority or otherwise. And if a minority candidate had lost, it would have been because of unlikability (probably not a word) not because of minority status.

But those are two contradictory examples: maybe likability counts. Or maybe the economy and party identification are just such overwhelming factors that they sets 95% of the battlefield and only a couple of percentage points are in play, either way.

SI

[BishopMVP]

Voting patterns are set in our youth. Splitting the 40-49 and losing, by wide margins, everyone under 40 is really bad. Counting on turnout of their current voters is a doomed strategy. They have to find ways to appeal to young and ethnic voters.I disagree with this - I wouldn't know where to find accurate numbers on this, but I'm pretty sure the Republican party has been doing better with older voters than younger ones since they completed the shift over to being the conservative party during the 1960's, if not before, yet they've continued being a viable party because people start voting more conservatively as they grow older. It's not about appealing to young voters, it's about appealing to yesterday's young voters as they age.

[Subby]

On Monday, Nov 5th, Peggy Noonan made Nate Silver's case for him. (http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/) Thank you Peggy. Because it's all about the yard signs.:

We begin with the three words everyone writing about the election must say: Nobody knows anything. Everyone’s guessing. I spent Sunday morning in Washington with journalists and political hands, one of whom said she feels it’s Obama, the rest of whom said they don’t know. I think it’s Romney. I think he’s stealing in “like a thief with good tools,” in Walker Percy’s old words. While everyone is looking at the polls and the storm, Romney’s slipping into the presidency. He’s quietly rising, and he’s been rising for a while.

Obama and the storm, it was like a wave that lifted him and then moved on, leaving him where he’d been. Parts of Jersey and New York are a cold Katrina. The exact dimensions of the disaster will become clearer when the election is over. One word: infrastructure. Officials knew the storm was coming and everyone knew it would be bad, but the people of the tristate area were not aware, until now, just how vulnerable to deep damage their physical system was. The people in charge of that system are the politicians. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to have the Marathon, to show New York’s spirit. In Staten Island last week they were bitterly calling it “the race through the ruins.” There is a disconnect.

But to the election. Who knows what to make of the weighting of the polls and the assumptions as to who will vote? Who knows the depth and breadth of each party’s turnout efforts? Among the wisest words spoken this cycle were by John Dickerson of CBS News and Slate, who said, in a conversation the night before the last presidential debate, that he thought maybe the American people were quietly cooking something up, something we don’t know about.

I think they are and I think it’s this: a Romney win.

Romney’s crowds are building—28,000 in Morrisville, Pa., last night; 30,000 in West Chester, Ohio, Friday It isn’t only a triumph of advance planning: People came, they got through security and waited for hours in the cold. His rallies look like rallies now, not enactments. In some new way he’s caught his stride. He looks happy and grateful. His closing speech has been positive, future-looking, sweetly patriotic. His closing ads are sharp—the one about what’s going on at the rallies is moving.

All the vibrations are right. A person who is helping him who is not a longtime Romneyite told me, yesterday: “I joined because I was anti Obama—I’m a patriot, I’ll join up But now I am pro-Romney.” Why? “I’ve spent time with him and I care about him and admire him. He’s a genuinely good man.” Looking at the crowds on TV, hearing them chant “Three more days” and “Two more days”—it feels like a lot of Republicans have gone from anti-Obama to pro-Romney.

Something old is roaring back. One of the Romney campaign’s surrogates, who appeared at a rally with him the other night, spoke of the intensity and joy of the crowd “I worked the rope line, people wouldn’t let go of my hand.” It startled him. A former political figure who’s been in Ohio told me this morning something is moving with evangelicals, other church-going Protestants and religious Catholics. He said what’s happening with them is quiet, unreported and spreading: They really want Romney now, they’ll go out and vote, the election has taken on a new importance to them.

There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there’s the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same. From tony Northwest Washington, D.C., I hear the same.

Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us.

And there is Obama, out there seeming tired and wan, showing up through sheer self discipline. A few weeks ago I saw the president and the governor at the Al Smith dinner, and both were beautiful specimens in their white ties and tails, and both worked the dais. But sitting there listening to the jokes and speeches, the archbishop of New York sitting between them, Obama looked like a young challenger—flinty, not so comfortable. He was distracted, and his smiles seemed forced. He looked like a man who’d just seen some bad internal polling. Romney? Expansive, hilarious, self-spoofing, with a few jokes of finely calibrated meanness that were just perfect for the crowd. He looked like a president. He looked like someone who’d just seen good internals.

Of all people, Obama would know if he is in trouble. When it comes to national presidential races, he is a finely tuned political instrument: He read the field perfectly in 2008. He would know if he’s losing now, and it would explain his joylessness on the stump. He is out there doing what he has to to fight the fight. But he’s still trying to fire up the base when he ought to be wooing the center and speaking their calm centrist talk. His crowds haven’t been big. His people have struggled to fill various venues. This must hurt the president after the trememdous, stupendous crowds of ’08. “Voting’s the best revenge”—revenge against who, and for what? This is not a man who feels himself on the verge of a grand victory. His campaign doesn’t seem president-sized. It is small and sad and lost, driven by formidable will and zero joy.

I suspect both Romney and Obama have a sense of what’s coming, and it’s part of why Romney looks so peaceful and Obama so roiled.

Romney ends most rallies with his story of the Colorado scout troop that in 1986 had an American flag put in the space shuttle Challenger, saw the Challenger blow up as they watched on TV, and then found, through the persistence of their scoutmaster, that the flag had survived the explosion. It was returned to them by NASA officials. When Romney, afterward, was shown the flag, he touched it, and an electric jolt went up his arm. It’s a nice story. He doesn’t make its meaning fully clear. But maybe he means it as a metaphor for America: It can go through a terrible time, a catastrophe, as it has economically the past five years, and still emerge whole, intact, enduring.

Maybe that’s what the coming Romney moment is about: independents, conservatives, Republicans, even some Democrats, thinking: We can turn it around, we can work together, we can right this thing, and he can help.

[BishopMVP]

Incorrect. Women voted 54-55% for Obama. Increasing the women vote does not help the Republicans.

Decreasing the minority vote would help the Republicans. In many ways you can thank the Voter ID initiatives for the minority turnout. Nothing drives people to the polls like trying to pass legislation making it harder for them to vote. Obama's skin tone most definitely had a factor, but it was both a positive and a negative. It helped motivate some minorities to vote, but it most definitely has cost him some substantial portion of the white vote. Kerry - who I'll remind you LOST - captured 41% of white voters. Gore - who LOST - got 42%. Obama - who WON - got 39%. That Obama could still win despite losing the white vote points to shifting USA demographics, not "likeability".I'd wager he was saying that Republicans need to increase their % of the female vote, not the total # of women who vote. Not having multiple Senate candidates talk about rape and abortions is probably a good start there.

(And I don't see how saying Obama's skin tone cost him some substantial portion of the white vote is any different than Arles saying Romney's religion cost him some portion of the independents. Neither is provable.)

[Arles]

Hold on. Your premise is that "independents who aren't very religious" had a big problem with Romney's religion?

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?
You think it's crazy that someone who isn't very religious could have an issue with a religious president? People who don't consider themselves religious are usually the group who have the biggest issue with very religious candidates. I'm assuming you just read this wrong.

Look at the demographics. There wasn't any massive late swing in independents.
There was in Ohio, Florida and Colorado based on the polls run on Sunday/Monday. Romney was either ahead or tie in regards to independents in the polls going to election day. He lost independents in each state on election day.


Incorrect. Women voted 54-55% for Obama. Increasing the women vote does not help the Republicans.
You really are having an issue with reading today. I said increasing the rate of women voting for republicans - not simply increasing the number of women voting. That's the one issue republicans need to look at from a policy perspective (or atleast a framing issue).

Decreasing the minority vote would help the Republicans. In many ways you can thank the Voter ID initiatives for the minority turnout. Nothing drives people to the polls like trying to pass legislation making it harder for them to vote. Obama's skin tone most definitely had a factor, but it was both a positive and a negative. It helped motivate some minorities to vote, but it most definitely has cost him some substantial portion of the white vote. Kerry - who I'll remind you LOST - captured 41% of white voters. Gore - who LOST - got 42%. Obama - who WON - got 39%. That points to shifting demographics, not "likeability".
So, you think that in the four years from Kerry to Obama, the demographics increased enough to make up the difference? There must have been a ton of 14-year old minorities chomping the at the bit to vote in 2008 then :D

Obama got record turnout by minorities and young people because of his appeal. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but it comes back to likeability. If the dems nominate Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or some other "more establishment" candidate in 2016, there's a very good chance that the above turnout doesn't happen.

Again, your facts are wrong and therefore your conclusions are wrong. Women did no such thing for bush. Women voted 51-44% for Kerry and 50-42% for Gore.
Women voted 55% for Obama and 50% for Gore/Kerry against W. They broke much harder for Bush than for any opponent of Obama. It wasn't a majority, but that isn't needed for a republican to win. If the republican in 2016 holds the democrat to a 50% rate on women, they win.

Likeability helps, but that's an intrinsic factor. Not everyone finds Obama likeable. But your theory goes out the window very quickly. Was it likeability that drove 3/4ths of Hispanics to vote for Obama?
I think many factors that probably won't be there in 2016 led to this. Obama's likeability being a major one. There was some backlash to republicans because of the immigration issue, but that was an issue in 2004 and 44% went for W.

Was it likeability that gave Obama 55% of the women vote? If that's the case, then why didn't he capture more of the male vote?
Again, you can't swing the die hards. African Americans, union members and single women are going dem no matter what. Older white men are going republican in large numbers no matter what. When you get to suburban wives, non-religious white men and non-partisans - that's when likeability comes into play. And those are the groups that went for W in 2004 and Obama in 2008/12.

No, those are called "sheep". If you're voting R or D regardless of the candidate, then you're very likely not well-informed.
Welcome to a majority of the voting public.

You can keep trying to say it's all about likeability, but the numbers don't bear that out in this election. While Bush may have won in 2000 because more people thought he'd be a good guy to sit down and have a beer with than Gore, that doesn't necessarily hold water when there are more pressing issues in a campaign - like a war and terrorism (2004), a recession (1992) or the economic doldrums (2012).
You're making my point. The war was going terrible in 2004 and people still elected W in 2004 because they like him more than Kerry. The economy is in the crapper this year and people still re-elected Obama because they liked him more than Romney. Likeability is even more important than major issues. Now, there are situations where issues and likeability coincide (ie, 1992 for Clinton and 2008 for Obama) - but I can't ever remember where a less likeable candidate won, regardless of the issues.

[Butter]

Got news for you, Arles. Minority turnout could go down a tick, but guess what? The raw numbers would remain the same, if not INCREASE, not decrease. Why? Because minorities are by far the fastest growing segment of the electorate. If you are going to continue to bank on winning middle-aged and old white voters, then you will be doomed to be a regional Southern and Plains party whose only hope to win nationally is to continue trying to institutionalize some of these archaic anti-GOTV statutes.

So, good luck with all that.

[BishopMVP]

I stated before that I really do think the pollsters who saw each side winning (which include some intellectually honest people on what was proven to be the wrong side, along with your wingnuts like unbiased guy) thought their numbers were right. Amongst the ones who were wrong but reasonable about it (Michael Barone probably the most prominent Barone: I was wrong–where it counted | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/i-was-wrongwhere-it-counted/article/2512860) ), it seems their reasoning is twofold. First, they didn't expect the Obama ground game to get out the vote as well as they did in urban areas (or for his supporters to come out in numbers close to 2008), and secondly they expected independents to break more towards Romney, as they historically break towards the challenger, especially when you have a bad economy.

[lungs]

I disagree with this - I wouldn't know where to find accurate numbers on this, but I'm pretty sure the Republican party has been doing better with older voters than younger ones since they completed the shift over to being the conservative party during the 1960's, if not before, yet they've continued being a viable party because people start voting more conservatively as they grow older. It's not about appealing to young voters, it's about appealing to yesterday's young voters as they age.

Which gets back to my point from earlier. Where is this appeal going to come from? It's a lot harder to shift a segment of the population to the Republican side when there simply isn't a likeable Republican President to draw fond memories from. Sure, people become more conservative as they age, but is that enough to sufficiently close the gap that the Republicans have handicapped themselves with in the current climate?

[Arles]

Got news for you, Arles. Minority turnout could go down a tick, but guess what? The raw numbers would remain the same, if not INCREASE, not decrease. Why? Because minorities are by far the fastest growing segment of the electorate. If you are going to continue to bank on winning middle-aged and old white voters, then you will be doomed to be a regional Southern and Plains party whose only hope to win nationally is to continue trying to institutionalize some of these archaic anti-GOTV statutes.

So, good luck with all that.
First, I voted for Obama - so I'm not upset that he won. I'm simply looking at all of this from an election postmortem perspective. If the republicans want to win in 2016, they should find a candidate that has a slightly better appeal to women (ie, more likeable) and not nominate extremely vocal pro-life candidates for senate in swing states. Combine that with the inevitable drop in youth/minority turnout when Obama is not the candidate, and they have a very good chance to win regardless of the issues.

Both the republicans (2004 with W) and democrats (2012 with Obama) are both making a mistake when they think that by winning - suddenly the electorate is now more for them moving forward. Barring a massive event or terrible situation, candidate likeability is what shifts elections. If a very likeable republican is nominated in 2016 and the democratic candidate isn't as likeable, the republicans will win regardless of all these demographic shifts. Stance on issues is like paint on the car. It's nice, but whether the car wins the race is because of its engine - and that's the candidate's likeability.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is exactly right. A lot of people in today's society can buy the republicans stance on economic and military issues, but the hard-line on abortion is what turns them off. Finding a way to have a softer stance on abortion (even just saying they are pro-life except in cases of rape,incest, mother's health) would go a long way - esp with women.

I'm not sure that "Rape, Incest & the Life of the Mother" is enough of a tagline to get Republicans to the % of the female vote they need. Because it will doubtless still be accompanied by all manner of crazy state restrictions and trans-vaginal ultrasounds and crazy shit.

[KWhit]

I'd wager he was saying that Republicans need to increase their % of the female vote, not the total # of women who vote. Not having multiple Senate candidates talk about rape and abortions is probably a good start there.

Not having an official platform that includes those batshit crazy positions would be an even better idea.

[Easy Mac]

You can't make it through the Republican primary if you're not 100% anti-abortion anymore.

[Arles]

Agreed, the major issue the republicans need to look at before 2016 is abortion. If the party found a way to soften its stance (even slightly) and not change anything else - their appeal with women will increase enough to probably win (provided they have a decent candidate). But, that's no likely to happen which means candidate selection will be even more important moving ahead.

[molson]

You can't make it through the Republican primary if you're not 100% anti-abortion anymore.

Romney was somewhat less than 100%, or at least, the other Republican challengers attacked him on that a lot.

Most people agree that the Republicans need to nominate more moderate candidates, but wasn't Romney, relatively speaking, at least somewhat of a step in that direction? Hopefully they don't see that approach as the reason they lost though, which, they might.

[miked]

The problem is Romney had to spend months arguing that he wasn't a moderate. If you spend a year arguing that you are hard core, then have 8-12 weeks to move back to the middle, it doesn't leave much room.

[BishopMVP]

Which gets back to my point from earlier. Where is this appeal going to come from? It's a lot harder to shift a segment of the population to the Republican side when there simply isn't a likeable Republican President to draw fond memories from. Sure, people become more conservative as they age, but is that enough to sufficiently close the gap that the Republicans have handicapped themselves with in the current climate?I don't buy it - when was the likable Democratic President before Clinton came along in 1992?

[molson]

The problem is Romney had to spend months arguing that he wasn't a moderate. If you spend a year arguing that you are hard core, then have 8-12 weeks to move back to the middle, it doesn't leave much room.

In retrospect, maybe he should have just appealed to the moderates and dared the Republicans to nominate Santorum.

[KWhit]

I think this has a lot to do with the big night the Dems had:

Hope and Change - Part 2 - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-hope-and-change-part-two.html?hp)


In October 2010, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, famously told The National Journal, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” And that’s how he and his party acted.

Well, Mitch, how’s that workin’ out for ya?

No one can know for sure what complex emotional chemistry tipped this election Obama’s way, but here’s my guess: In the end, it came down to a majority of Americans believing that whatever his faults, Obama was trying his hardest to fix what ails the country and that he had to do it with a Republican Party that, in its gut, did not want to meet him halfway but wanted him to fail — so that it could swoop in and pick up the pieces. To this day, I find McConnell’s declaration appalling. Consider all the problems we have faced in this country over the last four years — from debt to adapting to globalization to unemployment to the challenges of climate change to terrorism — and then roll over that statement: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

[sterlingice]

Agreed, the major issue the republicans need to look at before 2016 is abortion. If the party found a way to soften its stance (even slightly) and not change anything else - their appeal with women will increase enough to probably win (provided they have a decent candidate). But, that's no likely to happen which means candidate selection will be even more important moving ahead.

Which is interesting because it seemed like this battle was fought in the 90s and we had reached a "happy medium" until it reared its ugly head again this cycle. More than once over the past couple of months, my wife commented "Didn't we already fight this fight?"

EDIT: She's typically outwardly apolitical. She has beliefs but isn't very vocal about them. She got bored of the coverage last night quickly but her interest piqued whenever I told her the results of the polls for Team Rape (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420541/october-24-2012/richard-mourdock-s-rape-comment).

SI

[BishopMVP]

I'm not sure that "Rape, Incest & the Life of the Mother" is enough of a tagline to get Republicans to the % of the female vote they need. Because it will doubtless still be accompanied by all manner of crazy state restrictions and trans-vaginal ultrasounds and crazy shit.Believing it, pushing legislation for it in state houses, and going on talk shows/debates and saying things like that are all different levels. I disagree strongly with all 3, but only have a problem with the latter 2, and believe moderate voters only care about the last one.Not having an official platform that includes those batshit crazy positions would be an even better idea.Sure, sure, sure. :)

[sterlingice]

The problem is Romney had to spend months arguing that he wasn't a moderate. If you spend a year arguing that you are hard core, then have 8-12 weeks to move back to the middle, it doesn't leave much room.

Isn't that a fundamental structural problem for them? Yes, a more likeable candidate would help them immensely. But the candidates are chosen by the most ardent supporters early on and forced hard to the right.

SI

[Easy Mac]

The thing is, Romney didn't have to go hard right to win the Republican primary. He was always going to lose the party fight in the South, where there are the most hard-right Republicans. Outside of Florida (which isn't really the South) he lost every Southern state (before everyone else withdrew).

He made it too hard to go back to the center by going to far right when he didn't really have to.

[lungs]

I don't buy it - when was the likable Democratic President before Clinton came along in 1992?

Good question and one I can't answer with LBJ or Carter.

Put it this way, it'll still take a leftward shift by Republicans especially on social issues to cut that gap. The natural shift toward conservatives views as we get older simply won't cut it.

[Blackadar]

You think it's crazy that someone who isn't very religious could have an issue with a religious president? People who don't consider themselves religious are usually the group who have the biggest issue with very religious candidates. I'm assuming you just read this wrong.

No, I didn't read this wrong. You said people "couldn't get over him being a Mormon" - that was your exact phrase. Romney was very quiet about his religion in this entire campaign. So where's your proof that non-religious people cared more about Romney's religion than Obama's?

Also, people who aren't religious already tend to vote heavily Democratic. So "those who couldn't get over him being a Mormon" *AND* aren't religious *AND* aren't solidly Democratic voters is already a very small part of the electorate. So it's up to you to provide that somehow this very small sliver of people went for Obama because of Romney's religion.

Good luck on that.

There was in Ohio, Florida and Colorado based on the polls run on Sunday/Monday. Romney was either ahead or tie in regards to independents in the polls going to election day. He lost independents in each state on election day.

I don't know what polls you are looking at. Obama won those states by virtually the exact margins predicted when taking those polls as an aggregate during the last week of the election cycle. If they suddenly went for Obama on election day, his margin of victory would have been significantly greater. It wasn't. So if all of those people suddenly broke for Obama, who suddenly broke for Romney?

Again, you're going to need some detailed citations here, because the math doesn't add up.

You really are having an issue with reading today. I said increasing the rate of women voting for republicans - not simply increasing the number of women voting. That's the one issue republicans need to look at from a policy perspective (or atleast a framing issue).

Nope. Again, your quote was "women broke hard FOR Bush and he was pro-life". Yet they didn't - women didn't break for Bush. So again your starting assumption is wrong. Yes, Republicans need to do better with women (duh), but don't think for a minute that the percentages in this election were significantly different than they have been in the last decade. Obama did slightly better with women. I think we'd agree that would be in large part to the "war on women" - something that has nothing to do with your assertion of "likeability".


So, you think that in the four years from Kerry to Obama, the demographics increased enough to make up the difference? There must have been a ton of 14-year old minorities chomping the at the bit to vote in 2008 then :D

Obama got record turnout by minorities and young people because of his appeal. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but it comes back to likeability. If the dems nominate Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or some other "more establishment" candidate in 2016, there's a very good chance that the above turnout doesn't happen.

No, Obama got record turnout for a lot of reasons, one of which was "likeability". He also had perhaps the best ground campaign run by a Democrat since LBJ and his minority status electrified a group (black churches) that typically have a harder time getting worked up about elections.

I'm not going to try to project the turnout in 2016. However, since the ground game has already been built, it could be that any candidate can ride off the coattails of Obama's hard work and get a large part of the minority vote.

Women voted 55% for Obama and 50% for Gore/Kerry against W. They broke much harder for Bush than for any opponent of Obama. It wasn't a majority, but that isn't needed for a republican to win. If the republican in 2016 holds the democrat to a 50% rate on women, they win.

Obama's 10 point point swing is only marginally better than Kerry's 7 and Gore's 8. It's closer if women break at a 7-8 point margin, but that probably doesn't net them the win.

Also, nice attempt to change the playing field. You weren't talking about breaking harder for Bush than any opponent of Obama's. You said they BROKE HARD FOR BUSH. Clearly, that wasn't the case.

I think many factors that probably won't be there in 2016 led to this. Obama's likeability being a major one. There was some backlash to republicans because of the immigration issue, but that was an issue in 2004 and 44% went for W.

And 44-45% went for Romney yesterday.


Again, you can't swing the die hards. African Americans, union members and single women are going dem no matter what. Older white men are going republican in large numbers no matter what. When you get to suburban wives, non-religious white men and non-partisans - that's when likeability comes into play. And those are the groups that went for W in 2004 and Obama in 2008/12.

Citation needed that these groups went for Obama when Obama captured less of the white vote than Kerry or Gore. Again, the simple math doesn't work, Arles. He can't do better among these independents (mainly white) *and* capture less of the white vote unless he is getting the die-hards...which you just said you can't swing.


You're making my point. The war was going terrible in 2004 and people still elected W in 2004 because they like him more than Kerry. The economy is in the crapper this year and people still re-elected Obama because they liked him more than Romney. Likeability is even more important than major issues. Now, there are situations where issues and likeability coincide (ie, 1992 for Clinton and 2008 for Obama) - but I can't ever remember where a less likeable candidate won, regardless of the issues.

Wrong. They (barely) elected Bush because people were still scared of terrorism and the economy was doing better. The top 3 issues in 2004 were moral values (22%), the economy (20%) and terrorism (19%). Likeability doesn't dictate votes on any of those issues.


Long story short Arles, you keep posting the same thing without one iota of evidence or proof. The polling numbers don't back you up. Being more "likeable" isn't going to get more votes from the fastest growing voting segment - Latinos. Also, since only 10% of the vote was from Latinos but they now represent 16.4% of the populace, there's plenty of room for Democrats to get out more of that vote to get an even larger advantage. If trends hold, Democrats could make Texas a swing state by 2020 or 2024.

[gstelmack]

Also, the third party candidates took it in the shorts this election. I would have expected the lot of them to have at least crossed 2% of the popular vote nationally, but they didn't get squadoosh.

I think folks were worried about throwing their vote away. In NC Barbara Howe, Libertarian candidate for Governor, got twice as many votes as Gary Johnson.

[GrantDawg]

Couple of thoughts:

I think we had a big argument here on what independents did, and why. From what I understand, the misunderstanding is in who are independents now. Independents used to mean mostly moderate voters who don't really feel comfortable being a part of either party, since they agree with each in somethings not other. Independent/undecided/moderates are have been used almost interchangeably for years. But that doesn't seem to fit at all. Independents now seem to be more in line with the "tea party" right, who won't identify themselves with the Republican party, but generally votes Republican. CNN was showing that with exit polling. Those who identify themselves as moderates broke hard for Obama, whereas independents went Romney.

What did this say to me? The Republican party is never going to break hard enough for the far right. I really feel at some point there will be a break there. The Tea party either is going to become its own party, or evangelicals are going to break and take the Tea Party with them. I really feel they are looking for a reason to go, because they can't take any form of compromise on a number of issues the Republicans are going to have to give on at this point (immigration, abortion, taxes. Pick one).

[JPhillips]

I think what matters is that there was a whole generation that was lost by the Republicans because of the Bush's 8 years in office. Reagan's eight years solidified a whole bloc of votes of people that happen to fall into that 40-49 year old range this year. But when you look beyond that, starting with 30-39 it's not even close.

It isn't just GWP and GHWB. The only president the current GOP claims as legit is Reagan. Not GWP, GHWB, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower... They have no tradition upon which to build their vision. They can't say things like We'll protect the legacy of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton. All they have is Reagan.

[sterlingice]

(who, of course, would be thrown out of his own party today)

SI

[Blackadar]

Oh, and here's some more backup:

First Thoughts: Obama's demographic edge - First Read (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/07/14993875-first-thoughts-obamas-demographic-edge?lite)

*** And the GOP’s demographic dilemma: Obama’s demographic edge creates this dilemma for the Republican Party: It can no longer rely on white voters to win national elections anymore, especially in presidential cycles. Indeed, according to the exit poll, 89% of all votes Mitt Romney won last night came from whites (compared with 56% for Obama). So the Republicans are maximizing their share with white voters; they just aren’t getting the rest. And come 2016, the white portion of the electorate will probably drop another couple of points to 70%. Politico’s Martin puts it this way: “Battling a wheezing economy and a deeply motivated opposition, Obama still managed to retain much of his 2008 map because of the GOP’s deficiencies with the voters who are changing the political face of once conservative-leaning Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Republicans face a crisis: the country is growing less white and their coalition has become more white in recent years. In 2004, George W. Bush won [about 40 percent] of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics.”

That ain't a likeability gap.

[GrantDawg]

No, Obama got record turnout for a lot of reasons, one of which was "likeability". He also had perhaps the best ground campaign run by a Democrat since LBJ and his minority status electrified a group (black churches) that typically have a harder time getting worked up about elections.

I would say that it wasn't just his minority status that caused the huge turn outs in black areas this election. There were two groups that were majorly motivated this cycle by factors outside of the presidential election. Women, who had the shot across there bow by the Rape brothers, and an attacks not only on abortion rights but contraception access. You want to talk about an unpopular stance, restricting contraception is on top. Black voters where motivated by the number of laws/groups that tried to prevent them from voting. The Black preachers weren't getting up in there pulpits preaching Obama, they were getting in there pulpits talking about how conservatives were trying to roll back voting rights. The id laws, Florida's felony laws being overly-zealous in barring voters, etc. really just pissed people off. In every interview among the black leadership, that was the rallying cry.

It is ridiculous that in this day in age we have people actively seeking to stop people from voting, and that we politicians wanting to restrict/eliminate access to contraception. These are issues that I thought were 40 years decided.

[Blackadar]

I would say that it wasn't just his minority status that caused the huge turn outs in black areas this election. There were two groups that were majorly motivated this cycle by factors outside of the presidential election. Women, who had the shot across there bow by the Rape brothers, and an attacks not only on abortion rights but contraception access. You want to talk about an unpopular stance, restricting contraception is on top. Black voters where motivated by the number of laws/groups that tried to prevent them from voting. The Black preachers weren't getting up in there pulpits preaching Obama, they were getting in there pulpits talking about how conservatives were trying to roll back voting rights. The id laws, Florida's felony laws being overly-zealous in barring voters, etc. really just pissed people off. In every interview among the black leadership, that was the rallying cry.

It is ridiculous that in this day in age we have people actively seeking to stop people from voting, and that we politicians wanting to restrict/eliminate access to contraception. These are issues that I thought were 40 years decided.

I agree with both of those - I think I've mentioned both in my posts above. The Voter ID laws were a major factor in both getting out the vote and pushing the Latino vote more towards Obama.

[lungs]

It isn't just GWP and GHWB. The only president the current GOP claims as legit is Reagan. Not GWP, GHWB, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower... They have no tradition upon which to build their vision. They can't say things like We'll protect the legacy of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton. All they have is Reagan.

Democrats have done an excellent job refilling it's ranks as New Deal Democrats have died. Is that a fair assessment?

[Logan]

ITT Blackadar does work.

[Easy Mac]

Should Dems be more concerned for 4 years from now? I can't imagine they'll be able to keep the black vote as high as they have. They almost have to steal some white males from the Republicans to have a shot next time. Especially if Rubio runs and takes some of the Latino vote.

[sterlingice]

If Rubio can make it through the GOP primary and doesn't do something stupid over the next 4 years, the Democrats have a big problem in 2016. Those are two large "if"s as he may not be "right" enough and every day is a chance to say something or vote for something that can hurt your shot at the Presidency.

SI

[JediKooter]

I think this has a lot to do with the big night the Dems had:

Hope and Change - Part 2 - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-hope-and-change-part-two.html?hp)

In October 2010, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, famously told The National Journal, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” And that’s how he and his party acted.

The first paragraph from the article nailed it. Had the GOP not acted like a stood up little bitch when Obama won in 2008 and actually, you know, tried to fix the economy instead of going into "Operation: Get the Black Man Out of the White House", they would have shown that they deserve to have their candidate as president. But, nope, they did nothing but introduce legislation that tried to restrict women's reproductive rights, pissed and moaned about gay marriage, wondered where Obama's birth certificate was and can't make up their minds if Obama is a muslim, an atheist, a communist, a socialist or a fascist. As an non party affiliated voter, um, not the kind of thing that inspires me to vote for their side.

[Warhammer]

It isn't just GWP and GHWB. The only president the current GOP claims as legit is Reagan. Not GWP, GHWB, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower... They have no tradition upon which to build their vision. They can't say things like We'll protect the legacy of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton. All they have is Reagan.

Democrats haven't embraced Truman. Truman was demonized in his day, and today most Republicans I know would love to have a Truman run. I think Truman is one of best Presidents we've ever had.

But, your point is well made. I think the jury on GWB will be out for 20 years or so (much like Truman, coincidentally). GHWB was looked upon as an extension of Reagan's legacy, but he didn't have the personal touch or charisma Reagan had. In hindsight though, he didn't do a bad job as President.

Nixon and Ford can't be touched by the Republicans. Nixon's Watergate scandal permanently tarnished him, and his price controls are anathema to Republicans now. That said, he was one of the smartest Presidents and his foreign policy was great. Ford pardoned Nixon (which was the right move IMO), but that damaged his reputation.

One person that Republicans should embrace more is Eisenhower.

[Crapshoot]

Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex. In what world do you think the GOP would embrace him?

[Blackadar]

Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex. In what world do you think the GOP would embrace him?

They needed one more for their foresome.

[bronconick]

I don't think either party can go earlier than the Voting Rights Act because of the massive shift in base that occurred then.

[DaddyTorgo]

If Rubio can make it through the GOP primary and doesn't do something stupid over the next 4 years, the Democrats have a big problem in 2016. Those are two large "if"s as he may not be "right" enough and every day is a chance to say something or vote for something that can hurt your shot at the Presidency.

SI

Rubio's Cuban-American though right?

You can't paint all Hispanic voters with one big broad ethnic brush. Particularly Cuban-Americans, who are completely different then the mainlanders.

[larrymcg421]

If Rubio can make it through the GOP primary and doesn't do something stupid over the next 4 years, the Democrats have a big problem in 2016. Those are two large "if"s as he may not be "right" enough and every day is a chance to say something or vote for something that can hurt your shot at the Presidency.

SI

Rubio is a talented politician, but unless the GOP changes their rhetoric and policies on immigration, they can't expect to just throw up a Hispanic candidate and cut into the Hispanic vote. I predict that will work out about as well as when they try to field black conservatives to win the black vote.

[sterlingice]

Whoops- forgot he was Cuban. Well, that's a non-starter, to a point.

SI

[JPhillips]

Democrats haven't embraced Truman. Truman was demonized in his day, and today most Republicans I know would love to have a Truman run. I think Truman is one of best Presidents we've ever had.

But, your point is well made. I think the jury on GWB will be out for 20 years or so (much like Truman, coincidentally). GHWB was looked upon as an extension of Reagan's legacy, but he didn't have the personal touch or charisma Reagan had. In hindsight though, he didn't do a bad job as President.

Nixon and Ford can't be touched by the Republicans. Nixon's Watergate scandal permanently tarnished him, and his price controls are anathema to Republicans now. That said, he was one of the smartest Presidents and his foreign policy was great. Ford pardoned Nixon (which was the right move IMO), but that damaged his reputation.

One person that Republicans should embrace more is Eisenhower.

We could argue about the policies of Truman, I don't think you'd be at all a fan of his economic policies, but that isn't the argument I'm making. Democrats gladly embrace all of the presidents I've listed as a part of their tradition. The current GOP doesn't embrace anyone but Reagan.

[Warhammer]

Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex. In what world do you think the GOP would embrace him?

Exactly. However, I don't think the Republicans are all about the military-industrial complex. That said, we do tend to be big military, but I know that I prefer that due to the old "to preserve the peace, we must prepare for war" maxim.

[Blackadar]

Exactly. However, I don't think the Republicans are all about the military-industrial complex. That said, we do tend to be big military, but I know that I prefer that due to the old "to preserve the peace, we must prepare for war" maxim.

Well, at our current spending, we should be just about able to take on the entire world at once since we spend $.48 out of every $1.00 in world military spending.

At some point it gets to be...no pun intended...overkill.

[DaddyTorgo]

From Fordham University's Costas Panagopoulos, director of the university's Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy.

"For all the ridicule directed towards pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not far off from the actual nationwide vote shares for the two candidates," said Dr. Panagopoulos. On average, pre-election polls from 28 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of 1.07 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 0.63 percentage points away from the current estimate of a 1.7-point Obama margin in the national popular vote. [...]
1. PPP (D)
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
3. YouGov
4. Ipsos/Reuters
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid
12. ABC/WP
13. Pew Research
13. Hartford Courant/UConn
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup
26. NPR
27. National Journal
28. AP/GfK

[Solecismic]

It's been said before in many different ways. The Republicans have a decision to make. They can continue to emphasize overturning the abortion rulings and they can pretend that gay people should be happy to be "tolerated" and they will do OK in elections, but they won't win the presidency. They will gradually go from OK to fair as the number of minority voters increases and the number of older voters who have the more archaic view of homosexuality decreases.

Or they can dispense with the sideshow that candidates like Huckabee and Santorum create and allow their candidates to ignore those issues.

There's a risk there. My friends who feel these issues are important claim that evangelicals will sit elections out. They have a point. Evangelicals vote heavily. Some probably will stay at home. Others might try and form a third political party. This might be surprisingly successful, because it would take most of its base from the Republicans, and those evangelicals who want to remain in the D/R system might not stay Republican.

So far, they've decided against that risk, and we saw the result yesterday. A decent guy tacked to the right to win the nomination and tacked to the left to lose a relatively close race, but not one where you look at it and wonder what he could have done differently. The right-side talking point blames Sandy and Chris Christie, though I don't think it was close enough that it made a difference. Romney did not have momentum before Sandy.

Years from now, if someone asks us what Romney stood for, we're going to have a hard time answering. Obama won four years ago with a message. We saw young people energized as a result. What is the Republican message? If they had found one, absent of a third party for the evangelicals, I think they would have won easily this time because the economics don't favor Obama.

[Blackadar]

It's been said before in many different ways. The Republicans have a decision to make. They can continue to emphasize overturning the abortion rulings and they can pretend that gay people should be happy to be "tolerated" and they will do OK in elections, but they won't win the presidency. They will gradually go from OK to fair as the number of minority voters increases and the number of older voters who have the more archaic view of homosexuality decreases.

Or they can dispense with the sideshow that candidates like Huckabee and Santorum create and allow their candidates to ignore those issues.

There's a risk there. My friends who feel these issues are important claim that evangelicals will sit elections out. They have a point. Evangelicals vote heavily. Some probably will stay at home. Others might try and form a third political party. This might be surprisingly successful, because it would take most of its base from the Republicans, and those evangelicals who want to remain in the D/R system might not stay Republican.

So far, they've decided against that risk, and we saw the result yesterday. A decent guy tacked to the right to win the nomination and tacked to the left to lose a relatively close race, but not one where you look at it and wonder what he could have done differently. The right-side talking point blames Sandy and Chris Christie, though I don't think it was close enough that it made a difference. Romney did not have momentum before Sandy.

Years from now, if someone asks us what Romney stood for, we're going to have a hard time answering. Obama won four years ago with a message. We saw young people energized as a result. What is the Republican message? If they had found one, absent of a third party for the evangelicals, I think they would have won easily this time because the economics don't favor Obama.

The economy was their message (as it should have been). The problem is that what's needed to fix it are politically unpalatable to their base. So it was all about "we're not Obama", which isn't much of a message. So, in essence, I agree with you.

[Arles]

The one problem with the "demographic shift" being a negative for republicans is that minorities are going to start doing better and better financially. Traditionally, african americans and latinos have made significantly less than whites. I expect that as these groups continue to grow and have more financial success, the democratic party is going to become less appealing and you will have some shift in that voting block.

If the republicans can find a way to appease the religious right without having extreme candidates on the issue of abortion and find likeable candidates, many minorities will start listening as they continue to have success. The more I think about it, I'm just not sure any candidate was going to beat Obama as he still had such high positives despite a crap economy and high unemployment.

If the republicans can come up with a candidate that doesn't scare women on abortion and is somewhat likeable (ie, maybe a little younger/more energetic), I think they will have a great chance in 2016. A lot will also depend on the democrats. They found a home run candidate in Obama that had mass appeal and a ton of charisma. If they go back to the Dukakis/Gore/Kerry model, they could be in trouble once again.

I guess my point in all this is that candidate selection is so much more important than stance on issues (save maybe abortion, but even that can be managed better than the republicans did this election). If the republicans come up with a younger, energetic and high charisma candidate in 2016 and the democrats come up with a Biden/Kerry/Gore clone - republicans will probably win despite the demographic shifts.

[RainMaker]

Should Dems be more concerned for 4 years from now? I can't imagine they'll be able to keep the black vote as high as they have. They almost have to steal some white males from the Republicans to have a shot next time. Especially if Rubio runs and takes some of the Latino vote.

Why wouldn't they be able to keep the black vote as high as they have? I know people want to credit the vote to Obama being black, but Kerry received similar numbers when he was elected. When one party has made indirect racism part of their platform, they aren't going to be successful in courting votes from that race.

[Arles]

Why wouldn't they be able to keep the black vote as high as they have? I know people want to credit the vote to Obama being black, but Kerry received similar numbers when he was elected. When one party has made indirect racism part of their platform, they aren't going to be successful in courting votes from that race.
Minority/youth turnout/margin in 2004:

African American: 60% turnout and went 87% Kerry
Latino: 44% turnout and went 53% Kerry
18-29: 46% turnout and went 54% Kerry

Minority/youth turnout/margin in 2008:

African American: 65% turnout and went 95% Obama
Latino: 50% turnout and went 67% Obama
18-29: 50% turnout and went 66% Obama

If the turnout/margins in these three above groups fall back to 2004 levels, the democrats could be in some trouble. Again, the question of the day is how much does the likeability of Obama cause this versus just the better ground game that's the same for any democratic nominee. My contention is Obama was a major factor in these increases.

[RainMaker]

You don't need turnout as high if you continue to become a larger part of the population. Even if turnout percent drops a small amount, they still will have similar numbers in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

I don't know if those numbers will remain going forward. It does seem like Democrats built a nice network over the years and has really encouraged these groups to get out and vote. Early voting also seems to have helped. Only time will tell, but as these groups become a larger percentage of the electorate, they can sustain small drops in turnout and vote % and still provide huge net positives for Democrats.

At some point Republicans will need to get a much larger chunk of AA and Latino voters to survive. Maybe not now, maybe not even in 4 years, but in the next couple decades it is imperative.

One other interesting tidbit I saw was that those who vote twice in a row for the same party at a young age are extremely likely to maintain that allegiance throughout life. It'll be interesting to see if this 20-30 year old demographic provides benefits to Democrats down the road.

[GrantDawg]

My contention is Obama was a major factor in these increases.


This is where I disagree. "Some" factor in the black turn out, but anti-immigration/brown skin laws championed by the GOP is what is turning Hispanics away from the GOP, and anti-voting laws are energizing the black base. Unless these things change, the skew and numbers are not going to.

[Blackadar]

Minority/youth turnout/margin in 2004:

African American: 60% turnout and went 87% Kerry
Latino: 44% turnout and went 53% Kerry
18-29: 46% turnout and went 54% Kerry

Minority/youth turnout/margin in 2008:

African American: 65% turnout and went 95% Obama
Latino: 50% turnout and went 67% Obama
18-29: 50% turnout and went 66% Obama

If the turnout/margins in these three above groups fall back to 2004 levels, the democrats could be in some trouble. Again, the question of the day is how much does the likeability of Obama cause this versus just the better ground game that's the same for any democratic nominee. My contention is Obama was a major factor in these increases.

Not quite.

First, study of the Latino vote showed Bush captured between 35-37%, not 44% (Los Angeles Times - California, national and world news - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-oe-malanga18oct18,0,7797469.story)). Other sources show it at a maximum of 41%, not 44%. (Error - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26119-2004Dec25.html)).

Secondly, that was the high water mark for Republicans since Reagan got 37%. For instance, Dole got 21%. Bush got about 30% in 2000. Obama getting 71% of the votes last night isn't anything new.

Third, Latino voting power is growing tremendously. They were 2.5% of the electorate in 1980, 5.6% in 2000 and over 10% last night. That's just not due to Obama, though his organization smartly targeted Latino communities. Latino citizens increased 56% from the 2000 to the 2010 census and are the single fastest-growing voting demographic. What does all this mean? Even if Republican candidates can get to Bush's high-water mark of 37%, the sheer growth in Latino voters means that this is a net negative to the Republican Party within the next 10 years. Even a 5 point increase in that block - which would be a pretty large swing for any group - nets a Republican very few votes (300,000 total) in 2016 and actually puts them in the hole by 600,000 more votes by 2020. And that's being very conservative in the increase of Latino voters - if they increase their turnout to something approximating their population percentage, even an 8 point swing costs the Republicans votes overall in 2016.


Look, you're entitled to your opinion. But I bet dollars to donuts that the Republican electorial strategists aren't weeping in their cornflakes today saying "only if our guy was more likeable". If your point is that if Republicans can appeal to everyone more then they can get elected, while holding on to all their own voting blocs, then...duh. But look at who is voting for whom and why and you don't see the Latino vote going over to the Republican party and you don't see the Republican party getting much more of the percentage of the white vote than they did last night.

[larrymcg421]

White vote was 77% of the electorate in 2004, 74% in 2008, 72% in 2012. It will likely be 69-70% in 2016.

Here's a telling stat: Obama got 39% of the white vote in 2012. Dukakis got 40% in 1988.

[kcchief19]

There's a risk there. My friends who feel these issues are important claim that evangelicals will sit elections out. They have a point. Evangelicals vote heavily. Some probably will stay at home. Others might try and form a third political party. This might be surprisingly successful, because it would take most of its base from the Republicans, and those evangelicals who want to remain in the D/R system might not stay Republican.
Karl Rove is a sabremetrician at heart. He saw that religious (particularly Evangelical) voters were largely overlooked in elections. In the '80s and '90s, there weren't any concentrated efforts to go after these voters. Now the Republicans have them and own them. White evangelicals were 26 percent of electorate in both 2008 and 2012 and Romney took 78 percent, which beat McCain.

The reason Republicans haven't won the last two elections is that Democrats finally went after voters that were undervalued. They targeted young, black and Hispanic voters. That has largely offset the GOP advantage among evangelicals.

I don't know why Republicans are so disheartened because they have a virtual lock on the House of Representatives, they have a majority of governorships and have a stranglehold on many state legislatures. The DNC had two lobbies, the pro-gun lobby and the anti-abortion lobby, that worked hard to take over politics at the local level. They have used that position to create a mathematical advantage to hold those positions.

The Democrats only have an advantage at the macro level. Demographically, Democrats are much more concentrated. They have pure numbers. Both sides have a statistical advantage, and that can only be defeated by a shrewd strategy.

Look at Missouri, where its state legislature is 67% Republican, the House delegation is 75% Republican but state office holders are 75% Democratic. A lot of states are this way ... in Missouri, you can win a statewide election by winning Jackson County (Kansas City) St. Louis City, St. Louis County and Boone County (Columbia) and losing the other 111.

[kcchief19]

Here's something for the Republicans to consider ... the DREAM Act. Obama will likely make another push for the DREAM Act. If the GOP blocks it, they lose Latinos again in 2016. If Obama were to get the DREAM Act passed, you could probably assume the Latino vote goes Democratic at an 85% clip for the next 50 years.

But if the GOP led the way on the DREAM Act? You could eliminate a huge wedge issue for the Democrats and neutralize a major statistical advantage.

Will never happen, but it should.

[finketr]

Look at Missouri, where its state legislature is 67% Republican, the House delegation is 75% Republican but state office holders are 75% Democratic. A lot of states are this way ... in Missouri, you can win a statewide election by winning Jackson County (Kansas City) St. Louis City, St. Louis County and Boone County (Columbia) and losing the other 111.

Ohio with cuyahoga county and fayette county.

illinois *gag* with Cook county.

New York with NYC.

CA with the coastal counties for the most part, though OC and Riverside are more conservative along with the Imperial Valley.

etc etc

[RainMaker]

Here's something for the Republicans to consider ... the DREAM Act. Obama will likely make another push for the DREAM Act. If the GOP blocks it, they lose Latinos again in 2016. If Obama were to get the DREAM Act passed, you could probably assume the Latino vote goes Democratic at an 85% clip for the next 50 years.

But if the GOP led the way on the DREAM Act? You could eliminate a huge wedge issue for the Democrats and neutralize a major statistical advantage.

Will never happen, but it should.

It'll never happen. No one has the balls to stand up to the bigots that control the narrative.

[CrimsonFox]

I think the whole Bush/Reagan point is a really good one (and I'm not looking at performance in office or anything here, just how the people reacted to those presidencies) - I was just thinking about Michael P. Keaton's (from Family Ties) infatuation with Reagan (I think he had a poster of him in his room). America looked at that as kind of cute, he was different than his liberal parents, and his character was smart, likable, and he was going places. There were probably Michael P. Keatons all over American in the 80s.

Today, if you engage in similar hero worship of Bush, that's not going to be viewed as cute at all. It will seem weird and scary and make people angry. The iconic Republican of this generation is a true villain, not just a partisan villain of the far left.

Alex P Keaton.
Michael J Fox

[molson]

Alex P Keaton.
Michael J Fox

Haha, oops. It's been a while since I've seen that show.

[Swaggs]

An interesting sidenote that I haven't seen mentioned (but certainly could have been, since I didn't watch wall to wall cable news today :) ), is that this looks like the first time since '96 that voter turnout was lower than the previous presidential election.

As contentious as things have seemed, that is kind of a surprise to me.

[sterlingice]

Here's something for the Republicans to consider ... the DREAM Act. Obama will likely make another push for the DREAM Act. If the GOP blocks it, they lose Latinos again in 2016. If Obama were to get the DREAM Act passed, you could probably assume the Latino vote goes Democratic at an 85% clip for the next 50 years.

But if the GOP led the way on the DREAM Act? You could eliminate a huge wedge issue for the Democrats and neutralize a major statistical advantage.

Will never happen, but it should.

I really think this is the best way forward if you're the GOP. The powers that be in the party know it. John Boehner and Eric Cantor aren't ideologues. Nor are most of the GOP in the Senate like McConnell or Graham. They can let the crazy wing of their party have their little snit fit about this. Then they swoop in and look like moderates to the rest of the populace for going along with it and standing up to their party. Meanwhile they play up how hard it is to cut this deal that's good for them in the first place and extract a bunch of crap out of Obama (never mind building up legislative credit with the public by looking like the adults in the room), who is an awful poker player and keeps getting beat on situations where he has to give in or bluff because he's already shown his hand. Then the GOP gets to stand next to the President signing it, gets a load of legislative goodies from him, and the crazy wing of the party knows they can't go anywhere and lives with what actually benefits them anyway.

SI

[CrimsonFox]

The Mormon thing is tough to measure, like the race thing. Isn't there still a sentiment that some people won't vote for Obama because he's black? Do we have data on that? How many people are predisposed to vote Democrat but then won't if it's a black nominee? I'm sure there's some, maybe a fair amount, but I don't know that the extent of that can be proven with data. But that doesn't mean it's not a factor.

Surely Obama lost SOME votes because of his race and Romney lost at least SOME votes because of his religion. Obviously those prejudices are out there, I'm sure data CAN back that up, it's just a matter of how much they influence votes, which I'm sure is way harder to measure.


I'm surprised the Mormon thing was not more of an issue. At least if it was, it wasn't really talked about (unless it was screamed by Romney at a radio DJ). Many parts of the Mormon origin and formation and doctrine SO go against Christianity that anyone else would be burned at the stake as a witch. I did some perusing on forums of catholic sites and a lot of people are just tunnelvisioned angry white guys posting hate and insisting that Romney was right about everything and truthful about everything and that he stood for their values and belieefs....um....no he doesn't as Mormonism != Christianity.

[sterlingice]

Didn't you hear? They're not a cult any more

<table style="font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="340" width="512"><tbody><tr style="background-color:#e5e5e5" valign="middle"><td style="padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;">The Colbert Report (http://www.colbertnation.com)</td><td style="padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;">Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c</td></tr><tr style="height:14px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2">Colbert Report: Tip/Wag - Constant Documentation & Billy Graham (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420709/november-01-2012/colbert-report--tip-wag---constant-documentation---billy-graham)</td></tr><tr style="height:14px; background-color:#353535" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right">www.colbertnation.com (http://www.colbertnation.com/)</td></tr><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding:0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display:block" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:420709" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" height="288" width="512"></td></tr><tr style="height:18px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding:0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin:0px; text-align:center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding:3px; width:33%;">Colbert Report Full Episodes (http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/)</td><td style="padding:3px; width:33%;">Political Humor & Satire Blog (http://www.indecisionforever.com/)</td><td style="padding:3px; width:33%;">Video Archive (http://www.colbertnation.com/video)</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
I'm a bit disappointed in this, actually, as Graham usually steered clear of controversy. But this year he did that and was supporting gay marriage bans in a couple of states, iirc, after staying about the fray most of his life.

SI

[CrimsonFox]

someone mentioned the Reagan landslides and sent me to wiki. I remember the election going on but not really caring as it interrupted my cartoons.

In 1980 Reagan got 44 states. I remember the timeperiod being one of just laughing at democrats bsaically. Carter was nothing but a joke. Granted I lived in rural Indiana so now I see why everything was about putting down Carter. Billy beer....nothing but a hick...Carterisms. Hicks were made fun of unlike today where they is prazed fer there unintellgence cuz its the way common folk talklike. Carter had a REALLY weak campaign too. I remember one ad/commerial where Carter is there apologizing. "I know I've made some mistakes." he said. He didn't own his campaign. He didn't go after the prize like Clinton/Bush/Obama to earn that second term. And Reagan was Mr Charismatic. I mean he was an actor in every sense. Knew what catchphrases to say and when to say them. His timing in debates was impeccable. And I've seen clips of him when he was governor of CAL. He dewfeintely had balls politically. I think he was probably a better governor than actual president. But it didn't matter to what we saw.
Other thing that really hurt Carter. Independent John B Anderson took 6.6% of the vote. Presumably FROM the democrats. And interesting...Washington DC was its own state. It had its own electoral votes (3). I'm sure Reagan killed that to hurt the dems even more on purpose. Granted Anderson's number was not enough to mean a Carter victory but it could have meant momentum. I'm still not sure Carter was a good candidate. Who the hell was his competition in 76. I'll have to check. Incidently Carter is awesome now. He's like a saint. A peacekeeper. A hero. Notsomuch then.

[CrimsonFox]

Haha, oops. It's been a while since I've seen that show.

Did you delete your post molson? I can't find it anymore. Anyway it was a great point. Reagan was indeed looked upon as a celebrity really in a popstar type sense. LIke a cute and cuddly hero that could never fail. I think the whole Gorbachev/Russian thing was big for him. Maybe that's why GOP made war and defeense their number one priority since Reagan. Anyway sad your post is gone. Loved the APK reference :)

[Chubby]

someone mentioned the Reagan landslides and sent me to wiki. I remember the election going on but not really caring as it interrupted my cartoons.

In 1980 Reagan got 44 states. I remember the timeperiod being one of just laughing at democrats bsaically. Carter was nothing but a joke. Granted I lived in rural Indiana so now I see why everything was about putting down Carter. Billy beer....nothing but a hick...Carterisms. Hicks were made fun of unlike today where they is prazed fer there unintellgence cuz its the way common folk talklike. Carter had a REALLY weak campaign too. I remember one ad/commerial where Carter is there apologizing. "I know I've made some mistakes." he said. He didn't own his campaign. He didn't go after the prize like Clinton/Bush/Obama to earn that second term. And Reagan was Mr Charismatic. I mean he was an actor in every sense. Knew what catchphrases to say and when to say them. His timing in debates was impeccable. And I've seen clips of him when he was governor of CAL. He dewfeintely had balls politically. I think he was probably a better governor than actual president. But it didn't matter to what we saw.
Other thing that really hurt Carter. Independent John B Anderson took 6.6% of the vote. Presumably FROM the democrats. And interesting...Washington DC was its own state. It had its own electoral votes (3). I'm sure Reagan killed that to hurt the dems even more on purpose. Granted Anderson's number was not enough to mean a Carter victory but it could have meant momentum. I'm still not sure Carter was a good candidate. Who the hell was his competition in 76. I'll have to check. Incidently Carter is awesome now. He's like a saint. A peacekeeper. A hero. Notsomuch then.

DC still has 3 electoral college votes i believe

[CrimsonFox]

DC still has 3 electoral college votes i believe


oh I thought it was said last night they didn't. Okay good. Was hard to tell.

Anyway, I found this. :)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JXztxoW3Nc0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[molson]

Did you delete your post molson? I can't find it anymore. Anyway it was a great point. Reagan was indeed looked upon as a celebrity really in a popstar type sense. LIke a cute and cuddly hero that could never fail. I think the whole Gorbachev/Russian thing was big for him. Maybe that's why GOP made war and defeense their number one priority since Reagan. Anyway sad your post is gone. Loved the APK reference :)

I think its still here, back 'aways, post #99, I still see it anyway.

Also, Mallory was hot.

[Passacaglia]

Wassup with the Diane Sawyer thing? Is that just edited to make it look like that or what? We watched CNN, so I didn't see any of it.

[CrimsonFox]

Wassup with the Diane Sawyer thing? Is that just edited to make it look like that or what? We watched CNN, so I didn't see any of it.


It's just edited to show just her bits as the night was full of lots of the other guys talking too. Here's another one...

Just kinda funny seeing her "paula Abdul" all over the place.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YC9KpWEQWgc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>