2012 Election Result Analysis

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

Triumph of the Nerds: Nate Silver Wins in 50 States

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

BIAS INCARNATE.

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

+1000

Originally Posted by cuervo72

BIAS INCARNATE.

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

Rainmaker's just trolling the grammar police.

Originally Posted by 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.

The 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]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

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?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.