Posted on 12/28/2010 8:43:24 AM PST by Moseley
Democrats were apparently under-represented in Delaware’s US Senate race on November 2, 2010, according to CNN exit polls taken on election night.
Voter registration for Delaware’s 2010 election totaled
Democrats: 47 %.
Republicans: 29.4%.
"Other" & Independents: 23.5%
(Voter registration closed on October 9, 2010. Registration totals are as of October 21, 2010.)
http://elections.delaware.gov/services/candidate/regtotals.shtml
However, actual voter turn out according to CNN’s exit poll was:
Democrats: 44%.
Republicans: 30%.
"Other" & Independents: 27%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=DES01p1
Thus Democrats were under-represented among the actual voters who turned out in the November 2 election.
Only 44% of actual voters were Democrats although 47% of all registered voters are Democrats. Republicans comprised 30% of actual voters while being only 29.4% of registered voters. (Because Democrat registration surged 11.2% between 2008 and 2010, a full 11.2% of Democrat registered voters are recently-registered and probably highly motivated to vote after recently registering.)
If CNN’s exit poll data is accurate, the theory that Christine O’Donnell energized Democrats to turn out and vote – harming Delaware’s “down ballot” races – is clearly false.
Democrats actually voted in numbers significantly less than their proportion among registered voters by 44% to 47%. Republicans voted in a slightly higher proportion than their voter registration by 30% to 29.4%. Therefore, Christine O’Donnell’s presence on the November 2 ballot clearly did not drive Democrats to vote.
Two competing theories are being disputed about the US Senate race between Republican Christine O’Donnell and Democrat Chris Coons. A major debate – perhaps even a healthy debate – is raging within the Republican Party of Delaware about the future of Republicans after the November 2, 2010.
Delaware conservatives generally assert that the failure of the Republican Party to unite after the September 14, 2010, primary and the extraordinary inter-party attacks and strife caused O’Donnell’s loss in the US Senate race.
Delaware moderates or insiders in the Republican Party argue that a massive wave of Democrats was driven to the polls to vote against O’Donnell. In this argument, they claim that hostility uniquely tied to O’Donnell personally – different from her simply being the Republican nominee – energized Democrats to turn out and vote against the Republican ticket. They have even argued that O’Donnell “scared” voters who “thought she was a witch.”
Because O’Donnell and Coons roughly split the Independent / Other vote, while Democrats turned out in lower numbers than their presence on the voter registration rolls, O’Donnell’s candidacy clearly did not energize voters to vote against her.
Instead, the results of the US Senate race are clearly explained by the fact that a whopping 18% of all Republicans voted for the Democrat Chris Coons. The exit polls show that only 82% of those Republicans actually voting cast a ballot for the Republican nominee O’Donnell, 18% of Republicans voting for the Democrat nominee Coons.
Therefore, the exit poll data shows that Republican defections to vote for the Democrat Coons were responsible for the Republican Party losing the US Senate seat from Delaware.
A noticeable surge in voter turn-out apparently came from Delaware’s large Independent voter population, by 27% of actual voters compared with 23.5% of voter registrations.
The large Independent / Other vote was nearly split between Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons. The CNN exit poll showed Coons getting 48% to O’Donnell’s 45% of the Independent vote, while O’Donnell won the Independent vote by 49% to 46%, according to exit polling conducted for Fox News. SEE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNYxENilNvU
(Fox news’ graphic shows the reverse of the anchor’s verbal report.)
Within the margin of error, O’Donnell and Coons roughly got equal shares of Independent and Other voters. At the minimum, Coons’ slight advantage among Independents and Other voters was not large enough to explain the election results.
Therefore, only the defection of 18% of Republican voters can explain the loss of the US Senate race in Delaware in 2010.
Some research for this report was helpfully supplied by left-wing commentators “anon” and “Geezer.”
Gee whiz, imagine what might’ve been if Rove et al had kept their big mouths shut.
At the least bust them out of positions of party management. And that Rove guy ~ somebody got some rope?
Rove should be shunned by all conservatives. He’s worthless as an “analyst” and toxic to the Republican Party.
So typical of those people ~ that must be why they've arranged a special circle of Hell for them.
Tokyo Karl puts the anal in analyst.
The article says that 18% of (voters registered as Republicans) voted for Chris Coons.
Regardless of what these idiots are (vindictive GOPers or sleeper Democrats) I fail to see how anything Karl Rove could say could convince anyone who was willing to vote for flaming marxist Coons, to turn around and vote for ODonnell.
The Delaware election rests SQUARELY on the d!psh!t Delaware elctorate.
They got what they deserve.
Who would have thought, RINOs voting for a RAT. They finally admit what they are - traitors.
BTW, how many times have Conservatives been accused of betraying the Party?
The Establishment Republicans are on a path to self destruction. The sooner the better.
In a concerted effort, the SOBs torpedoed O'Donnell. The same sharks have been circling Palin with smiles on their faces and platitudes on their lips, waiting for the moment to make a fatal strike!
Fair enough, but all I wanted Rove & co to do was shut the hell up.
This “phenomenon” occurs REGULARLY in New Jersey.
A RINO gets nominated and the GOP conservatives go out and vote for them. A Conservative gets nominated and the RINOs either sit home or actually vote for the Democrat.
What it means in my mind is that Democrat political philosophies are grounded in a larger percentage of the population than actually are represented by Dems in some parts of the Country.
You probably have a better chance of “converting” independents and RINOs to conservative candidates though than of “converting” registered Democrats.
When bastards like Rove et al come out and so viciously attack a conservative candidate, it hurts in certain elections and under certain circumstances and it did here.
But don't forget that Coons was an elected County official in the northernmost, most populous county of Delaware's three counties.
O'Donnell had to contend with that issue as well as the typical well-orchestrated assault by the media launched against ANY conservative woman or minority running, PLUS the inane blather of people like Rove.
“Instead, the results of the US Senate race are clearly explained by the fact that a whopping 18% of all Republicans voted for the Democrat Chris Coons”
Thanks RINOs! Committed to screwing America over, while backstabbing conservatives once again.
Glad to see I was right, and that the numbers back me up COD did just fine among independents.
18% of Republicans voting for the Democrat nominee Coons.
Explains a lot.
Thanks Karl and others.
I think you are still mis-understanding the polling results, and mis-interpreting them. Posting more of your own writings on the subject as “news” won’t change the criticisms that have been levied and not answered in all the other threads you and others post about this.
In this case, you have several difficulties. First, your premise is based on numbers that are within the margin of error of the exit poll. In other words, there is NO difference between the exit poll and the official registration numbers, when viewed with the margin of error. IN fact, given the margin of error, it is equally possible that democrat turnout outperformed the registration number.
Second, registration numbers are lagging indicators of trends. Yes, new people get signed up, but a lot of already registered people simply won’t bother to change their registration. And since there was no democrat primary, we can’t use the comparative turnouts to see if there was a shift in demographics. So we have no way of knowing if the current “registration numbers” are accurately reflecting the will of the voters.
Third, turnout rarely matches registration. And in this year, across the country republicans were energised and enthusiastic, while democrats were demoralized and ambivalent. So, in most states, we see republicans outperform registrations, while democrats underperform. There are only a few states where that did NOT happen.
For example, in Nevada, The registration is 42% D vs 37% R, but turnout was 41-41.
IN other states, like Oklahoma, Democrats have a voter registration advantage of 49% to 40%, but comparing primary turnout shows republicans had a record high turnout, and democrats a record low turnout.
SO you really have to explain why Delaware bucked the trend — why did the democrats show up in the same proportion as republicans, when in other states republicans out-performed their registrations? The information we have doesn’t provide the direct answer, but it is MUCH more likely that this is because O’Donnell rather than Castle was the nominee; to suggest that O’Donnell had NO EFFECT on the turnout of the democrats is ludicrous.
Because of O’Donnell, democrats thought they could win a race they expected to lose. They then got millions of dollars to spend. Because O’Donnell was deemed to be a GOOD boogey-man for the national prospects, the democrats sent their power-hitters to the state, elevating it to a national prominence, again likely to crank up the democratic turnout.
And meanwhile, we are told that the republican establishment did nothing for O’Donnell — if that is TRUE, then how could you argue that the republican turnout was better than expected? If it was better than expected, what possible difference could it make what the republican establishment did. And if you think the RE made a difference, then you can’t argue that having THEIR candidate would NOT have made a difference, since that would have brought the RE into the race.
The problem with your argument is that it defies logic, it is internally contradictory, and is built on a faulty premise.
Agreed. And Rove teed himself up for the abuse.
But Rove's just a vent for people who put too much faith in the best financed, worst executed campaign ever run!
"I'm You? I'm not a witch!?" Please! Idiotic.
That is an ignorant viewpoint. IN fact, a person who seems pretty smart just said in another thread that the late primary pretty much guaranteed that O'Donnell couldn't win, since she didn't have the backing of the establishment.
Meanwhile, we have proven by actual math that if every single Republican that showed up for the election had voted for O'Donnell, she still would have lost 54-46 percent.
And since here you are arguing that Republican turnout was better than expected, and democrat turnout less than expected, it seems irrational to then argue that republican turnout would have been higher, and democrat turnout lower, had the republican party in delaware done a better job.
You need to make up your mind what your argument is, rather than giving contradictory arguments.
The only way O'Donnell was going to win was if she got a lot higher percentage of the independent vote, and a higher percentage of the democrat vote. CNN says she narrowly lost the independents, and was crushed by the democrats.
It is indisputable that Castle would have gotten more independent and democrat votes than O'Donnell did.
The sad thing is the entire argument about down-ballot stuff is a silly argument. It is just as likely that Castle could have hurt down-ballot, if he attracted more democrats to vote for him, they would vote for democrats in other races. Conservatives down-ballot had their best shot with O'Donnell at the top, because she could be expected to draw more conservatives to the polls.
However, conservatives have a tough time winning in Delaware, so it was a losing cause. And anyway, candidates have to do their own elections. Each candidate is responsible for the voters that candidate brings to the polls. Blaming others, whether its the establishment blaming O'Donnell, or the conservatives blaming the establishment, is a fools argument.
Pick candidates that attract voters, and you will win elections. Pick candidates who have to use their valuable advertising time to explain that they are not witches is not a winning strategy.
And if that 18% had all voted for O’Donnell, she still would have lost handily.
Except that if that 18% had all voted for O'Donnell, she still would have lost 54-46%. The math is easily done, and you have seen it, and can't refute it, so I don't know why you keep making this obviously false argument. Do you want to deceive your readers? I find that this only works if you have really stupid readers, and even then they eventually resent being deceived.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.