It’s the turnout, stupid (Great analysis)

In the weeks leading up to the election, conservatives universally derided the polls released by the mainstream media as having a built-in liberal bias because the samples they used to model the electorate were similar to the 2008 electorate. In 2008 the electorate which gave Obama his victory had a partisan split (D/R/I) of 39/32/29 (D+7). But that was the height of Obamania, we argued, and there was no way the electorate in 2012 could be anywhere close to what it was then after 4 years of the disaster known as the Obama presidency.

But we conservatives were wrong as the partisan split of those who cast a ballot in 2012 was 38/32/29, virtually identical to what it was in 2008. The question is why?

First, a little background. One of the best predictors of the partisan split of the electorate is party identification. Rasmussen tracks party ID on a monthly basis. At the end of October 2008, immediately before the 2008 presidential election, Rasmussen recorded a +7.1% partisan advantage for the Democrat Party. Obama went on to win that election by 7.2%. Another indicator which is highly correlated with the partisan split of the electorate is the generic congressional vote. Immediately prior to the 2008 election, RCP indicates that the Democrats enjoyed a 9% advantage on that key statistic.

This year the numbers couldn’t be more different. Rasmussen’s most recent party identification survey indicated Republicans had a 5.8% advantage, a swing of 12.9% in four years. Significantly, this number is far better for the GOP than it was prior to the 2010 Republican mid-term blowout. On the RCP generic congressional ballot, the GOP has moved into a virtual tie with a 0.2% advantage, a swing of 9.2% since 2008. Given such dramatic movement toward Republicans, it’s understandable that conservative pundits and bloggers (myself included) would cry foul over polls using samples with partisan splits similar to 2008.

And yet when the dust settled, yesterday’s electorate was D+6 which resulted in Obama being comfortably re-elected while Republicans actually lost seats in the Senate when it appeared less than a year ago that they’d retake it easily. What happened?

In a word, turnout. While highly correlated, there is a difference between party identification and the partisan split of the electorate. To be counted in the electorate, you have to show up and vote.

There are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the potential electorate, but too many of them stayed home and thus, weren’t part of yesterday’s actual voting electorate.

I was in my car yesterday afternoon and Rush Limbaugh asked what he framed as a couple of rhetorical questions. In trying to reassure his listeners that Romney had this in the bag, he asked (paraphrasing) if they believed more Republicans would show up for Romney in 2012 than showed up for McCain in 2008, and if they believed fewer Democrats would show up for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. It was apparent that Limbaugh assumed the answer to both questions was a resounding “yes” and, consequently, more Romney voters + less Obama voters = GOP victory.

As I listened to this, however, I was skeptical of his assumed answer to the first question. I still don’t know anyone who was enthusiastic about voting for Romney. I understand it’s anecdotal, but everyone I know who voted for him (or was planning to vote for him) did it on the basis of him being the lesser of two evils. C4P readers know that I’ve written myriad posts over the last three and a half years in which I’ve shared my opinion that Romney would be a dismal, unelectable cookie-cutter candidate who would inspire nobody, so I won’t get into that now. Suffice to say that to beat an incumbent president with unlimited campaign funds, a seasoned campaign team, and the entire apparatus of the executive branch at his beck and call, a candidate needs to offer a more compelling reason for voters to turn out for him than simply relying on the fact that he’s not Obama.

For this reason — and others — I questioned Limbaugh’s assumption that there would be a huge turnout for Romney. There wasn’t, and that’s why he lost.

Limbaugh was correct on his second question though. A comparison of 2008 election results and 2012 election results indicate Obama received about 9 million fewer votes yesterday than he did in 2008. But the data also indicate that the Romney-Ryan ticket received almost 2.3 million fewer votes nationally than the McCain-Palin ticket did in 2008. (Incidentally, that 2.3 million voter deficit is only marginally less than the number of votes by which Obama beat Romney in the popular vote.)

To be blunt, the Republican Establishment coronated a candidate who couldn’t inspire the rank and file of his own party to come out in sufficient numbers to replace the man responsible for four of the most miserable years this country has endured since Jimmy Carter. In any event, this is how a nation with more Republicans than Democrats and twice as many conservatives as liberals ends up with a D+6 voting electorate. It’s also how Republicans threw away their one opportunity to send Obama back to Chicago, take the gavel from Harry Reid, and get rid of Obamacare before it destroys our health care system and bankrupts the nation. Stupid party, indeed.

I live in NY, where I could have voted for Mickey Mouse and it wouldn’t have made one bit of difference, given the overwhelming liberalism here & the electoral college.

When I looked about my polling place, which was sheer bedlam — crowds of blacks, Hispanics, hipsters, truly the 7th circle of hell — my heart sank. People like us are in the minority now. Romney wasn’t “cool”; Obama appealed to all the neurotic females (I’m a woman, so don’t call me sexist) and the “99%”.

The election was truly a triumph of the emotional over the logical, an indicator of the change in tenor of American life. It did not leave me disappointed, but concerned over an ominous future.

Ultimately a blog ...

I was enthusiastic about Romney. I was giddy about Rombey. So were my co-workers in a 75+ company where most are Republicans.

Where is this jerk from?

The electorate is not conservative. Not like people here are at the very least.

Establishment republicans truly only care about winning and they will always only care about winning because otherwise they won’t survive. Whatever survives ends up the establishment.

People here need to stop blaming other people and start taking responsibility for not convincing enough people of conservatisms correctness.

This is laziness. We are just whining and hoping others will do the work of convincing the population. That is basically how we will always lose.

If this is the opinion year after year no matter how small the percentage of people in this country who actually work (which has been shrinking for decades) every year conservatives pretend that all would have been great if we nominated a conservative.

Grow up. Take responsibility and start dedicating your life to convincing people until we can get a critical mass. Otherwise tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to feel good while conservatism fails for want of demand.

Paragraph 3 and 4 prove what I’ve been thinking all along. This election was stolen.

People kept telling me “they can’t stuff enough ballot boxes to overcome the people that are going to vote against him”.... yea but you sure could if you also get rid of enough of the other guys votes to make it possible.

Does anyone truly believe less people voted for Romney than McCain in 08?!?!? No way, no how, even with crappy turnout due to evangelicals and vote my concious conservatives. I knew too many people, middle of the road average joes, completely pissed and looking forward to voting out of office the man they voted for in 08.

A good percentage of the vote Obama DID NOT have in ‘12 that he had in ‘08 are the guys that were chomping at the bit to vote against him.

Any warm body could have won against Obama, if the election had not been f’d with.

Yes - we are outnumbered. What to do about it?

I've been thinking about this all day today, and wonder about the conservative social agenda. Don't get me wrong, I believe fully that there is a moral fabric to our society, and that it is based on Judeo-Christian principles, but I've been arguing with God about it all day - if those values are so important to Him, why did they go down in electoral flames?

I haven't come to any conclusions, yet, but I wonder if we should just leave that part of our platform to God to defend - become more libertarian and figure that if it doesn't directly affect me, then who cares? If it matters so much to God, then let him defend it. Heck - bring back polygamy! Anything goes! Just leave me alone, and don't expect me to help you with the shattered ruins of your life.

The turnout proves that America does not want to be a moral society anymore - the majority has spoken. Catholics and Jews voted for Obama in droves, against the tenants of their "faith". We are now the moral minority. The bible says clearly that these things would happen in the end times - I'm tired of delaying the inevitable.

Maybe I'm a spiritual John Galt. I feel like Elijah in I Kings 19.

Like I said earlier, I haven't decided. I don't know that I can decide.

”I believe the end of the world came yesterday”
-Mortal

Interesting analysis. It’s a crying shame that a +6 GOP electorate didn’t come out in force. If we had a ringing conservative, that would not have been the case. Even so, by staying home they’ve handed over our country to America’s sworn enemy. How can they sleep at night?

That is false. Moderates are also liberals and liberals are basically socialists.

Stop telling yourself this lie.

Every poll considers general adults more liberal/moderate than registered voters and registered voters more liberal/moderate than likely voters.

Romney has to take some of the blame for the lack of turnout for him. He decided early on he could win without support of true conservatives and/or Evangelicals. No Republican has won in my lifetime without the support of both. Evangelicals and/or true conservatives also cannot win without RINOs and some “moderates” so it cuts both ways. That is why starting a third party would be foolish beyond words, but no more foolish than the G.O.P. trying to throw conservatives and Evangelicals under the bus.

I don’t care what the perceived flaws with Romney were, even if every single flaw he has been accused of was 100% valid it is still NO EXCUSE for letting Obama win. Anybody who did either of those is guilty of either an intellectual or a moral failure.

Does anyone truly believe less people voted for Romney than McCain in 08

Not trying to be argumentative, but actually I do believe that. As an example, until about two months ago anyone on this forum who expressed support for Romney was pounced on almost immediately. There were some heated discussions on the matter with many declaration of intent to not vote or to vote 3rd party. While that moderated as time went on, there were still many who could never accept him.

While this forum is not truly representative of the republican voters at large, it does give an indication of the strong negative feelings existent. Questions about religion, abortion, and health care seemed to be issues that went beyond normal political disagreement and became matters of principle. Many voters who felt this way simply did not vote.

That is false. Moderates are also liberals and liberals are basically socialists...well, you're sort of right I guess - it is true that many people who describe themselves as moderate hold to essentially liberal values - as though it's so obvious they're correct in their views that everyone else must agree, and thus they're moderate - but my commment was to the fact that too many conservatives stayed home yesterday - ten million fewer people voted for Obama this time than in 2008, and had the same number of people voted for Romney as voted for McCain, he would have won the election - spite that Romney wasn't close enough to someone's philosophic idea of where he should be, simple inertia, or whatever, the need to know that they had done something major to try to keep Obama from having another four years to ruin this country just didn't seem important enough to get enough voters to the polls......

I agree with you. And even though it didn’t seem like much at the time, every time Romney agreed with Obama on anything during the debates, I could see his numbers falling like a backwards odometer. Not a good plan. You can’t say you are a contrast or opposite of your opponent if you keep agreeing with him. Romney is a nice man. In fact, he was much too nice for this deadly race.

Are we clear about the data we are dealing with? Are not these national figures about a presidential election that was decided in swing states? To make sense of all this do not we have to look at the numbers in a hotly contested state like Wisconsin or Virginia and compare them with a state which is not in question such as California or Utah?

Was there a disparity in Republican turnout in a sure thing state as opposed to a contested state? Was the turnout in Wisconsin, for example, close to what it was in the recall elections but the Democrats simply outperformed on the ground there? In other words, was the Republican and a Democrat turnout alike depressed where it is rational not to bother to vote because the outcome was known in advance, but was turnout along Republican lines equal to or only mildly depressed from expectations in contested states where the Democrats won because they outperformed on the ground?

Just askin'…

I was watching the individual counties on election day using Politico and seeing an improvement for Romney over McCain across the board in in counties in Virginia, Florida and North Carolina and the final vote counts there show that as well. Romney did improve turnout slightly in Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Colorado if those are the final numbers.

I see that he lost 100,000 votes in Ohio though and that’s a bit fishy.

I don’t know where else the difference in his final vote tally is. Perhaps its the Hurricane or people are just better at knowing in what states their votes don’t matter much. Though in some states perhaps it was a little fruad involved such as Pennsylvania.

One other thing to consider, though I doubt that is a large reason is that a lot of our vote is in the elderly and we obviously would have lost some elderly voters to natural causes in the last 4 years.

If it really is turnout somehow than great. But I don’t think that is the whole story.

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.