Posted on 06/14/2016 12:11:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
Are the exit polls, on which just about every elections analyst has relied, wrong? That's a question raised by New York Times Upshot writer Nate Cohn -- a question whose answers have serious implications for how you look at the 2016 general election.
Standard analysis is that Democrats have a built-in advantage because the electorate is increasingly non-white. The exit polls say the white percentage of the electorate declined from 77 percent in 2004 to 74 percent in 2008 and 72 percent in 2012. In that year, they said, 13 percent of voters were black, 10 percent Hispanics, 3 percent Asian.
Since then, these groups have been voting heavily Democratic, by varying margins, and analysts have argued that it's very hard for a Republican to win, especially one who has antagonized non-whites, as Donald Trump has.
But exit polls may not be accurate, Cohn argues. As he points out, they are designed not to accurately represent the proportions of each demographic group, but to indicate the actual result, within a statistical margin of error, and to show the differing responses of significant subgroups.
Moreover, as Cohn doesn't mention, the results are massaged by the exit pollsters and media analysts, who are aware that some voters (the young, for example) are more likely than others to fill out exit poll questionnaires.
So Cohn looks at two other sources of information on how people voted, the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and the Democratic firm Catalist's voter file compiled from public voting records.
Both sources, like exit polls, have their weaknesses. Many non-voters tell the Census Bureau they voted. Voter records are often erroneous or out of date. Even so, the two sources paint a significantly different and possibly more accurate picture of the electorate than the exit poll.
The CPS and Catalist report that the 2012 electorate was 74 and 76 percent white -- higher than the exit poll's 72 percent. They say that only 15 percent of voters were under 30, not 19 percent as in the exit poll, and that 61 and 62 percent were 45 or older, not 54 percent as in the exit poll.
Most significantly, they peg the proportion of non-college-graduate whites over age 45 -- Donald Trump's core group -- as 30 and 29 percent of voters, significantly higher than the exit poll's 23 percent.
Assuming these data are correct, Cohn estimates that 34 percent of Barack Obama's voters in 2012 were non-college whites, not the 25 percent that the exit poll indicates. Obama's share of that demographic fell in 2008, but mainly in the South, and held up in most of the North, including target states Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado.
In other words, Democrats are more dependent on non-college whites than most analysts assume. For years they've lost ground among this group, but they could lose more, in which case Obama's 51 percent 2012 majority may not be duplicated.
Current polling shows Trump running better than Romney among non-college whites. But he's also running worse among white college graduates, and so makes no gains among all whites.
But note that one thing pollsters have difficulty gauging is turnout. Contrary to widespread impression, turnout -- and particularly Democratic turnout -- has been declining in the Obama years. Obama received 3.5 million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008. Cohn presents data showing turnout down, especially among young white Democrats.
That resembles something visible in this year's primary results. Overall, Republican and Democratic turnout was just about the same. But up through April 5, when the outcomes were in doubt, Republican turnout was 5 million higher than Democratic. In target states the Republican edge was 1.6 million.
Republicans also had a 5-million turnout edge in states with open primaries, in which voters could choose which party to vote in. The 4 million Democratic turnout edge in post-April 5 primaries, almost all closed, was baked in by pre-existing Democratic registration advantages.
This is a vivid contrast with 2008, when Republican turnout exceeded Democratic in only five states, two with primaries de-sanctioned by national Democrats (Florida, Michigan), two in heavily Mormon Utah and Idaho, plus Alabama, Arizona and Nebraska.
Primary turnout proved a harbinger of the heavy turnout favorable to Democrats in November 2008. It's not clear whether it will this November, or whether the exit polls are wrong. But both are signs that Trump's chances might -- might -- be better than current polling suggests.
The real choice is would they rather live in Aspen or Mogadishu.
Very few sane ones choose Mogadishu.
it's very hard for a Republican to win, especially one who has antagonized non-whites, as Donald Trump has.Putting that line in is likely the only reason he wrote the rest of that worthless tripe...And maybe the only reason you bothered to post it.
Very promising article. Nice post.
It seems like Nate is having a tough time with so many data points and no real way to tell which ones matter. Wild swings from polling vs results for both sides must be giving him fits. Polling when area codes don’t match location and dwindling landlines are reality has to be a challenge too.
The wording of the questions on the exit poll I participated in at primary voting was difficult to respond to. The questions were worded so oddly they could pretty much interpret any way they wanted. I was unable to answer some because the choices were totally out of the realm of what my response to that question would be. I did it just to see the questions, definitely tilted toward the left.
Prager is voting for Trump. He has made it clear that while Trump was far from his first choice, he is infinitely preferable to the Leftist Clinton. I can’t comment on the others, but I have heard Prager say this several times.
BTW, Prager’s career is far from over. His ratings remain at levels where they were before the campaign.
Prager’s appeal is much more cultural than political, and he will remain very popular.
Polling only helps those in power stay in power.
If you are polled about anything, LIE.
The death of the Republicans due to demographic shifts has been grossly exaggerated... Whites still represent 75% of those who show up and vote. The problem for the last 28 years is they haven’t put up a candidate that has broad appeal... Neocons have been running the party and putting up folks who just don’t appeal in areas they need to to win.
Trump opens the floodgates... This November it’s not a question of whether Trump will win, but how large the victory will be.
Another Trump sneerer trying hard to process the inevitable.
Like so much in this election cycle, if you listen to closely to what the mainstream media and polls are saying, you get it all wrong.
You must rely on your own antenna and common sense. And that's exactly what Trump has been doing. He would not go down this arduous road if he was confident he could win -- and a very strong probability of winning.
I think like the other 15 or GOP competitors he faced, he could sense that Hillary was very weak, people are tired of the government failures, and we are ready for a big change.
don’t get me wrong, there are demographic shifts going on in this country... and if the Republican’s don’t wise up they will be eventually overrun by them...
But the belief that you can’t say anything that some activist group for a minority group is offended by and win an election is idiotic and the cowardice the GOP and its candidates have exhibited over the past several decades in the face of these shifts, trying to remain “politically correct” is the biggest problem... and as Trump is showing you can get support even among minorities by speaking the truth vs remaining politically correct.. you may not win all or even the majority of them, but you will win enough of them to remain a very viable party.
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.