The largest divergence among conservative and liberal polling critics this election is the debate over who will actually show up at the voting booth this November. Differences between the amounts of Democrats versus Republicans included in the poll are frequent. But embedded in each of these assumptions are questions on the racial make-up and how that varies from election to election. Democrats consistently talk about the “coalition of the ascendant” where the fastest growing segments of the population are minorities. As such they make up an ever-increasing segment of the voting population but also vote overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats. With a shrinking white population and a growing minority population Democrats argue demography as destiny and count on political majorities for the coming generation. That may be true if everything in life moves in a straight line (it doesn’t) but is that true today?
This is the bone of contention between the competing Presidential campaigns and critics of today’s polls. Democrats want to argue the steep increase in minority percentage of the voting electorate from 2008 election was a fundamental shift in the electorate whereas Republicans want to argue the steep increases were a one-off bounce. Both agree on the general direction of the trend. Neither agree how severe that trend will be in 2012. This disagreement is the basis for Democrat over-confidence and lopsided polling today in an election where the two candidates are most likely within 1-2% of one another.
What’s missing in all this analysis is who did not show up in the 2008 election: White voters. Looking back at those results, every voter turnout rate by race (relative to eligible population) was up versus 2004 except the white vote according to Pew Research (April 30, 2009). Blacks were up +4.9%, Hispanics were up +2.7%, Asians were up +2.4%. But the percentage of White voters who showed up at the polls relative to who was eligible dropped -1.1% (Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, May 2010). This has nothing to do with minorities making up more or less of the electorate. This is simply saying from 2004 to 2008 White voter registration (which actually dropped 104k) and actual turnout of White voters (which increased 500k) did not keep up with voting age White population increases.
Within this drop of White voter turnout, over 3x as many men as women comprised those voters staying home in the election. This happened for any number of reasons ranging from a disinterested national party to a disorganized Presidential campaign to a demoralized voting block–all are true. But the bottom line is one of the advantages Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008 was that a meaningful percentage of white voters simply stayed home in 2008. Side note: for anyone who wants to pin the depressed turnout on racism, wouldn’t the opposite have occurred in 2008 if racism really were a motivating factor in the white turnout?
Where this trips up the Obama campaign.
In 2008 Democrats achieved incredible levels of voter registration and turnout of this “coalition of the ascendent” such that Blacks, Hispanics and Asians made up 24% of the voting electorate — all historic highs. Bolstering the appearance of Democrat advantage are countless media stories reporting on Mitt Romney’s struggle appealing to minority groups. Little attention is paid to Barack Obama’s (and Democrat candidates before him) difficulty appealing to White voters who made up 74% of the electorate. Such historic minority levels for the composition of the electorate are predicated on a demoralized and ineligible (meaning unregistered) white population much like in 2008, as demonstrated above.
If John McCain achieved a white voter turnout rate equal to George Bush in 2004, that would have meant 1.7 million more White votes. While all of these votes would not have gone to McCain (nor were they all in battleground states), a super-majority of these voters likely would have voted Republican considering the make-up of the missing voter (white male — Obama’s worst demographic) and the motivated nature of the Obama voter in 2008 (i.e. if they were Obama supporters, only a scant few percent would have stayed home). Those missing votes would have been more than enough to flip the results in any of North Carolina (14k), Indiana (28.5k,), Nevada (121k), Iowa (146k), Colorado (195k), Virginia (234k), Florida (237k) or Ohio (260k) where Obama’s victory margin (in parentheses) is based on a 43% vote share of a decreased turnout.
Today Barack Obama receives approximately 40% of the White vote in polls but often dips below this level especially when polls fail to massively over-sample Democrats. The President is also facing an increasingly enthusiastic bloc of White voters motivated to vote against him (this shows up in every survey) based on his poor record in office. Additionally, Republicans have aggressively targeted the above mentioned states with voter registration efforts reversing or seriously muting the registration advantage Obama enjoyed in 2008. Net gains for Republicans voter registrations in Nevada (53k), Iowa (140k), Colorado (91k) and Florida (240k) all speak to a very different and Republican electorate in those states. On top of registration, voter contacts from the Romney campaign surpassed 26 million eligible voters across the battleground states to date. This is as much as 10-15x as much as the McCain 2008 campaign. This does not dismiss the aggressive and active Obama re-election effort but it simply points out that compared to 2008 he is no longer battling an unarmed opponent.
All of this is to say when David Axelrod or similar Obama campaign talking heads argue aggressively for polls with a racial composition at meaningfully greater minority levels than the 2008 historic turnout, there is another side of that coin and it works heavily against the turnout models of both the Obama campaign and of the vast majority of polls being published today.
Addendum: Please see this clarification regarding the White vote potential impact on 2008 and 2012. John McCain would not have won in 2008 if the White vote had shown up in 2008 as they did in 2004. But a motivated White vote makes erasing Obama’s leads in the above mentioned states far easier than people are being led to believe.
173 Comments
wow, that was an amazing writeup!
If 1.2 million white voters in OH, FL, VA, WI, IA, NC and NH cumulatively change their votes out of the 29 million white votes cast in these 7 states in 2008 (a little over 4%), Romney wins big in the electoral college…I did this analysis back in May based on the results from the USA Today 2008 Presidential voting records (excellent reports, I recommend you Google them). This analysis assumes all other turnout levels the same as in 2008 with 18-29, black and Hispanic voters and assuming NO INCREASE in white turnout. If white turnout increases, then even less white voters participating in 2008 have to change their vote to elect Romney.
Many in the press seem to want to praise how smart David Axelrod is, if you look at the overwhelming percentage of white voters in these 7 states (VA is the lowest with 74%) how can anyone think it was smart to dismiss white voters as the Messiah and his minions did, on the contrary, incredibly stupid.
It’s quite obvious the Chicago gang has figured this out so their friends in the drive-by media are making great attempts with very flawed pollling to make the race appear in Obama’s favor, when in fact, many other polls on the direction of the country, support for Romney with middle class voters (+14%), unemployment, underemployment and now international events belie any advantage the press might try and portray.
To those black, Hispnaic and 18-29 voters…most all of you aspire to a better life. Think of it this way, especially if you are working or attempting to find work.
How big will your paycheck be in 4 years if Romney is elected, or on the contrary, how much will your paycheck in 4 years diminish if we continue to go down the current path? 20%, 30%, or more?
How much higher will energy prices be, or will they be less if Romney is elected and energy prices actually fall?
Many of you didn’t have the chance to experience the optimism of Ronald Reagan…the source of his optimism was the overwhelming success we in this country had in the 1980′s…we came from a time of incredible stress and tough moments to the most fun decade of many of our lives. Romney has not yet shown he is Reaganesque but he is successful, honest and trustworthy, he looks for the best, not the worst in people.
Contrast this with what we have now, if we get Romney hope will reeemege and we can all have happier, safer lives. There will still be huge problems to address, but it will be done in a spirit of what is best for us, not meglameniacal, faceless government.
Funny you wrote this last night I wanted to see what the racial breakdown was of the most important battleground states. If you think along racial lines, you would think virginia and nevada would be the toughest states and the others would be fairly easy for Romney. Of course its not that easy, especially in Ohio.
State White Black hispanic asian
Florida 75 16 22.5 2.4
Ohio 82.7 12.2 3.1
Wisconsin86.2 6.3 5.9
Virginia 68.6 19.4 7.9 5%
Nevada 66.2 8.1 26.5
Iowa 91.3 2.9 5
That is a good way of looking at it, something I was thinking of too, so thanks for putting up those numbers. What it really shows is the difficulty that Obama has, given how poorly he does with white males. This is the main reason why I think Iowa is going to go Romney– simply too many white voters for Obama. And, it’s why Wisconsin is going to be close too.
Not telling you my heritage, but I’ll be voting this time and I didn’t last time.
Double check your math. 1.7 million more white votes in the entire country would be less than 100 thousand voters in each of the states you mention. Even if ALL of these mystery voters went for the Republican, it would only flip NC and Indiana. Your premise is silly.
re-read the piece. I explicitly say regarding the 1.7 million votes “nor were they all in battleground states.” But the vote difference in each of the states is only 1.2 million and McCain would not have to win all of them to flip the election.
And you’re missing the entire point of the piece which is a simple return to normal White voter turnout dramatically changes the calculus in polls. That’s all.
Stop it. In order for McCain to flip Ohio he needs to make up his 260k vote deficit. Let’s say McCain picks up 70% of “missing” white voters. That means McCain would have needed 650k voters from this depressed group to flip Ohio, and then he needs 592.5k to flip Florida, and then 585k to flip Virginia. Now Obama wins with 305 EVs, and I gave McCain a bonus 100k depressed-white-voters. And in reality these voters weren’t concentrated in those three states. Only NC and Indiana would have had a reasonable chance of being flipped, like Chris said, and no way there are enough votes to go around to flip the election.
As for “the entire point of the piece”, you didn’t actually provide any evidence that “a simple return to normal White voter turnout dramatically changes the calculus in polls.” So, that’s probably why no one got your point. I’m sure it would change, but you’ve offered absolutely nothing to show how. I don’t think the math would work out quite like the picture you have in your head.
Keith’s point is not that the “missing” white voters ALONE would flip more than a couple of these states. Rather, it is that if they show up this time, and largely vote for Romney, they help Romney make significant headway toward a victory — when ADDED to the very large numbers of voters of all ethnic varieties who bought into mantra of “hope and change” in 2008 but are disenchanted with Obama’s performance in office and plan to vote against him this time. I know of many people in the latter category. I know of no one who voted for McCain in 2008, or who stayed home due to dissatisfaction with both candidates, who intends to vote for Obama this November. 2008 was a year of high turnout, but it was not 100% by any means. The author is correct in pointing out that most analyses of this election have focused on the chances that Obama voters from 2008 will flip to Romney or stay home, when a more comprehensive assessment would also take into account the unknown numbers of those who sat out 2008, but will show up this time.
Well said Alex. There were a great many points I was making in that piece and not every one could be expounded on sufficiently to avoid confusion. You did a great job helping to explain one of the main points I was driving at.
that’s assuming a voting turnout for obama equal to 2008…not likely.
so reduced voter turnout for obama in 2012 versus 2008 and increased voter turnout for romney in 2012 versus mccain in 2008. highly significant factors. and as pointed ou,t the failure of the liberal polls to account for this may backfire and cause an even more reduced turn out for obama since many will think obama is a shoe in and they don’t need to go out and vote for him.
Ohio GOP stayed home for John McCain…over 300,000. We are coming in this time and the Democrats have a lukewarm response to 4 years of broken promises and a downward spiral…
You might want to start investigating/reporting on what is happening on the ground in Ohio, via Absentee requests. Not the same as Early votes, but this might be the first indication that the 2012 Ohio Electorate will not match the 2008 electorate in which Obama was able to gain victory by 4%.
Ohio – Total Early Absentee Ballot Requests 2008
2008 = 740,725
DEM – 288,270 = 39%
REP – 144,300 = 19%
Diff = 19.44%
———————————————————
Ohio – Current Early Absentee Ballot Requests 2012
2012 = 491,970
DEM – 148,506 = 30%
REP – 122,841 = 25%
Diff = 5.22%
—————————————————–
Cuyahoga Total Early Absentee Ballot Requests 2008
DEM – 119,891 = 52%
REP – 35,067 = 15%
Cuyahoga Current Early Absentee Ballot Requests 20128
DEM – 76,006 = 54%
REP – 34,142 = 24%
Thanks, I have the spreadsheet to those numbers but have had to work on another project. I’ll try to take a look. Great work by you!
I do hope you get to it, because I am very curious about this and what it means, and I’ve been watching it for a while.
The previous work was done by Jose and others at race42012.com community of political junkies.
…and now for this….this is real important.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/26/early-voting-on-pace-to-surpass-2008-levels-in-ohio/?wprss=rss_campaigns
“In Hamilton, absentee ballot requests are running ahead of the 2008 pace by 3 to 1, according to Board of Elections director Amy Searcy. As of this morning, her office had received 58,727 requests. Of those, 9,453 were from voters who requested Democratic ballots in primaries this year, and 17,824 from voters seeking Republican ballots. The rest were nonpartisan.”
2008 Hamilton County Early Absentee Requests Final Results
REP = 23,677
DEM = 16,963
2012 Hamilton County Early Absentee Requests as of September 26th, 2012
REP = 17,820
DEM = 9,420
The weak explanation on why REP Absentee Requests by percentage is outpacing DEMS – 2008 vs. 2012?
“Searcy cautioned against reading too much into any of these early figures because they will almost certainly shift. She said the low Democratic numbers reflect the minimal interest in spring primaries.
“There are a lot more people who identify as Democrats,” she said. “It’s all a snapshot.”
Real explanation?
1. Team Romney’s Ground Game
2. Polls are wrong.
Thanks. That’s a hint, anyway.
What hint? Obama was running unopposed therefore less people voted in the primaries. While Romney was engaged in a bruising primary. Also, since I believe 1992 the white vote in presidential elections have decreased. I believe in 1976 whites made up over 90% of the electorate. In 2008 it was around 74% of the electorate.
I have a son and new daughter-in-law that have NEVER voted in an election, but he’s voting this year after being out of work for nine months and she’s STILL looking for a job. An amazing 92% of those who lost their jobs were single, white females!! Think ANY of these folks are going to be voting for Obama?
Single, white females voting for Obama? I would say yes, Obama has a clear advantage there.
Yes. I’m a liberal Democrat who registered Republican in Oregon to vote for Ron Paul in the May primary, but I most definitely will be voting for my fellow Irishman, O’Bama, in November.
fYI it’s FEWER people NOT less people The white vote HAS decreased not have —
Single, white females with no jobs who were Obama zombies in ’08 — kiss them goodbye Bammie!
mattie if you are talking to me please point that out. Monitoring comments is impossible to keep up with and blog at the same time
2. Polls are wrong.
Well, if they are wrong, they are wrong in one of two ways:
a. They are skewed towards Obama which means this race is closer than the polls suggest, or
b. They are skewed towards Romney which means Obama is leading by a larger gap than the polls suggest
Unless you can give evidence that it is the former, then it is still advantage Obama.
They are “skewed” toward Obama somewhere between D+6 to D+13 DUE TO the ’08 election which was a “perfect storm” election for Obama and the Democrats. If Rasmussen is right – and he’s polling 45,000, “likely voters” over a three month cycle – TODAY’S electorate is R+4 which means the polls are OFF by a staggering 10%!!
Go to unskewedpolls.com and you’ll see the difference.
Rasmussen has it tied.
By the way, I went to that site. Seemed very partisan, which means it is not objective. I will stick to RealClearPolitics, thank you. They are usually quite balances, as far as the opinion articles they have links to.
balanced*
Real Clear Politics averages from the skewed polls. I don’t think anybody can really trust it either.
RealClearPolitics averages from polls that are skewed both ways.
However, let’s not leave it to the polls, then. Let’s go by what those with money enough to bet with are saying.
Intrade odds: Obama 75%, Romney 25%. If I had money to bet, my money would be on Obama as well, even with 3-1 odds.
By the way, before I get lamblasted as one of those “47%” who live off government handouts and see myself as a victim, let me make it clear that I have a full-time job and pay my taxes (at a higher rate than Romney’s, although I don’t begrudge him paying the correct rate on his capital gains). I just don’t have much extra money after expenses, is all. Not enough to gamble with, anyways.
You would bet unless you vote in the United States where it is illegal to bet on elections, which is why intrade is a reflection of what you see in the media, since it is 100% foreigners, and not a reflection of what is actually going on with the electorate.
You are not part of the 47% of which Romney refered, because he specifically said, “Those who pay no taxes.”
The absentee vote requests for Ohio are real data (as opposed to manipulated polls) and do show a major trending for Republican’s over Democrats (assuming R vote R and D vote D). It’s also strongly implying that D’s, who are pushed to early vote, are not, and R’s, who don’t usually vote early are excited to vote. Numbers so far in districts which went heavily for Obama in 2004 are way down for D’s and in districts that went for McCain are showing much higher R’s (comparable to Bush 2004). This goes completely against the assumptions of the MSM polls out there. If these trends in absentees continue, and they are also showing in NC BTW, it may make it impossible for Obama to hold either state!
This year Ohio sent out absentee ballot request forms to everyone. Couple of reasons for this which I wont go into, but the net effect of course is more requests.
That said, there is one other thing occurring as a result of everyone being sent one: if the ballot request form is returned undeliverable, I believe the voter is struck from the rolls (which is why these all went out before the cut off date for voter registration).
Why is this important? Because if you based your hope-and-change campaign in 2008 on youg voters, especially those in college, it is highly unlikely they are still where they were then 4 years later. (In fact, many will have gone home to their original states). So, you have to run a big hope-and-change campaign AGAIN every 4 years targetting young voters to keep your advantage. OFA hasn’t done that, and that is why in many states that are reporting voter registration numbers, the hugh Dem advantages from 2008 are being wiped out.
Romney will win this election, plain and simple.
Even if you consider Ohio a toss-up state (that is, a state that has less than a 5% advantage either way), then Romney is still in big trouble.
With Ohio, there are 8 toss-up states that account for 100 delegates. Romney must win 79 of these delegates to win. Obama needs 23.
That is the bad news. The worse news is that every single one of those 8 states are polling in favor of Obama (source: RealClearPolitics). If Obama wins Florida, it is all over. Romney not only needs Florida but almost all of the remaining 7 states. If he loses Ohio and Wisconsin, it is over. If he loses Ohio and Virginia, it is all over. If he wins all three but loses the other 4, it is all over.
The bottom line: Romney fans better hope the polls are wrong, and wrong in a very big way. Otherwise, Obama will win by between 40 and 140 electoral votes. Is that ‘plain and simple’ enough for you?
Only if you believe the polls and that they are “tossup states.” Sorry, I’m not buying North Carolina as a “tossup” state or Wisconsin for that matter.
I don’t think that Wisconsin is a toss-up state either. That was not one of the 8 I meant. It is polling heavily in favor of Obama, and even Rasmussen has Obama up by 3 points.
However, I don’t think that’s what you meant…
Here’s something major about Florida this year:
Link to a Sept 16 article in the lefty Chicago Tribune called: “Groups race against time to get Florida voters registered”:
http://tinyurl.com/bl6b9jo
Money quote: “The Florida Times Union has said 11,365 people registered as Democratic voters in the 13 months that ended at the end of August, compared with an average of 209,425 for the same periods before the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.Meanwhile, 128,039 Republicans have registered in the state over the past 13 months, up from an average of 103,555 in the same period in 2004 and 2008, the newspaper said.”
For whatever reasons, NEW voter registrations in Florida are HUGELY down for Dems.
There’s a facebook chart link in the comments which shows these numbers:
2004/2008/2012
Reps 111586/95525/128039
Dems 158957/259894/11365 (yes, that’s an insignificant 11,365)
Dem groups are scrambling to catch up (according to the article) but there’s no way they can. Maybe this is due to voter ID laws or maybe just due to Dem voter apathy. Look at the increased Republican voter enthusiasm difference n registration numbers as well.
New registrations to vote show intent to vote, and it seems to me by the numbers above, R’s are way more enthusiastic to vote this year, which would make it closer to 2010 than 2008.The propaganda polls are assuming a D turnout greater than 2008, which is utter garbage!
First, if the polls are purposefully skewed in favor of Democrats (which is what I gather you mean by ‘propaganda’), then they are hurting Democrats more than they are hurting Republicans. People who think an election is going to be a blowout are less likely to vote. People who think it will be a very close election, especially those in ‘battleground’ states, are more likely to vote.
Why would these ‘propaganda’ polls purposefully hurt the chances of Democrats?
My guess: a poll is only ‘propaganda’ if it doesn’t say what you want to hear.
If “everyone knows” Obama is going to win, then several things will happen. First some Republicans could be more likely to stay home, because “he’s going to win” what will my one vote matter. It will up the enthusiasm of those who are voting for Obama, because “he’s going to win”. And it can cause those who haven’t made up their mind to decide to vote for Obama, because most people want to be on the winning side and “he’s going to win”. It wont happen to every voter, and probably not most, but it only has to happen to enough voters in the right places to effect the results especially in a close election like this one.
At this point I’ve stopped looking at the polls other then as a guide of media desperation. I’ve started looking at absentee ballot requests and the breakdown of returned ballots and while it’s still VERY early the numbers are, in general, looking promising for republicans and seem to support the assertions of the author.
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html
The Florida polls showing Obama leading are a joke. The Military vote here will be 80-20 if not worse and the military votes.
College kids are not excited for Obama and as we keep discovering people who voted in NY for President and Florida in 08 (and felony charges are brought up or threatened) less illegal votes will be cast.
We have a GOP governor who did exactly what he said he would and is doing a good job, we have been hit by the housing downturn and Obama has done nothing and we live in a state with a far better organization.
Romney for the win here, don’t worry about Florida. Ohio you guys need to bring it.
One problem with your thesis is that Obama doesn’t have a problem with white working class voters. He has a problem with southern white working class voters. He actually has a slim lead among working class whites in the Midwest. So more whites coming out to vote won’t help Romney in Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, but only in states he is going to win anyway.
I would disagree with that, in this election you are going to see massive new white voters who’ve always been registered but never bothered to vote come out big time to vote for Romney. This has nothing to do with race but rather they are tired of seeing what is going on and are not going to sit back this time and let others make the decisions.
I respect your disagreement John. That is why we have debates and hold elections. To persuade each other and go to the polls to find out what the country really wants. Thanks for visiting.
I don’t think John was disagreeing with keithbacker, but rather with Aagcobbs 3:17 PM directly above John’s 4:48 PM .
Why would white working class voters in Ohio come out to vote for the first time for the guy who said, “Let Detroit go bankrupt” when that would’ve left them unemployed and their communities devastated? The auto bail-out is popular in Ohio, where unemployment is below the national average. You are truly grasping at straws when you imagine vast numbers of blue collar whites are going to come out to vote for the CEO who fires them to outsource their jobs.
Source?
http://prospect.org/article/puncturing-myths-about-white-working-class
I recall back in 2004 going through al these elaborate contortions over polls and demographics to “prove” that Kerry would win. Every election it’s the same story, the losing party comes up with all kinds of excuses as to why the polls are wrong, and then come Election Day the polls turn out to be right.
Guys, accept reality. Check the averages of polls and don’t focus on any one poll. Obama is winning.
You mean the average of all the polls that dramatically overweight Democrats? Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe that democratic turnout versus republican is going to exceed or even surpass that of 2008? That would mean democrats are even more engaged and enthusiastic than they were four years ago. What is there in the voter registration data that is coming out of the swing states right now that gives you that confidence?
Your head is in the sand…
“The Florida Times Union has said 11,365 people registered as Democratic voters in the 13 months that ended at the end of August, compared with an average of 209,425 for the same periods before the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.Meanwhile, 128,039 Republicans have registered in the state over the past 13 months, up from an average of 103,555 in the same period in 2004 and 2008, the newspaper said.”
Keith,
Don’t be delusional. This “the polls I don’t like are wrong” approach happens every election cycle.And every time the polls turn out to be right, particularly the average of all polls.
By the way Gallup, which you all claimed was great when it favored Romney, has Obama up by 6 today.
Thanks for visiting. You may want to check these two posts and rethink your ideas:
1980 election:
http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/25/playing-the-polling-game-must-read/
2000 election:
http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/20/why-you-should-ignore-every-one-of-those-biased-polls/
It isn’t a “polls I don’t like are wrong” approach….It’s a “polls are wrong because of their absurd bias” approach.
And you didn’t answer my questions.
Keith W,
This whole idea that the polls oversample democrats is ridiculous.Pollsters don’t adjust for party ID (with the exception of Rasmussen, who has pro GOP bias).
I’m sorry, you guys are grasping at straws. I get it, I was there in 2004. But in the end the best thing to do is look at the polling averages.
By the way, Obama up by 6 in Gallup’s poll today.
But you forget that the DOJ has shown that they do not prosecute Democratic voter fraud … surely this will more than make up for the lack of legal votes.
but polls in 2004 weren’t showing MASSIVE increases in historic voter turnout either. 2004 was a run of the mill year for polls. 2008 was a once in a generation historical turnout for democrats. the highest turnout and D over R rate since probably the 60′s. Obama rode a tsunami. These polls are showing, the evidence is clear they are showing projected democrat electorates at or above 2008. It just won’t happen. EVERYTHING in history show Obama should lose….but everything in history also says you don’t have two back to back historical turnout years.
No shane, that’s not correct. Party ID (which is not the same as party registration) varies a lot, not just by election but also by pollster. Even Rasmussen recognizes that you can’t compare party ID results between pollsters because they all measure it differently.
What appears to be happening is that a chunk of GOPers are calling themselves independents. That’s why you have less Republicans than you’d expect and Obama not doing as well with independents.
Actually, what’s happening is that pollsters are using 2008 turnout models when the electorate has vastly changed in mood since then. See 2010. Shane and Keith are correct. Obama will not get the same demographic turnout, nor the same levels, and he has to have that to win. It’s just basic math. Pollsters are doing what they do every presidential election year, using the last presidential election model to gauge. But every now and again it doesn’t work out so well for them. As Keith pointed out, see 1980.
uhhh in 2004 something like 88+% of registered voters showed to vote,in 2008 it was like 89.6% .So are you saying that 2008 was “massive turnout” as compared to 2004? In 2000 it was like 85% of RV’s showing up to vote ,in 1996 like 82-83%.
Brian, I won’t have time to do this for you every time so if you are going to spout nonsense to prove incorrect points leave now and save me the trouble of blocking you.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-06/politics/voter.turnout_1_voter-turnout-curtis-gans-absentee-ballots?_s=PM:POLITICS
[From 2008] between 126.5 million and 128.5 million Americans cast ballots this year, according to a report by the electorate study center. Successful Democratic get-out-the-vote initiatives contributed to that number, which shattered 2004′s mark of 122.2 million.
The report surveyed 47 states and the nation’s capital. Twenty-two of those states and the District of Columbia reported an increase in voter turnout this year, the center said. GOP turnout increased in only eight of the surveyed states, according to the report.
The percentage of registered voters casting ballots this year is projected at 60.7 to 61.7 percent, according to the center — a figure much lower than the modern-day record set in 1960 — 67 percent.
If you really want to block me fine but the stats I put forth come straight from the Census Bureau unless you think your source trumps that government agency.
Peter, ALL the pollsters HAVE to use ’08 in their sampling models even though almost all admit it was an “outlier.” A “perfect storm” for Obama and the Democrats. That’s why the polls are ALL D+6 to D+13
THIS election is just the opposite. A “perfect storm” for Republicans. Minority turnout will be down and the absentee ballot requests and voter registration numbers are reflecting this.
The American people are not stupid. They KNOW they don’t like Obama or his policies – particularly the ObamaCare Tax – but they don’t know Romney. All he has to do in the debates is be who he is. Obama has to defend “most Americans EVER in poverty and on food stamps” as well as explaining how raising taxes produces more jobs.
Personally, I’m grateful for the skewed polls. Long as they show Obama winning, the economy is going to stay in the dumpster and Romney is going to get more contributions and an even stronger GOP turnout.
Tpaine, wherever did you get that pollsters have to use 08 models? Sigh, doesn’t anyone here know anything? POLLSTERS DON’T ADJUST BY PARTY ID!!. Repeat after me, POLLSTERS DON’T ADJUST BY PARTY ID!. Ok, Rasmussen is the one exception.
The sheer amount of misinformation in conservative websites is incredible.
That Gallup poll your citing went from Romney up to Obama up 7 to tied to Obama up 6 in a matter of weeks. Utterly impossible. Justice threatened to sue them as well. Gallup also had carter winning. Does anyone believe Gallup. Your saying look at average of pols as well. They have Obama +1 in NC. I have family there and have spent substantial time there. There is 0 chance of him winning there. He probably loses by 5 or more.
In 1980, Gallup had Carter over Reagan at the end. In 2000, Gallup had Gore +10 over Bush one day and then Bush +10 over Gore the next day, and stuck by their impossible 20-point swing in 24 hours. Gallup had Bush 49, Kerry 49 on election morning, 2004. Gallup had Obama +11 on election morning 2008. Gallup is useful, but hardly infallible and in fact often way off base, especially in snapshot polls.
Well, I am a pollster and you do HAVE to use previous elections. Models aren’t created out of thin air.
No, you are not a pollster.
Grasping – For – Straws
just one thing “Dewey Beats Truman”
I thought about that “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline myself, just before reading sea lannon’s comment. The mainstream media and many of the pollsters are so desperate to save Obama’s bacon, they’ll do ANYTHING to try to convince everyone ahead of time that, “It’s all over folks; nothing to see here; Obama’s going to win in a cakewalk.” I would not have rendered a judgment like that years ago, but I have lost every shred of respect I ever had for the mainstream media during the course of the past four years. I hope — I PRAY — that the American people will prove that they are not collectively stupid, and that the pollsters are wrong, on election day.
Your argument fails on one point. Convincing voters that “It’s all over folks; nothing to see here; Obama’s going to win in a cakewalk” would have the opposite effect that you argue. It would make Democrats less motivated to vote, since they think they already have it won, and Republicans more motivated to vote since they want Obama out so bad.
Your argument would only make sense if you were saying that the ‘lamestream media’ actually wants to hurt Obama’s chances in November. However, I gather that is not what you are arguing at all. Therefore, it fails.
Skar: re-read Wayne’s post. He said the exact same thing you did!
Skarphace, you have it wrong. Republicans get depressed when they hear Obama has it wrapped up. They start turning off the election and it reduces the pro-Romney turnout.
Conversely, it fires up Obama voters. Everyone wants to be part of the winning team.
Real clear demeans itself again by presenting some ill conceived freshman term paper as real political news.
Jow –
Instead of calling the writer names and denigrating his work, why don’t you offer substantive argument/rebuttal and show that you know as much or more than he does? Then we can agree or disagree on an intellectual basis. As I see it, he offered facts and analysis and reached a conclusion. He may be right; he may be wrong. But he offered a cogent and plausible scenario.
Now, may we see yours?
Well said Theodore!
downside of your push to the mainstream Keith…all the whackadoodle libs that will show up to bash you and tell you their savior is the greatest ever
Everyone is welcome in my “house”
so long as they bring reasoned arguments. I don’t mind the criticism, but nonsensical comments are a real bore.
Keith, Your arguments are non sensical. Pollsters don’t adjust for party ID, except for the ones like Rasmussen.
I recommend you read what political scientists are writing about this.
Appeal to authority? Really, Peter? I left the Democratic party four years ago when they underwent a voluntary lobotomy, but I hadn’t realized they threw logic out with the brain parts. You guys used to PREACH against fallacies. Now you deploy them.
Peter-
I keep seeing you knock Rassmussen bc of his GOP bias and the fact that he adjusts for party ID. Yet over the last two presidential elections, he’s been right on the money. It’s hard to see how a guy would openly question the accuracy of Rassmussen when there is so much data out there that refutes his point. So what gives?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports
In the 2004 presidential election, “Rasmussen…beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins,” according to Slate magazine.[37] Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.[38]
In 2004, Slate said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate
According to Politico, “Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome.”[39] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, “Rasmussen’s final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama’s final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there
Not to mention his accuracy in the 2010 mid terms.
Keith W,
In 2010 Rasmussen predicted the GOP would win the congressional vote by 12 points. The actual result? 6.8. That’s a R+5 bias.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html
IN 2008 they predicted Obama would win by 6. 52-46. Not too bad but quite a few others ha similar results, including Pew which had the exact same prediction. So nothing special about Rasmussen. And a few others,like CNN, were closer on the difference between Obama and McCain.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
In the end the best predictor for polls is the simple poll average.
Yea, what a shame.
For those interested in real analysis:
http://votamatic.org/the-polls-are-behaving-just-fine/
Peter, Peter, Peter. Do you remember 2010? Just 2 short years ago? When everyone said the GOP could never take control of the House, and the polls show Democrats losing just a handful of seats?
How did that work out for you?
Ah yes, the GOP picked up more seats in 2010 than the Dems did in TWO wave elections (2006, 2008) COMBINED.
Please make sure you have nothing sharp around you on November 7th; I would have for you to do something stupid while you are looking aghast at the sheer size of Romney’s win…
I suggest you don’t make stuff up. The polls exaggerated the GOP vote in 2010.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html
It’s incredible how many political myths you GOPers have created for yourselves. I keep reading this same “the polls didn’t predict 2010″ nonsense over and over, meanwhile a quick look at the polls shows that’s a complete lie!
Basically in 2010 only a couple came close the rest were way off making even the RCP average almost 3 points high. So yes polls can swing and miss but the only way to really know is on election day to know how far off or dead on they are. Right now no one with a brain can say evidence points to Romney ahead. i think the consenus even among some pollsters is the race is probably going to tighten and end up closer than it appears now. But polls can and have been wildly wrong, especially 6 weeks out. Generally history tells us they will get tighter and more accurate the closer to election day. If this was October 25…Romney would have less than zero chance. Six weeks out anything can happen.
Shane
“If this was October 25…Romney would have less than zero chance.”
Gallup on October 26, 1980. Carter 47 Reagan 39
Supposedly 17 million Evangelicals did not register or vote in 2008. This year, that might change big time. If so, those mostly while voters will be values voters and will easily vote for Mitt’s Judeo-Christian worldview over the secular European values of Bama. Many people voted for Obama out of white guilt. For them it was a social experiment that was long in coming. With his huge domestic and international failures, the desire for a social experiment was finally seen as producing a Socialist. Many will not make the same mistake.
So 17 million Evangelicals are willing to vote for a MORMON, rather than the good Christian McCain…?!???
HA..!!!! We’ll see about THAT…!!!
17 million more Evangelicals. That’s a scary thought. Maybe they can change all the textbooks to show that the earth is about 5,000 years old and that the Dinosaurs never existed. And that Global Warming is a hoax. Or that species don’t evolve. Or that 1.7 million more white votes in 2008 would have changed the election. Since Obama got 43% of the white vote in 2008, that means McCain would have gotten about 238,000 more votes based on statistics. Wow. I’ll be that would have changed the election!
Actually, polls show (if you can believe them) that the most anti-Mormon voters are the extreme liberals. I think Evangelicals, while not entirely comfortable with Romney, would vote for a yellow dog before they’d cast a ballot for Obama.
I’ve heard the same thing. All Henry has to do is substitute the word “Jew” for “Mormon” and vola’, you’ve got Josseph Goebels.
Just go to unskewedpolls.com and you’ll actually see where the race is TODAY.
Look, I’m happy the polls are all showing an Obama win. As long as they do, the economy is going to remain in the tank. Romney is going to raise more money and the GOP turnout on election day will set all sorts of records.
Obama is going to lose Herbert Hoover sized and for, pretty much, the same reasons.
The OWL’s tent cities were no different than the “Hoovervilles.” The difference is our American Democrat media and their love for “The Annointed One.”
Nothing like bad mathematics and bad science to whip up the GOP faithful. How this guy (with his amateurish website) can make it on RCP only shows the lack of intellectual depth on the right. Hey dude: in Ohio this year EVERYBODY got an absentee ballot request form! And Democratic turnout in the spring was small since there wasn’t any contest of note. So comparisons to 2008 are ridiculous. How on earth can you try to use statistics to “predict” a wave of voters for Romney in Ohio, when you are comparing apples to oranges. Didn’t you learn anything in your statistics class (if you took one) about eliminating variables? If you want real polling science, turn to Nate Silver. He is the guru of gurus.
Nate Silver has been doing this how long? Oh, just his second election and HE’S your guru?? Good.
Nate Silver was fed Obama’s internals in 2008. He is part of the Obama team..take his analysis with a grain of salt. I have to laugh with all the Obama trolls over here form Media matters and the DailyKos kooks..do not even bother with them.. just ignore it all.
Can you tell me how well Nate Silver did in 2010? Or, how about a review of his UK ’09 predictions. Get back to me.
This is a damning admission. Hugh Hewitt(HH) talking to Peter Brown (PB), assistant director of Quinnipiac polls about a D+9 Florida Obama leading poll: They don’t even believe their own polls! A D+9 turnout would surpass the 2008 actual turnout. What garbage most of the MSM polls are. Look instead to the real numbers coming in for absentee voting and voter registration.which are showing voter intensity increased for Republicans and decreased for Democrats.
HH: Do you expect Democrats, this is a different question, do you, Peter Brown, expect Democrats to have a nine point registration advantage when the polls close on November 6th in Florida?
PB: Well, first, you don’t mean registration.
HH: I mean, yeah, turnout.
PB: Do I think…I think it is probably unlikely.
omg I really thought all this was a joke. Honestly I did. This is truly sad. Too many of you simply can’t see the truth through your fear. So you never saw this President for who he was. And you never saw him for he has accomplished. I’m not a fan of the guy by any stretch. He never re-regulated the financial markets to prevent another economic crash (remember the unemployed and welfare recipients didn’t crah the economy – an unregulated wall street and bankers did). He kept Bush Tax cuts in place for 4 years, did not lift a finger to legislate tougher gun control laws, did not even try to pass universal single payer health care or even a public option. The guy has been a center right facilitator and not a leader. All that said, he’s not a foreign born, muslim, socialist, facist, white hating, American apologist. But if you see him that way, you can never understand why the polls would read the way they do. You will never understand how he could get re-elected and you need to have some alternate theory to cling to. Even by your own logic this is a left of center country. Minorities register at far lower rates, and vote at far lower rates and are overwhelmingly left of center D’s.
Finally – just 2 quick thoughts. (1) Voter registration does NOT expire every 4 years in virtually every state. Those who registered last time need not do so again. They are registered. The numbers have shifted. Hence why each pollster has a registered voter model and a likely voter model based on questions like, “did you vote in the last election? Will you vote this election? How excited are you to vote? Do you know your voting place…”
(2) Ozcam’s Razor.
To be clear, no one on this site whether on the blog or comments has said Obama was “foreign born, muslim, socialist, facist” as you complain. You are making arguments and ascribing aspersions levied by no one here. I’m certain you can find them elsewhere. Please take your vitriol there. Here we discuss facts and debate positions. I let your comment go through but any more “hair pulling” like that and you will not be allowed to post here.
Thanks for visiting.
Good comments. Yeah, it is really pathetic what these haters think. Their level of ignorance – and denial – is amazing. I love how they malign the “mainstream” media. They call it mainstream folks because it’s in the MAINSTREAM of accepted thought. (And what motivation do they have to be wrong in their polling, anyway? Being accurate garners credibility.) Websites like this are not in the mainstream, they fall into the “crackpot” category. Face it folks, smart people – like Nate Silver – carefully analyze data and come to scientifically supported conclusions.
Henry, I just want to point out I didn’t let one of your comments go through. It’s OK to disagree and criticize but name calling or “hair pulling” won’t be tolerated. Thanks for visiting.http://battlegroundwatch.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php#comments-form
Calm down
Henry go to Huffington post they would love to have you. I believe ole Nate now works with the Obama campaign.
“Mainstream” according to you. I refer to them as the American Democrat media because that’s how they self-identify.
Uh I have never seen a comment on here (prior yours) in which anyone really even bashed Obama. Most if not all the comments have been completely on polling.
As far as why many people cannot fathom Obama being re-elected is that other than FDR and since polling has begun has a president who is below 50% approval been re-elected. Never have a president been re-elected when unemployement is above 8% (other than FDR). Basically HISTORY tells us by EVERY indicator that Obama should lose. That is where most of this is coming from that and polls that seem to heavily favor the democrtic candidate. All in all if Obama gets re-elected it will be disheartening to half the country. And some of us will fear for the the future of our country.
His re-election will (among other personal feelings about the intellect of America) solidify his presidency as extremely monumental and historical in the sense of not only is he the first black president, he would be only the second Democrat since FDR to win a second term and the only president to be re-elected with economic indicators as low as they are and an approval rating as low as it is. History is always made to be broken…but conventional wisdom and history says he loses on merit. We will see in a few weeks.
I think you are ignoring two factors:
1. It is no coincidence that the last president to be reelected with unemployment over 8% was FDR. That was during the Great Depression, and Obama is now heading toward reelection in the midst of the Great Recession. Similar circumstances.
2. This election is no longer a referendum on Obama, and Mitt Romney is an ATROCIOUS candidate with no vision for the country.
In reply to Mike:
1. During the Great Recession, there was great confidence and trust in our government. At this time polling consistently shows that, by large margins, Americans do not trust the government to solve problems anymore
2. Not sure on what grounds you make such a bold (and falacious) statement like the election not being a referendum on Obama. Mitt Romney is an atrocious candidate with no vision for the country? Can anyone say ad hominem? He has laid out a plain and clear vision…just because the folks at Huff Po and in the MSM don’t like to put it out there for people like you to see. His vision would be similar to Reagan’s
@Gmed:
On what grounds do I call Romney an atrocious candidate? Hmmm, let’s see:
1. Complete inconsistency of his positions. He has been on both sides of almost every issue.
2. Inability to fire up his base. See the parade of GOP “frontrunners” in the primary
3. Unwillingness to lay out specifics. His argument is basically, “Trust me”
4. Remoteness from ordinary people; i.e., the people he want to vote for him
5. Unending litany of gaffes that distract his campaign from staying on message
6. Absence of foreign policy experience in a time of international turmoil
Do you need any more? Look, when you have conservatives like George Will (who WANT you to win) browbeating your campaign for being inept, it is probably inept.
@Gmed:
With regards to your assertion that my claim of Romeny being an atrocious candidate constitutes an ad hominem – it does not. That is a JUDGMENT based in part on the above points.
And in what world would Romney have the flexibility to emulate Reagan? Reagan cut taxes, but and also tripled the national debt. He inherited deficits on the order of 2.7% of GDP and increased them to an average of 4.2%. Romney is promising to address a budget deficit of around 8.5%, while also promising to cut taxes and increase defense spending. If he followed Reagan’s path, the deficit would INCREASE. Sorry, but no amount of accounting gimmicks can achieve those two goals together.
Well, actually and factually, the first of four Energy Crisis (and $4/gal) gas in ’07 caused the Financial Crisis and resultant Mortgage Crisis in ’08 which led to The Great Recession in ’09.
GUESS WHO TOOK OVER CONGRESS FOLLOWING THE ’06 ELECTIONS??
This economy is ALL DEMOCRAT.
I have heard about people who blame Bush for everything, and I don’t agree, but to give him credit for nothing? Come on, that can’t be fair.
Keith, I am missing something. You write there are 1.7 million white votes that in a statistically average year, would have been cast in 2008. Starting with that number, an average of those votes over 50 states leaves you with 34,000 white votes per state. Assuming John McCain would have won 70% of those votes staying home, which I think is decently fair, that’s 23,800 white votes for John McCain per swing state. That only accomplishes flipping one state on your list, North Carolina.
Even assuming that every single one of those 1.7 million white voters would 100% vote for John McCain and that the distribution of those non-voting whites was 3:1 in your 8 swing states defined above means that there are an additional 159,375 votes for McCain in each state, which still only flips North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada and Iowa, and we can both agree that is the extreme. (1.275m of the 1.7m votes being in 8 states, all for McCain). Those 4 states gives John McCain an extra 38 electoral college votes, bringing his total to 211 which is still not enough to win the office.
The only way that 1.7m white votes number becomes relevant to the statistical analysis of the 2008 election is if 1,235,508 of those voters lived in those 8 states in the exact distribution needed to statistically overcome the voting gaps exactly (1,235,500 voters +1 for each of the 8 states). That leaves 464,492 voters in the other 42 states. While we’re making our own models, let’s just say the GOP is going to need those 58,061 voters in each of those 8 states to provide the majorities needed to avoid lengthy recounts which we all know is where if there is going to be election fraud at all it is going to be. So now you have distributed all of those 1.7m white voters who have stayed home into the 8 states, and now your analysis of Barack Obama losing because the white vote comes out in 2008 makes sense mathematically. Finally the GOP scored 280 electors and Barack Obama scored 258 electors because those 1.7m people voted for John McCain.
But not really, because we’ve had to assume something that not even you wanted to assume in your article, that all of the 1.7m white people would be in those 8 states, let alone all vote for Barack Obama.
So Barack Obama is most likely still elected President in 2008 even if those 1.7 million white voters come out in any but the most fortunate circumstances that you won’t assume in your article. We’ve dealt with that part of your analysis, and we will move on to the penultimate paragraph, which is the only relevant point anyway, because what matters is what happens now when we’re talking about what is happening now. Since we are not analyzing the past but forecasting the future, I am on just as unsure a ground as you are, but here is my real take:
1. 26 million eligible voter contacts is great work. So is out-contacting the previous campaign by a factor of ten or greater. However, that is a statistic without a relative measure. I’ve worked for a couple campaigns, and contact numbers can be repeated over and over again. Is the contact rate for particular individuals higher, or are those representative of 26 million unique voters. Assuming there are no repeats and that the duplicate contacts have already been weeded out by the campaign, 26 million contacts make up roughly 44% of the vote total of John McCain’s popular vote in 2008. If John McCain only contacted around 3 million individual voters, what is the efficiency expected from that 26 million number? How are they in relation to their statistical category, meaning are they new to the GOP calculus? Maybe they’re 26 million people who didn’t vote for anyone last time and will now come out to vote Republican (best GOP case) or maybe they’re the only 26 million people who are going to vote for Mitt Romney in the entire voting population (worst GOP case). That’s not really a number worth anything yet.
2. Your assumption is that individual GOP voters won’t split the ticket with the top vote. I know this sounds crazy, especially with the way that Barack Obama and the GOP have been at each other for the last three years, but Mitt Romney is not accorded to be an inspirational character with all voters, let alone white voters. I can only argue that point based on anecdote, and it is by far my weakest point yet, but there are plenty of white people who are Republican or independent in Massachusetts that I know who can’t stand Mitt Romney, and people here in Chicago who consistently vote GOP but were rooting for Rick Santorum or even Newt Gingrich so they would have someone more in line with their beliefs and are disappointed by Mitt and don’t see the need to put him in office and watch him turn back into the Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Again, anecdotal, and both Massachusetts and Illinois are extremely blue, but Americans are always more alike than we like to pretend when we talk during election season. So throw that in the “not 100% of the numbers reported as GOP registrations will go for Mitt” column.
3. There’s nothing after that. Why did you end there? What else can you see? Certainly if you took the time to look up how many white voters were expected in 2008, you could give us some more analysis about the racial trends of voters. If you don’t believe in the coalition of the ascendant, you can still track the numbers and show us how it doesn’t work.
Lot of stuff in there Christian. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I’ll try to answer them all but I may not so apologies up front.
I will answer the main thrust of your charge and clarify I am most definitely NOT saying John McCain would have won in 2008 had the White vote not dropped. 2008 was Barack Obama’s year and all the votes mentioned in my write up simply would have only made the race marginally closer and likely only flipping Indiana and North Carolina. I was space constrained (this was originally considered for print publication) so I knew my discussion of vote differentials in 2008 could easily be misconstrued by reasonable that I was implying John McCain would have flipped many or all of those states. He would not have.
The thrust of my write up addresses demographic assumptions for 2012 and I use those vote differentials to show just how close many states were and how many votes are missing from one segment of the population (White Voters). Those voters are not evenly distributed across all 50 states just as they are not concentrated in the enumerated Battleground states. It is simply an illustration that small changes in registration which are occurring, increases in enthusiasm (which is showing up in polls) and turnout (which remains to be seen) could have big impacts with the largest segment of voters (White voters). And when you see the vote differentials and how many voters we already know are missing, suddenly the gap between Obama’s 2008 win and today’s contest gets a lot closer.
Also I wrote the piece because this subject is rarely discussed when looking at the racial makeup of 2012 versus 2008. Conversely you can find thousands of articles on courting Hispanic voters (I’ve blogged many of them) and the “coalition of the ascendent” when they will have less a determinative impact than motivated White voters.
I hope this helps and sorry I didn’t get to everything.
One thing I have been watching for, but have not seen, is a discussion of the possibility of response bias in the polling. The response bias I suspect may be in play is the bias caused by what the respondent thinks the pollster may think about his response. Another way to put it, some people will not give a response they think the pollster might think is “bad”. This response bias may be driven up by blacks not wanting to appear to betray a black president and also by the persistent accusation that a vote against President Obama is racist.
An extreme example of this phenomenon would be found by asking the question: Do you believe we are being invaded by space aliens. You would probably get a supressed “Yes” response because some of the potential “Yes” respondent would worry that the pollster would think they are nut cases. We really do care what other people, even strangers, think of us.
I think there may be a strong possibility that a small, but significant, number of voters say they will vote for Obama because they think the pollster would think they are betrayers or racists if they told the truth. While I haven’t studied the data, it appears that the Senate races have not reflected (at least not until recently) the overwhelming Democratic vote that Obama is enjoying in the polls.
The know-it-all-pundits say republican turnout in 2012 will not be as much as it was in 2010. I find that hard to believe. For that to be true, then a significant number of republicans who voted in 2010 are going to turn down a chance to fire Obama by sitting out 2012. I don’t see that happening at all. I just can’t believe that republicans who were fired up in 2010 aren’t absolutely seething about what has happened to our country since then.
I find it curious that you claim that Republicans are ‘seething’ about what has happened since they voted so many Tea Party candidates into office that they took over the House in 2010. Imagine what will happen if they now take over the Senate. *shudders*
Shudders of joy! Imagine the possibilities: No Harry Reid to ignore scores of good legislation to cut taxes, rid the country of onerous regulations on small businesses, secure our borders, actually pass a budget, etc.
We are still seething because Harry Reid and Obama have ignored the legislation passed by the Republican House which was elected by a large majority of the electorate in 2010.
We need to finish the job in 2012!
The funny (and sad) thing is that if you go to left-wing sites, they really do believe the stuff they’re spouting here.
D+10 models are perfectly fine!
Obama’s gonna get an even bigger turnout of youth and minorities than 2008 !
Romney will get 200% of the vote in his own safe states so it’s obvious he can tie nationally and be down in every swing state by 10%!
Any poll less than 5% Obama win is a GOP conspiracy!
White voters are gonna freefall to 60% this time!
Oh, and claims of conservatives “engaging in conspiracy theories about polling”? You ain’t seen nothin’ until you read the hysterical conspiracy mongering from the Left about Rasmussen……
And let us not forget about “voter suppression” because of the same ID you need to cash a check, buy beer or cigarettes. Didn’t I just see the Democrats steal the “God” election from fellow Democrats at their own National Convention?
Boy are you ever in for a reality check when you wake up on November 7. Keep on believing what you’re believing. Most polls are using likely voter models now, so that is going to screen out many in those minority groups who are less likely to show up. Obama up all across the board in virtually every one. The only exception is the occasional Rasmussen poll that puts them at even. Rasmussen doesn’t call cell phones. Guess what? 30% of the country is cell phone only — especially heavy amongst young and minorities. In other words, Rasmussen’s poling is systematically biased to massive oversampling of older white people who have landlines. Talk about a polling error!
Cheers!
Except for that pesky thing of most polls over sampling Dems by the same or greater margins than 2008, while Ras uses D+2……
Not the way it works. EVERY pollster has a model they follow. In other words, they HAVE to sample a percent of the population that is Democrat, Independent and/or Republican.
Rasmussen does a seperate poll for non-landline users and that is calculated into the final results. The reason is simple, cell phone numbers go with you even if you move and ALL polls have a certain number of interviews done on a state basis.
So, every Dem mentions the cell phone thing with Rasmussen. So they discount Rasmussen and look at the averages (The Real Clear Poll average show Obama up by 4% (http://articlelink.us/realclearpolitics).
But no Demo seems to be able to answer the basic question – why are almost all MSM polls using samples based on assumed extrapolation of higher minorities and youth turnout then in 2008 and the same turnout among whites as in 2008. If you look at only the Independent vote, Romney wins (and, of course, in the Republican vote, Romney wins). Two basic issues with the poll oversampling is this 1) every poll focusing on youth shows a reduced intention to vote versus 2008. Most youth are bitter and believe they were fooled by Obama, and they will not make that mistake again 2) white turnout was depressed in 2008 because of Bush fatigue and antipathy to McCain and lack of knowledge about what electing Obama meant. Those 2 things mean that as a percent of the voters showing up at the polls, Obama supporters will be significantly lower then the polls are assuming. Period. Is this worth 5%-6%? I think not. Is this worth 2% – 4%? I think so. Independent of
Most analysis is based on 2008 turnout. 2010 turnout is probably a better turnout on which to base 2012 turnout–a fired up Republican electorate.
2010 turnout is a bad model. Presidential years have something like 80% more voters than non presidential years. I would start with 2004 and then perhaps adjust it for population change among eligible voters. Incidentally, I don’t put any stock in party ID. But it is simply a matter of logic if you assume more youth and minorities you will end up with greater democrat representation. A D+2-4 seems more likely to me.
well, i’m a white male and i’m voting for Obama, so are the three other white males in my household along with my wife and 11 other family members
As are the two white males in my household. However, we are not in a ‘battleground’ state, nor have we ever been polled.
i am a minority, i am from massachusetts and i am voting for rommney,
I think this race is a pure turnout battle for which getting accurate polling is going to be almost impossible. White turnout will be way up, but so will Black turnout. Blacks have a deep emotional need to make Obama a success, and see him as an extended family member under attack by Republicans who must be fended off at all costs. So they will turn out in the greatest numbers ever. His dismal performance in office is not a factor with this group. Most other Obama voter groups will be way down, especially the young who got nothing but perpetual unemployment from Obama. There are also White groups that have turned toward Obama out of economic self-interest. Disability rolls are nearly 10 million now (a 4x increase) and they will vote to protect their benefits.
Accurate polling is impossible because (1) many people fear retaliation (from Unions, employers, bosses, neighbors, etc…) and will not talk to pollsters or tell them the truth. (2) Cell phone users without landlines are very hard to poll. (3) Many men will not tell pollsters the truth in front (or earshot) of their Democratic wives or girlfriends (4) Most people do not answer poll calls at all (5) accurate estimates of how likely Black voters are to vote is very hard to measure in polls and (6) The MSM understands all this and they are doing everything possible to convince everyone that Romney is sure to lose. They don’t want soft Republicans to bother waiting in a long line to vote, and they want to dry up Republican contributions. The narrative becomes self-fulfilling, or at least that is their plan.
I think not only will there be fewer African American voters, they will break 90-10 instead of 95-5.
How Carter Beat Reagan
[...]
NY Times, October 1980:
Poll Finds Illinois Too Close to Call: Both Camps Note Gains by Carter
…uncertainty about Ronald Reagan’s leadership, especially among suburban voters, [has] apparently set back Mr. Reagan’s hope for a victory in Illinois and left his campaign scrambling to regain lost momentum, according to advisers in both camps.
Then came the usual New York Times/CBS polling data that proclaimed a Reagan one-point lead of 34% to Carter’s 33% as a sure sign that “Carter Gains and Reagan Slips in Close Illinois Race” — as an inside page headline proclaimed.
What happened? Reagan beat Carter by almost 8 points, 49.65% to 41.72%. Again, there was no “close” race as the Times had claimed.
[...............]
After the 1984 election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post’s blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and “harassed” Bradlee “about his paper’s lousy polling methodology.”
Bradlee’s “unrepentant” response?
“Tough sh…t, Rollins, I’m glad it cost you plenty. It (crappy polling) is my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign.”
The American Spectator : How Carter Beat Reagan
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/25/how-carter-beat-reagan
Thanks Saber. I blogged that article just the other day:
http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/25/playing-the-polling-game-must-read/
Couldn’t remember wher I first saw it, during a lunch break. I did remember seeing the reference to American Spectator, and scrambled around to find a reference on a search program.
I see several republican voters on this page saying that Romney will win this election. But as Skarphace said earlier you’ve got to look at where the money is going. Intraders are putting their money on Obama 75% vs. Romney 25%. This is huge. Obama’s lead with Intraders has been increasing quite fast in the past 3 weeks, even faster than in the polls.
Alos if Romney is doing so well than why has he recently lost some of his campaigners most prominently Tim Pawlenty. Not only that his campaign contributions took a slight decrease in the past month. These are tell-tale signs that there is something amiss with Romney’s campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-stanford/mitt-romney-losing_b_1891242.html
Garbage in Garbage out. You bet based on the information you have. Don’t think that the people playing Intrade have some secret inside information.
I am a white male over 50 and will be voting for Obama. I have not been polled either.
I’m white, over 60 and on Social Security and I’ll be voting for Romney/Ryan so my children will have a job – one doesn’t right now.
Dems are using ’08 numbers, which are way off usual election. More like 04 or 02 — that’s how the Obama campaign paints such a rosy view of reelection.
The problem isn’t the polls, it’s that Willard is a bad candidate and a worse campaigner.
Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. I live in Ohio and Romney is bringing HUGE crowds who are very excited. He is very good on the campaign stump and doesn’t need a TelePrompTer. He will win the debate because Obama can’t support his failed policies. And just today the govt announced GDP is way down to 1.25% growth. This is pathetic.
A whole lot of opinions here, and some good facts, too. The facts I have not heard from everyone are the final electoral count. Assuming Romney runs the tables and wins all of the “swing” states plus Wisconsin, R wins 300-238. This is if you disbelieve all the polls. That’s perfectly fine, except that Fox News (no friend of Obama) has O up by 7 in Wisconsin (where he has won 7 polls in a row) and up by 7 in Virginia (where he has won 7 polls in a row). So now rationally those states should go to Obama and now Romney wins 277-261. Just to be devil’s advocate against Obama, we will keep FL and OH in the Romney column, even though RCP formally put OH in the Obama column today (09/26). If Obama wins Colorado (where he has won 6 out of 7 polls, he gets to 270. If Obama wins Nevada (where he has won 4 polls in a row), Romney still wins 271-267. All these things assume a perfect world for Romney. No more gaffes, and he holds his own in the debates, especially the one on 10/16 where he will have to take questions from the audience.
If Romney wins, it will be due to economics. If Obama wins, it will be due to demographics.
no one questions Romney has to win EVERY state McCain did and peel at least 6 from Obama with at least Florida or Ohio being among them. So he can lose Ohio if he takes nevada, colorado, iowa and wisconsin and takes Virginia and North Carolina. There is no concieveable way Romney can win if he loses Florida and Ohio short of earth shattering flip of like Pennsylvania and Michigan…which reason says if he took those he’d take Florida and Ohio. Bottom line it is Obama’s race to lose, period. History dictates with the economy and indicators the way they are he shoudl lose. But it is his race to lose. I personally disagree that his lead right now is so nearly bigger than he won in 08.
I think there is a serious change…i know crazy…that Romney wins the popular vote but loses Electorally. That would be a huge vote of no confidence in Obama. But we won’t know until probably early morning of November 7
To all who trash the polls as being biased or inaccurate, it amuses me how any information or facts that don’t support your preconceived notion must be wrong or phony, but when those same polls support what you wish to be the case, you call them into action… eg: Rasmussen, despite the fact that they nearly always skew several points to the right of everybody else, they are the poll the Republican die-hards reference and ignore the rest. The polls aren’t perfect, but it’s clear case of wishful thinking that is going on here. Obama is leading in several crucial states and unless the polls start coming back to Romney, we’ll swear in Obama for another four years. Rather than try to wish the truth away, why don’t you get active and change what is true. If you keep living in your dream world, eventually you will wake up and will be sorry you did. Face the truth. Obama is leading at this time. It’s not over and it’s not guaranteed that he will win, but if the polls don’t change, when Obama is re-elected try to learn the lesson.
Amen Amen!!!! That’s all I have to say Amen!!!! A couple of weeks ago the right was hanging onto both Rasmussen & Gallup now it just seems Rasmussen is their only hope.
Ras is also the poll that routinely the last 8 years has been called most in the media world and analyst world as one of the 3 most accurate.
most reliable by whom?
You really do have to convince yourself that Whites have given up and entered an historical terminus of apathy to keep trusting polls that presume turnouts will be consistent with 2008. Equivalently, you have to believe that Hispanics, Asians, and PhD’s are insensitive to such things as economic underperformance and debt hyper-expansion.
The economic blogger John Mauldin charitably asserts that many in office in Washington in both parties do “get it” that the debt is the only real problem in town. Sadly, they’ve only managed to fool him again. Until anyone in any party with political power actually does anything to promote economic growth, they’re all worthless. A vote against Obama in 2012 is simply a vote against the worthless empty suit of the day. A 2016 vote against 1 or 2 worthless empty suits will follow.
Low-income people and renters are more likely than others to live in a cellphone-only home. This includes a number of black Americans. Hispanics are also more likely than other populations to live in cellphone-only homes. And then there are young people, who are by far the largest demographic group living in cellphone-only homes.
These are the demographic groups that essentially put President Obama in the White House. African-American and Hispanic voter turnout increased by 2 million people in the 2008 election, an increase credited with making the difference in swing states like North Carolina, Nevada and others. Turnout among young voters was up by 2 percent over the 2004 election — an increase credited with making the difference in states like Indiana.
Four years later, there are countless news reports about the decrease in enthusiasm among young voters for the Obama campaign. Yet in the last four years, the number of cellphone-only-using young adults has increased significantly, but the world of polling has struggled to keep up with them. This means that polling data may not fully reflect the attitudes of young Americans this election, an election in which their votes could determine the outcome.
Face it…Romney is not winning this election.
Nice theory, but wrong. ALL the pollsters are aware of this, but since your cell phone number stays with you even if you move, they have to take a seperate poll to ascertain the geographic location of cell phone users. These results ARE part of the total calculus.
What makes Rasmussen closer than most is his use of TODAY’s Party affiliation which, right now, is R+4 verses ’08 when it was D+7.
and we’ll see how he changes his wieghting come next month. I don’t get where your getting Today’s party affiliation as R+4. Source please?
It has been noted that Ohioan voters seem to think that the ‘auto bailout’ saved jobs. If you are aware of bankruptcy proceedings, you would know that many of the US airlines have been in and out of bankruptcy several times. Their pilots and crew were not outsourced, and the planes kept flying.
Actually, GM and Chrysler went through an ‘organized’ bankuptcy, where the outcome and payoffs were pre-cooked, in favor of the UAW. The salaried workers at prior GM parts suppliers were divested of their retirement. The UAW workers were not only kept whole, but they were given a chunk of the company.
Any honest person would say the administration was not fair. Buying votes on the backs of other workers is not a good way to run a country. Anyone with a conscience should be outraged. Yet, the President will likely get a lot of their votes. Just wait until it is their turn to be turned upside down, and have all the money shaken out of their pockets to hear the screams of outrage.
I personally believe the polls are ignoring the change in voter registration more than they should. We shall see…
tom
Any idea on party breakdown of yesterdays Gallup that had the one up hy six?
I don’t really look at national polls unless something unique happens.
The white vote eh? I think you fail to consider something – between the years 2000 and 2010, the number of Americans who consider themselves multiracial grew faster than those who self-identify as a single race.
Those identifying with multiple races grew by 32 percent over the decade, for a total of 9 million. Single-race identifiers grew by just 9.2 percent, according to the 2010 Census, which also showed the slowest overall population growth rate since the Great Depression.
Nine states saw a 70 percent or greater increase in their multiple-race population. South Carolina saw its multiracial population double, while North Carolina, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and Mississippi all notched big gains.
The largest gains were among those who identify as both white and black and were found in the formerly (clearly, not so much anymore) segregated South.
So…when considering the white vote please take into consideration the fact that many whites may have a little something “extra” that could factor into their opinion and decision concerning President Obama.
I’d like to add that after a little research from the Us Census Bureau that in 2004 89.4% of registered non-hispanic whites showed up to vote . In 2008 it was more like 90.0% so anybody that thinks more non hispanic white involvement is going to swing the election to Romney is delusional epecially since the non-white % of the electorate has been going up by leaps and bounds for the last 30 years,i.e. Hite non-hispanic has been declining about 3% per election cycle. Now per the young voters? Well all those new Obama voters of 2008 are now 22-26 and in the 25-26 age group being part of the 25-34 age group one sees from historical data that there’s about 3 to 3.5 % improvement in voter participation in the 25-34 versus the 18-24 demographic.
I’m white and have answered every Census for the last 30 years as “other.” In short, none of the governments dam business.
my my touchy touchy aren’t we? I never said who’s buisness it is just repeating demographic facts.
And just gave you one of the reasons why. You do realize our federal government is BORROWING 43 cents of every dollar it spends to ask and acculumlate such idiot information and worse?? We’re headed for a second Recession and we’re worried about demographics?? We deserve a second Obama term if we’re that stupid to vote for “more of the same.”
In 2004 there were 197,,005,000 eligible voting age adults of which 148,158,000 were non hispanic whites ,111,318,000 of the latter were registered of which 99,567,000 voted for a % of 89.4. In 2008 there were 206,072,000 eligible to vote of that 151,321,000 were non hispanic whites ,of that 111,215,000 were registered ,of that 100,042,000 voted for a % of 90.0. You’ll notice that even though the number of eligible adults from 2004 to 2008 increased at 9,000,000 the non-hispanic white portion only increased by 3,000,000 . The total number of registered voters increased by 4,000,000 though to be fair there was a minus of 100,000 non hispanic whites which means the non white portion of RV electorate increased by over 4,000,000. The total votes in 2004 was 125,736,000 compared to 2008 of 131,144,000. In 2004 there was a 26,000,000 vote difference between the Non hispanic whites and the total votes for that year whereas in 2008 there was 31,000,000 difference.
Now one can maybe point to registration being down for whites between 2004 & 2008 but in that same time frame twice as many non whites were added to the eligible voting adults list as per whites furthermore it’s very,very hard to enhance on either the 2004 & 2008 non hispanic white voting % of around 90%. One then has to look at the fact that even if white increase their registration efforts they are being plummeled by the sheer onslaught of the non white demographic, i.e. it increased twice as much from 2004 to 2008,6,000,000 versus 3,000,000. All data is from the US Census Bureau.
Brian , your #s are correct but it is your conclusion I take issue with. As it says in my piece, no one disagrees with the direction of the trend. The difference of opinion is how severe an impact that trend will have in 2012.
You accurately point out that between 2004 and 2008 the changes in eligible voters for whites and non-whites was +3,000,000 and +6,000,000 respectively, but trends don’t always move in a straight line. And the bad economic times in the US has meaningfully changed migration trends and led many to leave the US, most notably non-Whites. The number of eligible non-White voters in the US should still be up over the 2008 figure, but it will be muted from the 6 million 4-year increase in 2008 for a a number of reasons, only one of which I outlined in the prior sentence.
At the same time the disparity between 2008 steep increases in registration and participation of non-Whites is contrasted by the drop in registration and reduced participation rate among Whites. The latter point being the entire thrust of my piece.
In 2012, we are finding enthusiasm rates which typically correlates with subsequent participation rates falling for all non-White voter groups (including Blacks) back towards their historic levels. This contrasts with both registration and enthusiasm among the White voting group which is substantially up in both categories.
A final point, when we are talking about the largest voter demographic which comprises ~74% of the voters in an election, small changes in the percentage of participation, registration, etc have a sizable impact. So a drop in participation of registered White voters of 0.6 or 0.5% is ~800k thousand votes, in itself offsetting 1/3 of the steep increases for Blacks or Hispanics. That is a substantial amount of ground made up by having people who are already registered and previously voted to simply show up. This is before you register new people and attempt to increase enthusiasm and subsequent participation rates.
Thanks for visiting and taking the time to explain yourself and make good points even if I disagree with your conclusions.
At a minimum, 40% of White voters will vote for the President. He will be re-elected.
So 60% of the largest portion of the electorate vote against you and that guarantees your election?? Logic please?
It’s simple math..let’s say 25% of the electorate is non-white and per historical standards a Democrat carries 80% of the demographic that equals 20. You then the other 75% being white which if A Democrat carries 40%+ of that demographic that equals 30+ . See it’s just simple math!!!
Facts are facts and history cannot be rewritten. Romney has alienated too many people in the GOP, women, minorities, etc.etc. White men can try to pull him out of the stink but they will in all probability fall into it if they are not standing in it already. Hope springs eternal but you have to have a basis for hoping. Tax cuts are not a new idea, and the voting public want a new idea that Romney has failed to come up with.
I second that… I also wonder when the GOP talks about skewed polls they don’t bring up September’s AP poll which showed Obama ahead only 1 in their likely voter model but 10 in the RV model. Their likely voter model only showed 63% of RV’s voting when in 1996 82 % of registered voters showed up, 2000 85.5%, 2004 88.5 % and in 2008 it was 89.6%. It seems quite a few on here feel the 2004 turnout model should be used BUT the 2008 model shows 1.8% more 75 & olders showing up, .5% more 65 to 74 year olds, and 2.5% more 55 to 64 year olds turning out compared to 2004. All three of those age demographics are heavily GOP.In sheer numbers 500,000 more 75+’s, 1,166,000 65-74′s and over 2,500,000 more 55-64′s showed up from 2004 to 2008.
Cut the link spam Bill.
Enough with the link spam Bill.
Agreed. We’ll be seeing a lot less from him. I have no problem with someone joining the debate and promoting their site if it’s relevant. But he was rampantly trolling. I should have started deleting sooner.
19 Trackbacks
[...] – Bill Barrow, AP Mitt Romney’s Conundrum Deepens – Greg Sargent, Washington Post The Reality of 2012 Voter Turnout: The White Voter – Keith Backer, BW U.S. Has No Clue What to Do in Mideast – Walter Russell Mead, Am. [...]
[...] the truth. Here’s more evidence via a great article by Keith Backer of Battleground Watch: What’s missing in all this analysis is who did not show up in the 2008 election: White voters. [...]
[...] issue has popped up a couple of times in the comments section of my 2012 Voter Turnout post so I wanted to be clear about a few things. First, I am most definitely NOT saying John McCain [...]
[...] – Bill Barrow, AP Mitt Romney’s Conundrum Deepens – Greg Sargent, Washington Post The Reality of 2012 Voter Turnout: The White Voter – Keith Backer, BW U.S. Has No Clue What to Do in Mideast – Walter Russell Mead, Am. [...]
[...] election is about turnout. Most polls are modeling high Dem turnout. Some higher than 2008. Not feeling that those estimates [...]
[...] – Bill Barrow, AP Mitt Romney’s Conundrum Deepens – Greg Sargent, Washington Post The Reality of 2012 Voter Turnout: The White Voter – Keith Backer, BW U.S. Has No Clue What to Do in Mideast – Walter Russell Mead, Am. [...]
[...] BattlegroundWatch.com makes a related point, noting that not only was minority turnout way up in 2008, but white turnout was down: Every voter turnout rate by race (relative to eligible population) was up versus 2004 except the white vote according to Pew Research. . . . Blacks were up +4.9%, Hispanics were up +2.7%, Asians were up +2.4%. But the percentage of White voters who showed up at the polls relative to who was eligible dropped -1.1% . . . This has nothing to do with minorities making up more or less of the electorate. This is simply saying from 2004 to 2008 White voter registration (which actually dropped 104k) and actual turnout of White voters (which increased 500k) did not keep up with voting age White population increases. Within this drop of White voter turnout, over 3x as many men as women comprised those voters staying home in the election. This happened for any number of reasons ranging from a disinterested national party to a disorganized Presidential campaign to a demoralized voting block [sic]–all are true. But the bottom line is one of the advantages Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008 was that a meaningful percentage of white voters simply stayed home in 2008. [...]
[...] Battleground Watch: [...]
[...] has completely slipped under the media’s radar: white male voters. Columnist Keith Backer demonstrates (quite convincingly) that white males is where Obama is weakest and didn’t even bother [...]
[...] first point remains as true as ever, but it is the second point that gets curiouser by the day. The brunt of my time is spent blogging [...]
[...] fact that 1.7 million White voters stayed home in 2008. I addressed this issue at length in “The Reality of 2012 Voter Turnout: The White Voter” where we saw that in the 2008 election a -1.1% election-over-election drop in White [...]
[...] Obama campaign will create and parrot any false story they can to improve Obama’s chances and keep Romney voters home. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was written by [...]
[...] bad, bad for the President. Importantly, the 2008 election racial demographics fail to account for 1.7 million White voters who stayed home in that election but appear to be more than enthusiastic this time around. In 2008 that was over [...]
[...] I have shown many times the White turnout in 2008 nationally was artificially low based on nearly 2 million White voters staying home. This year they are both motivated and enthusiastic so drop-offs like that are leftist fantasy [...]
[...] [...]
[...] outlined previously, 1.7 million White voters (who voted in 2004) did not vote in 2008. This means from a racial [...]
[...] As outlined previously, 1.7 million White voters (who voted in 2004) did not vote in 2008. This means from a racial composition stand-point the 2008 demographic breakdown is over-generous to the non-White groups and somewhat of an anomaly due to the missing White demographic who voted in 2004 but sat out last time. This is not an argument against the decreasing percentage of White voters in election, because the overall increase in the non-White voting population is very real. The problem with Team Obama’s assumptions, however, is they decrease the White vote -4.3pp to 72% this election cycle when there is no evidence to support such a steep decline. [...]
[...] in 2008 was that a meaningful percentage of white voters simply stayed home.” (source: http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/26/the-reality-of-2012-voter-turnout-the-white-voter/) The fact is, there is a significant electoral shift in the population of the United States and [...]
[...] “What’s missing in all the analysis is who did not show up in the 2008 election: White voters. Looking back at those results, every voter turnout rate by race (relative to eligible population) was up versus 2004 except the white vote according to Pew Research (April 30, 2009). Blacks were up +4.9%, Hispanics were up +2.7%, Asians were up +2.4%. But the percentage of White voters who showed up at the polls relative to who was eligible dropped -1.1% (Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, May 2010). This has nothing to do with minorities making up more or less of the electorate. This is simply saying from 2004 to 2008 White voter registration (which actually dropped 104k) and actual turnout of White voters (which increased 500k) did not keep up with voting age White population increases. Within this drop of White voter turnout, over 3x as many men as women comprised those voters staying home in the election. But the bottom line is one of the advantages Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008 was that a meaningful percentage of white voters simply stayed home.” – (SOURCE) [...]