I normally do analysis here of the mobile industry, digital
tech and social media. But I have a passion for the US politics (totally just
as observer, I am a Finn so I can't vote) and am quite puzzled now, in the US
election aftermath of 2012, in why and how the numbers and facts seem to be
actively ignored. Its not like its a secret - there is a wealth of data on what
happened, from the election results, votes, and the Exit Polls. And because
some of the 'obvious' reasons why Romney lost - and why President Obama
obviously won re-election - are being ignored, and some wild theories are now
being suggested as to why it happened, I do want to put my analytical thinking
to this matter. What do we learn from the numbers. What do the facts tell us.
We know Romney lost, but why, where and how. Could it have been avoided and if
so, how. Join me in some numbers-oriented hunting and analysis. Also - warning to my regular readers, there is no tech/mobile/media story here, this is purely about hte US elections and I promise, I will stop with Romney-Obama and get back to our normal topics). Oh, and get yourself a cup of coffee, this article runs over 9,000 words, it will take you about 15-20 minutes to read. But if you want to see the real mathematical analysis of what decided the election of 2012, based on the election results and exit polls - it was not Hurricane Sandy, it was not the 47%, it was not Obama's turn-out machine. Follow me after the jump to read all the analysis how 2012 was won and lost. The Myths, Misconceptions, Math and Mistakes of this election cycle.
(Welcome back)
SHORT US ELECTION OVERVIEW
So, once again, a quick overview, very quick. US elections tend to be
reasonably close. The country tends to find most elections close to 50/50, the
main elected national bodies tend to be relatively even over time, the
Presidency swings pretty regularly on a 2 year cycle, the Senate and Congress
are divided roughly in half and either side might win some seats for a modest
majority for a short period of time. There are 50 states and the District of
Colombia that decide the election, roughly 40 states and DC tend to be well
'decided' and remain with their party usually for decades, there are roughly
some 10 states that are 'swing states' that might then be decisive from one
year to the next, for example Ohio, which often is the tipping point in the
election.
This year 23 states were 'red' reliably Republican, by all pre-election polls
safely in the camp to vote for Romney, and 18 states plus DC, that were
reliably 'blue' ie would vote Democratic, and be safe for Obama. These were so
well known, neither party ran any major advertising campaigns in most of those
states, and didn't do major campaigning in those 41 states. There were 9
so-called 'battleground states' Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire,
North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin - where the real election action
happened this year. Yes, at the end, Romney made a desperate push to try to
fight for Pennsylvania, but that was utterly hopeless and Obama didn't even
bother to go campaign there to defend Pennsylvania. They knew it was not 'in
play'.
So there were 9 states that would decide the election. There were also
pre-election polls that suggested how tight those races might be. North
Carolina was slighly but consistently trending towards Romney in most polls out
of that state. Obama team decided not to make a serious play for North
Carolina, spending only small amounts on TV advertising there, and with
President Obama not doing even one live campaign event in the state in the last
two months of the campaign, after the Conventions. Romney knew it was going to
be won by them, and saw Obama deserting the state, so Romney's campaign team
even moved some of its assets out of the state by early October. So while yes,
it was a 'battleground state' - for all practical purposes, Obama had abandoned
hope of winning it.
The polls for North Carolina were close, however, and there were the occasional
surprise poll that had the race even slightly in Obama's favor. The polls for
Nevada were never that. They did not suggest any chance for Romney. Nevada did
go quite early and strongly for Obama in the election and Team Romney did
pretty much quit trying to fight for the state early. There was Iowa, Wisconsin
and New Hampshire, where both sides did engage and campaign, but all
pre-election polls were quite brutal about Romney's chances and towards the
end, he pulled out of Wisconsin, even as his Vice Presidential pick, Paul Ryan,
is from Wisconsin. They knew they could not win the state. And while Romney did
campaign in New Hampshire till the last day, and poured a lot of money into TV
advertising, that state also was a lost cause. So too was Iowa. All these
states, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire - were very reliably trending
to Obama in the polling, and ended up with Obama winning them with better than
5% winning percentage. Yes, Romney and the Republicans fought for those states,
but they were not realistically viable.
The real battle this year 2012 was four states, and four states only: Colorado,
Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Both sides fought for those states heatedly, spent
most of the candidate time in those four states, and by far the most of their
TV ad spend was in those four states. That was for the victory. And this year,
due to the make-up of the 'red states and blue states' with Obama coming off
his huge victory in 2008, the reality was, that Romney would have to win all
four of these states. If Obama was able to capture just one, he would be
re-elected President. But also, that Obama did have to win (at least) one of
these, else Romney would be President now.
FIVE ELECTIONS
That is how US elections work, and how it emerged this year. The campaigns knew
by June of 2012, what were the nine states that were in play. They knew after
the Conventions, what were the four states that would be decisive. It would not
matter who would win Texas or New York (those were not in doubt), the decision
was up to four states. So there were last Tuesday essentially five elections.
There was, what amounted to a 'beauty contest' on who would win the popular
vote in the other 46 states and District of Columbia. That would only be
'bragging rights' (President George Bush 2 did not win the popular vote in year
2000, Al Gore won that, but President Bush 2 won the required states, to become
president - haha, with a little bit of help from the Supreme Court).
And there would be four distinct elections for the decision. One for the state
of Virginia, one for the state of Ohio, one for the state of Colorado, and one
for the state of Florida. If Romney could win all four of those separate
elections, he would become President. If Obama won even one of those four, he
would be re-elected. The real national popular vote count is irrelevant to the
decision. This year, it came down to those four states. They have about 34
million people, and they cast about 20 million votes this year, out of 330
million total US population in all 50 states, and about 127 million total votes
cast (they are still counting the last votes, we are past 125 million by now as
I write this on Sunday). So about 16% of the actual voters who actually voted
this year, got to decide the election for US President in 2012.
MYTH 1 - SANDY DID NOT DECIDE THIS ELECTION
Hurricane Sandy did come right before the election and disrupted the
campaigning on both sides. Sandy did actually influence voter turnout in the
heavily affected Atlantic states that were severely flooded like New York and
New Jersey. But it didn't change the Presidential election in any state
directly by influencing the turnout or preventing voters from either side from
voting. No expected state changed its choice of President due to Sandy
aftermath.
What about how President Obama was perceived as 'presidential' and the Chris
Christie endorsement and how 'Romney momentum was stalled' etc. That sounds
good, but lets now go to the numbers. There is first of all, a very glaring,
obvious and attractive data point in the Exit Polls on this very issue. Voters
were asked if President Obama's handling of Sandy was the most important factor
in their vote - and 15% of the total electorate said yes - thats big - and out
of those, 73% voted for Obama and only 26% for Romney. Obama's margin was 47
points, and out of 15% of total voters, it would mean that 7% of the total vote
was due to how voters approved of Obama's handling of Sandy. To put it another
way, the Exit Poll says, that for 8.8 million people, Sandy was the biggest
reason - and those people voted for Obama. This, compared to his winning margin
of under 4 million votes - suggests that obviously Sandy was what decided it
for Obama and against Romney.
Now that has gotta be proof right there. Except that it isn't. This is out of
all voters. So its perfectly possible, that someone who was already an Obama
supporter, would have voted for Obama anyway, then saw the President act in the
Sandy aftermath, and remembered President Bush 2 after Hurricane Katrina, and
decided 'this is the most important thing'. But that it did not change the
minds of the voters.
Now, that may sound like nit-picking, but lets explore if we can find some
insights, from the Exit Poll. Hurricane Sandy hit one week before the election.
How many voters had already made up their minds before Sandy appeared? The Exit
Poll tells us the answer, it was 3% who decided on election day, and another 6%
who decided in the last days before the election. Only 9% decided after Sandy
had appeared and thus 91% of the voters could not have been persuaded to change
their minds, after seeing President Obama deal with Sandy, and all the Chris
Christie hugging etc. How did those 9% vote who decided in the last week? They
went 50/45 for Obama, ie the margin was 5 points. That, out of all votes, when
only 9% were available, means that the maximum effect of Hurricane Sandy, that
could possibly help President Obama, was 0.45%. Less than half of one percent.
Obama's winning margin was over 3%. No. Sandy did not decide the election of
2012. Yes, it no doubt influenced it, but there were many other things that
also happened in the last days, from General Powell's endorsement of Obama (he
is a registered Republican) to Romney's feud with Chrysler and GM about his
misleading Jeep ad. The real effect of Sandy will have been less than that
maximum of 0.45% in Obama's victory margin.
But Hurricane Sandy did disrupt the campaigning, and Chris Christie's kind
words about President Obama were no doubt painful for the Republicans to hear
so close to election day, so this hurts. But the math is clear, that did not
decide the election. It was not even close. Yes, no doubt, there was an effect.
But this did not decide it. Many do know this, and many do talk about it, that
Sandy is a red herring, but let me now offer you a bombshell
MYTH 2 - ROMNEY DID NOT LOSE THE GROUND WAR WITH ORCA
This goes against all conventional wisdom. We all know - even I wrote about it
on this blog - how powerful and effective, Obama's Get-Out-The-Vote ground game
was, with their voter database called Narwhal and their nerdy data analysis
team which so much outperformed the Romney team rival called Orca. We have seen some numbers and probably more will come out later. Clearly
Obama's team was able to catch more voters directly than Romney's team, and Obama's
team was able to talk to their supporters more times and were able to create
astonishing successes in voter turnout. Yes. Nationally. Yes.
But this battle was not won on a national vote! This battle was won in four
states. And Romney also had a turn-out effort. And both sides also had surrogates,
like Democrats had the labor unions and Republicans had evangelical churches
etc. The proof is in the pudding. This is the turnout success, by the latest
numbers we have now, Sunday, 12 days after the election, based on the latest
updated vote counts on Wikipedia for 2012 (some states are still counting
including Ohio) and the full count from 2008 also via Wikipedia. Look at
turnout:
TURNOUT 2012 VS 2008 IN 4 BATTLEGROUND STATES
State, Party . . . . . . . . . 2012 . . . . . . 2008 . . . . . . Change
Colorado Democrats . . 1.27M . . . . . 1.29M . . . . -1%
Colorado Republicans . 1.15M . . . . . 1.07M . . . . +7%
Florida Democrats . . . . 4.25M . . . . . 4.28M . . . . -1%
Florida Republicans . . . 4.16M . . . . . 4.05M . . . . +3%
Ohio Democrats* . . . . . 2.70M . . . . . 2.94M . . . . -8%
Ohio Republicans* . . . . 2.60M . . . . . 2.68M . . . . -3%
Virginia Democrats . . . 1.97M . . . . .
1.96M . . . . +1%
Virginia Republicans . . 1.82M . . . . .
1.73M . . . . +6%
* State of Ohio has not finished its vote count yet
Source: Wikipedia (retrieved 18 Nov)
You didn't expect that result? But the numbers don't lie. Obama's
highly-praised GOTV effort with their data-mining Narwhal project, resulted in
'flat' turnout, no significant decline but no growth either (except Ohio, which
likely will be very similar to the other three when the Ohio count is
finished). Meanwhile Romney achieved a considerable jump between 3% and 7%
actual increase in these states (except Ohio but that is likely to be also a
jump when counting is finished).
While the Romney voter targeting system Orca crashed on election day, and they
had no inputs from some states, etc, the actual GOTV effort in these four
states, that decided the election, outperformed the highly-praised Obama GOTV
effort by on average 5 percent! The margin in the election nationally was 3%.
That was a heroic and highly successful effort by Romney, but - it ultimately
failed, because it was 'just not enough'. Each of these four states obviously
went to Obama. So Romney's team was able to energise 203,000 new Republican
voters to show up in these four states, that McCain had failed to find, while
Obama's team lost 296,000 voters now in 2012, out of these four states, that
Obama had gotten to vote for them in 2008. In total. Romney's Get-Out-The-Vote
effort in the four states that mattered, bested Obama's famous GOTV effort by
half a million votes! And yet its called a failure?
How's that for some puzzling 'unconventional wisdom' for ya? Yes. Romney team's
Get-Out-The-Vote 'ground game' did outperform - by a wide margin, 5% in the
polls, half a million votes margin - where it counted, in those four
battleground states. But it was 'just not good enough'. Romney still lost these
four states by 450,000 votes in these four states. (Isn't math fun? I would
love to see anyone else report on this, I mean the math is right there! Look at
the numbers in that table!)
HOW THE WEST WAS WON - COLORADO
So lets see what won the four elections then. Lets start with Colorado. In
Colorado 2.4 million votes were cast and Obama won by 123,000 for a victory
margin of 4.9%. What decided it for Obama?
It wasn't the gender gap. Nationally, Obama had a female voting advantage of 9
points, a very deep gender gap. But in Colorado there was no gender gap at all
- in favor of women. Actually Obama did better winning men than women.
Surprising? This is what we learn, when we look at numbers.
Colorado was decided in the Latino vote, and on the issue of immigration. But
before we look at that, check out this number. The Evangelical vote in Colorado
was up 4% from 2008. Romney the Mormon had gotten a huge bump from the
Evangelical community. After splitting some of the vote with Obama, it still
netted him 52,000 votes. Almost half-way to the winning margin in Colorado. The
Evangelical community and church-led GOTV definitely worked very hard for
Romney in the state. But yes, the Latino vote also grew, by 1% which added
12,000 votes to Obama, and with an improving margin preferring Obama over
Romney, than what they earlier preferred Obama over McCain in 2008, the Latino
community added 91,000 votes for Obama.
The decisive factor in Colorado was the immigration question, should there be
amnesty for illegal immigrants. Romney's 'self-deportation' points scored very
badly and meanwhile Obama's Executive Order to allow illegal children of
immigrants to pursue legal status through the Dreamers Act, helped decide the
vote in Colorado. The split on immigration was 120,000 votes in Obama's favor.
This is how Colorado was won, the most important issue for the state. But that
was the 'how'. What about the 'when'. That is very interesting. Colorado voters
did not have 9% undecided voters left a week before Election day. In fact,
Colorado was effectively decided by the summer. 74% of voters in Colorado had
made up their minds by the end of August! And they split to Obama already then
by 6 points. There were not enough 'moderate' or 'independent' voters left in
the state of Colorado for Romney to get the margins left to win in that state.
So that is perhaps why Obama was always Mr Cool and Axelrod and gang were
always so smugly comfortable about their 'Western Firewall'. Remember, Narwhal
was the most accurate voter measurement and targeting system ever devised, so
Team Obama knew what was the real situation in Colorado, even if the occasional
public poll might suggest the race was supposedly getting more tight. It
wasn't. Colorado was decided on two moves. When Romney said 'self-deportation'
in the Republican Primaries, and when Obama signed Dreamers. Colorado was
signed, sealed and delivered.
Understand what the data now tell us. Colorado was not in play this Autumn. And
Romney did not lose Colorado with his 47% comment or fumbling the Libya press
conference or his silly Jeep ads on TV, etc. And Obama did not win Colorado
with his Presidential actions around Hurricane Sandy or the endorsements from
General Colin Powell and the Mayor of New York, billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Chris
Christie saying nice things about Romney did not help Obama win Colorado. Romney
lost Colorado ten months prior to that hurricane, in January 2012, at the
Republican debate in Florida, when he faced his Primary rivals and wanted to
appear tough, a 'severe conservative' and was picking fights with Texas
Governor Rick Perry around immigration. Romney uttered that immortal phrase
'self-deportation'. Maybe Romney needed to make that kind of harsh statements
just to win his Florida Primary - which Romney won by a wide margin, arguably
this statement was not needed to win Florida at the time - but that statement
did cost him Colorado in the actual election now in November. Obama very
smartly sealed that fate, by capitalizing on the immigration issue in June,
with his Dreamers Act.
The vote margin for Obama in Colorado ended up being 4.9% so of these four
battleground states, it was the one that was most lop-sided. Romney's
immigration statements and the tone also from the Republican party, in
particular in that part of the USA - like the hostile treatment in Arizona,
where obviously the white Republican supporters felt it wrong for Obama's
administration to take Arizona to court about the 'Papers Please' law, but
Latinos would see Obama the hero. And add to it the first Latina Supreme Court
Judge, the Mayor of San Antonio, Mr Castro, giving the Convention Keynote
Address etc. That is all only more to convince that Democrats were on the right
side of the Latino issues and the Republicans were on the wrong side.
What could have Romney done to fix this? Gosh, obviously, he should have walked
his 'self-deportation' comments back - come on, he said them in Florida - as
soon as his pollsters reported to him, that the Hispanic community was in
revolt. That would not have been hard, Romney flip-flopped on just about
everything else he ever said. He should have adopted a far more friendly tone
the rest of the Primary season, especially towards Latinos the moment Rick
Perry had quit the race, even if that meant the fight would have dragged on a
week or two longer with the pesky Rick Santorum. Romney shouldn't have thrown
the Latin vote under the bus like this (as it would also impact him in Florida,
obviously).
A Latin Vice Presidential choice could have gone a good way to neutralizing
this mistake, selecting for example Marco Rubio as his VP would have been, in
hindsight, a far better and useful choice than Paul Ryan who ended up not
delivering any state, not even his home state of Wisconsin, and no other
demographic that Romney hadn't already secured. Could it have erased 5 points?
Maybe, maybe not, but if Romney also had adopted a softer tone and perhaps even
gone after some extremist conservatives, like some talk radio celebrities, in a
'Sister Souljah' moment, it might have been recoverable.
VIRGINIA IS FOR LOVERS
Next lets go to Virginia. Virginia cast 3.8 million votes, the margin was
149,000 ie 3.9% in favor of the President. What decided Virginia? First, there
was some very good news for President Obama. Virginia has a major military
demographic. In 2008, in the national Exit Poll (but not asked specifically in
the State of Virginia), McCain held a 10 point advantage among voters who had
military background. In the Virginia 2012 Exit Poll, they asked if voters had
family serving in the military (but this was not asked in the national poll now
in 2012) and of that vote, Obama split with Romney 49/49. Obama had erased a 10
point disadvantage that usually goes to the Republicans. That was very good
news out of Virginia to Team Obama and the Democrats.
It probably did not hurt, that Romney was a draft dodger in France rather than
fighting in Vietnam. And obviously Obama had proven a good Commander in Chief,
and had ended the war in Iraq, and caught Osama bin Laden and Michelle Obama
had been looking after veterans and their families.
But there is a more troubling item in Virginia for Romney. The Evangelical vote
deserted him where he really needed it. The Evangelical vote nationally was
identical to what McCain got in 2008 and the proportion won by Romney was
better than McCain got. And the Evangelical vote delivered 4 percent more for
Romney in Colorado as we saw in the above. But in Virginia, there was a big
drop of 5% lost in Evangelical voters, compared to 2008. Had Romney gotten just
the same vote as McCain, he would have had 112,000 votes more in Virginia. Not
quite enough to tie the state, but make it really close.
Virginia was won in the War on Women. The gender gap was the deepest of these
four states (strangely, in none of these four states, was the gender gap bigger
than the national average, but in Virginia it matched the national average). So
Obama had a 9 point advantage just in that. And then there was abortion.
Virginia has until quite recently been thought of as a good Christian-values
'red state' with conservative views, but recent trends have turned it more
liberal. This year, the Virginia State legislature and the Governor Bob
McDonnell passed a law requiring a medically unnecessary ultrasound, that the
woman would also have to pay for, before getting an abortion. In the original
bill it was even an intrusive 'transvaginal' ultrasound (thats a word I never
expected to write on this blog). While the intrusive part was removed, the law
went into effect and now McDonnell is assigned with the epithet "Governor
Ultrasound" and it ended his chances of becoming Romney's Vice President.
Nonetheless, this state law caused the womens' rights groups to be highly
energized in Virginia and they marched and protested all through the year. It
now can be seen in the Exit Poll for the state.
Nationally abortion rights found approval by 67% of the voters, in Virginia it
was 70%. The margin for Obama among those who approved of abortion was
nationally 23 points, but in Virginia it was 30 points. So Obama gained 7
points compared to the national average, out of the war on women, among those
who approved of abortion. It meant 4.7 points in the polls. Well more, than
Obama's winning margin in the state. And obviously, as Paul Ryan was known for
his ultra-extremist views on abortion and authoring several bills he'd proposed
to congress to limit abortion - including one co-authored with then Congressman
Akin - yes Mr Legitimate Rape guy of Missouri who lost a sure Republican
pick-up seat against highly unpopular Democratic Senator McCaskill trying to protect
her seat in a safely Republican state that voted for Romney by 10 points over
Obama - yes, Ryan's selection as VP damaged Romney in Virginia, it did not help
at all. Had Romney not picked Ryan, but rather picked any of a number of moderate
Senators or Governors (Portman, Christie etc) the choice would have helped at
least mitigate some of this damage, not made it worse in Virginia, as Ryan's
choice definitely did.
And again, that was the 'how' what about the 'when'. Virginia also was decided
well before the Autumn full election cycle got under way. The Exit Poll reveals
that 78% of Virginians had decided their vote before the end of August, and
Obama won those voters by a margin of 9 points. For Romney to have recovered,
he would have had to win a massive 67% of all remaining undecided voters
between September, October and November in that state which had gone for Obama
in 2008 by six points. Almost impossible.
Romney did not lose Virginia. The Republican party, in particular the
over-zealous Tea-Party led Virginia state party and its extremist Governor,
lost Virginia for Romney. I do not know why 5% of the state's Evangelical vote
did not turn out for Romney, that would have helped a lot, but this was not a
state lost by a bad candidate or bad message or bad campaign. It was lost by a
bad party. Romney did not lose Virginia, the Republicans lost it for him.
Meanwhile, what did Obama do? The first act he signed as President was the
Lilly Ledbetter act about fair pay. He appointed women to the Supreme Court and
the nation's most admired woman, his former rival, Hillary Clinton as his
Secretary of State. Obama regularly championed womens' causes including
standing up to Rush Limbaugh with the 'slut' comments around Sandra Fluke.
Obama has most definitely been the most feminist-issue supportive US President
of all time, and while the Republican party nationally was also fumbling on all
issues from the womens' contraception hearing in Congress where only men were
allowed to testify, to silly comments like legitimate rape and that rape
children are gifts from god, etc. And the Democratic party meanwhile had a
female head of its Congressional delegation and fought for various womens'
issues during the year.
What could Romney have done differently? Virginia is where he really could have
used a female VP choice, like Condi Rice or Senator Kelly Ayotte or Governor
Jan Brewer etc. But that would not have been enough, he would definitely have
taken a vocal and strong position on behalf of women, against the extremist and
bullying comments from 'slut' to 'legitimate rape'. Or imagine the Republican
Convention, if rather than wasting one day on 'You didn't build that' they had
instead held a Republican Women celebration day, featuring famous strong
Republican leaders including.. dare I say it.. Sarah Palin.. That could have
helped. And Romney should have spoken strongly against the Republican Party
Platform that wanted to ban all abortions. He should have said openly it was
wrong - in fact far better, would have been to have had a public debate and
then - decide not to include the language. To show American women voters that
the Republican party is not trying to take over abortion rights. This is an issue
that weighs very heavily on the Republicans now, as they are clearly on the
wrong side of history. But as Virginia was decided only on 3.9% - I do think a
female VP choice could have erased much of the Republican party damage. But
Romney would have had to then still stand up for women to make it work.
GIRL I'M JUST A JEEPSTER FOR YOUR LOVE - OHIO
So lets move onto Ohio. Ohio was not decided in the summer. Ohio was in play
till the end. And it was decided by a thinner margin still, by only 1.9% (as of
Sunday's count) and 103,000 votes out of 5.3 million cast. And while there was
a modest increase in Youth vote for Obama in Florida, Virginia and Colorado,
there was no Youth bump at all in Ohio. The Youth percentage 17% was exactly
same as in 2008, and Obama's votes from that group were up 1% only, from 61% to
62%. Out of Ohio's 5.3 million votes, the 'improved' Obama vote out of the
youth was yes, under two tenths of one percent. Far far too small to register
even in the rounding-off error.
Ohio had a strange 'discovery' of 4% more black voters in 2012 than they had in
2008. Strange in that obviously Obama was the first-ever black Presidential
candidate the Ohioans could vote for, four years ago, and you'd think just
about anyone with any black history in their blood would have already voted for
him. But no, the Obama Narwhal voter analysis system was able to find 4% more
black voters in the state. That was huge. That was twice the winning margin
right there and we could close the book on Ohio right here. Except lets not.
Remember, that while Obama found 4% more blacks, they still lost 8% in total
turnout from 2008 where Romney only lost 3% compared to what McCain achieved in
2008. No. There was something else that decided Ohio. It wasn't the Latinos and
it wasn't the women. It wasn't amnesty for illegals and it wasn't the military.
In Ohio, it was the auto industry bail-out. Of course.
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt. Yes, Romney did not write that headline, but he did
foolishly appear on TV interviews admitting to that column and specifically admitting
to that headline. Nationally, the labor union vote split 60/40 for Obama. In
Ohio the labor union vote also split 60/40 for Obama. But what about people who
had family working in the car industry (here, the Exit Polls actually do not
report the number, they only report for those who do not have such family, but
obviously the missing number is easy to calculate out). The split for car
industry families was 70/30 in favor of Obama.
That is ten points out of 9% who have family in the car industry. The margin
just there is 85,000 votes, nearly the winning margin. When you add the point
of did the voter approve of the auto bail-out, Obama wins the issue by a wide
margin.
Ohio was certainly close, and a diverse, large state with farmland and industry
and universities etc, the race is always close for Ohio. And while the auto
industry bailout was decisive, it could have been mitigated and other aspects
could have come into play. But if you want an election to be decided on clearly
defined, opposite issues, then you can't really get more opposite than what
Romney proposed (originally, in his article, not the later flipflopping) and
what Obama decided to do, where at the time public opinion was against the
decision. It may be, that Romney thought when writing that article, that he was
'only' damaging his chances in Michigan, the car-making state, and that by
writing such an article, being the son of a former car boss, he'd get a lot of
visibility for it. That in turn, would help Romney - years before 2012 election
cycle would be starting - to get the attention for the Republican party, that
Romney was 'serious' and even as a kind of 'car guy' he 'stuck to his guns' and
didn't 'cave' on the auto bail-out.
But it did come to bite him in the ass. He lost Michigan, it wasn't even in
play, and the article damaged his chances in other industrialized states
serving the car industry like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and yes, Ohio. Meanwhile,
Obama could count on strong support of his rescue of the car industry in all
those same states, in particular as the car industry had already recovered and
generated new jobs, well-paying factory jobs.
Probably many of the election issues played in Ohio, from the negative TV ads
to the 47% video to how Obama was perceived with Hurricane Sandy. But the one
final nail in this very close election, that sealed Romney's fate, was a
campaign mistake - the TV ad misleadingly suggesting Jeep was moving jobs to
China. Romney was broadly ridiculed for that, it was in all local papers, and
very unusually, several of the auto industry bosses reacted to it, calling the
ad misleading. Where the support of the auto industry helped boost Obama votes,
and the support of the auto industry bail-out was a vote-winner for him, the TV
ad about Jeep no doubt only damaged Romney (the effect of that TV ad was not
explicitly asked in the Exit Poll for Ohio).
Romney caused his own troubles with Ohio, with his original article. Obama took
the opposite view and made a decisive Presidential action, and took a gamble it
would work, which succeeded economically, and was seen as a triumph in the
state of Ohio. If there was any room for Romney to pull out a thin victory in
Ohio, that was sunk by his Jeep ad and that was the fault of his bumbling
campaign.
What could he have done differently? Obviously not write that article, or at
least, when interviewed about it on TV, to say the headline is not accurate..
But lets say its a given, that was water under the bridge. What could Romney
have done now in 2012? Because this state was so close, I think the choice of
Ohio Senator Bob Portman as Vice President, would have probably been enough. He
is highly respected and spoke often about Ohio industry etc. And obviously not
pick a fight with US auto industry with that silly Jeep ad. If the race was on
2%, those two changes would have delivered Ohio for Romney.
DON'T BLAME IT ON THE SUNSHINE - FLORIDA
Which brings us to Florida. The tightest of the four
battleground states, out of 8.4 million votes cast, the decision went by 73,000
ie less than one percent. What decided Florida?
First, the obvious, Latino turnout was up, the share of Latin voters selecting
Obama was up, so this was huge for Team Obama. Except, that Team Romney had
managed to increase retired age voter turnout - and increase their share of
preferring Romney over Obama, above what McCain had managed in 2008. These two
sides roughly wash each other out.
The Florida vote was decided on Medicare. First, yes, the elderly ie retired ie
over 65 year vote did increase both turnout, and the share voting for Romney.
But overall, the Medicare across all age demographics was a solid Obama win
delivering 340,000 voter margin to Obama, four times his winning margin in the
state. Medicare was a brave, bold risk that Romney took, when naming Paul Ryan
as his VP, but it definitely backfired in Florida and cost them the state. If
Romney had picked any other VP choice, then Medicare had not been one of the
top issues of Florida and he'd be up 200,000 votes easily in the state of
Florida now. And ironically, Ryan didn't deliver his home state of Wisconsin
either, to partially compensate for causing Romney to lose Florida. Yes,
selecting Paul Ryan was actually about as damaging to Romney's winning chances,
as selecting Sarah Palin was to McCain's chances four years earlier (as Exit
Polls 2008 show, more people voted against Palin than in support of her)
Obama's team and all Democratic surrogates in Florida were of course thrilled
to see Paul Ryan the surprise pick as VP in the summer and proceeded to hit him
hard, in particular in Florida, on being the poster-child for killing Medicare
(turning it into a voucher) plus privatising Social Security and also damaging
Medicaid. Obama would mention it in his stump speeches and the theme came up
regularly in TV ads. Bill Clinton's nomination speech at the Convention took a
hard hit at Ryan and Republicans threatening those three, etc.
What could Romney have done differently? This was damage done by his choice of
Ryan. Had Ryan not been on the ticket, the Medicare issue would never have
risen to national prominence this election cycle and he'd not have had to worry
about Florida. If this issue was delivering 340,000 votes to Obama in a tight
election of 8.4 million votes where the decision was down to 73,000 votes, yes,
this was purely the damage done by Ryan. Any other VP would have been better
and Romney would have been several hundred thousand votes ahead on election day
winning Florida easily. It would not have 'needed' a Florida guy like Marco
Rubio for example.
FOUR ELECTIONS AND A FUNERAL
So that was four elections. Colorado was decided early this year, on
immigration. Virginia was also decided before the general election cycle even
got under way, on the war on women and abortion rights etc. Ohio went down to
the wire but was decided on the auto industry bailout and in the end, the Jeep
ad. And finally Florida, was only brought into play because Ryan was named VP
and what should have been a safe, but marginal Republican state this cycle,
turned into a fully open race, due to Medicare.
John McCain lost these four states to Obama by 950,000 votes four years ago.
Romney clawed back half that, and lost these same four states only by 450,000
votes. McCain lost Indiana and North Carolina to Obama, states that Romney
flipped back to the Republican column winning those rather easily. Romney did
not lose this election because he was a bad candidate (even though he was
severely flawed). He did not lose because he was not 'conservative enough'. He
did not lose the ground game and Get-Out-The-Vote - in these four states where
it mattered, Romney's team outperformed Obama's team by half a million votes more
than the election of 2008.
Romney lost four elections. In Colorado he lost, because he calculated early in
the Republican primaries, way back in January, that he had to be a severe
conservative against Latinos on immigration. We saw right at the last debates
and the end of the election, that Romney was nothing like that, he was a
moderate. But to win his party's nomination, in this year with the Tea Party so
strong, he had to pretend to be something more extreme. It killed Colorado and
Obama took advantage. In Virginia he was sunk by his party waging its bizarre
war on women, compounded by the angry old white men's party image that his
party was promoting everywhere. Obama was all to happy to provide the modern
man as contrast. Romney lost Virginia months before Election day, and had a
gender gap of 9 points in the final count for the state.
In Ohio, Romney did cause an unenforced error with his utterly unnecessary
article suggesting Detroit to go bankrupt. Obama's decision to act in direct
opposite did set up a clear contrast for Ohio voters, and Romney campaign's
error to run the Jeep ad finally sealed his fate in that tightly contested
state. And in Florida, the election was lost when Romney decided to pick the
fresh-faced young 'policy wonk' extremist Paul Ryan as his running mate, which
brought Medicare dead center into Florida politics, an issue they were to lose on.
Obama and all Democrats in the state ran on the issue against all Republicans.
Romney was able to get more Evangelical voters in Colorado than John McCain.
Romney was able to get more elderly voters to turn out in Florida than McCain
did. Romney was able to totally neutralize the gender gap in Colorado. Romney
argued for voucherizing Medicare, defended his position on the Detroit
bankruptcy, and argued for self-deportation of immigrants, and suggested
strongly growing the military. Romney stood firm on no tax increases, not even for millionaires ie 'job creators'. Romney and
Ryan argued for wanting to end Roe v Wade through conservative nominees to the Supreme Court ie end the Supreme Court's protection
of the right to abortion. These are all strongly conservative positions, not wish-washy moderate positions. Romney
did not lose because he was not conservative enough. He was losing major issues
where the Republican view was off the mainstream of America today.
On immigration, Romney and Ryan were on the wrong side of history. The national
Exit Poll says 65% of Americans want illegal immigrants to be given a chance to
apply for legal status. Only 28% are
against it. Romney was on the wrong side. That cost him Colorado. On abortion, 59%
think abortion should be legal and only 36% think it should be illegal.
Abortion was the issue in Virginia. Romney was on the wrong side.
On the auto bail-out and Let Detroit Go Bankrupt, the question was not asked
nationally, but in Ohio 60% of the voters thought the auto bail-out was good vs
36% disapproving. Romney was the poster-child for being against the auto
bail-out, and in a state where 9% of the voters have family in the car industry
and thus essentially everyone knows someone working there - you are on the
wrong side of a critical state-wide issue. Romney was again on the wrong side
of what decided the state.
And on Medicare, 52% of the voters felt Obama would be better at protecing
Medicare, vs 44% for Romney. This issue was decisive in Florida and again,
Romney was on the wrong side of history. But very very clearly, Romney was not
vulnerable on this point, until he named Mr Voucherize Medicare Congressman Paul
Ryan as his VP choice. Romney lost all four states, by being on the wrong side
of history on the biggest issue of that state. He lost fair and square. His
party lost too, Republicans took a beating all throughout the nation in Senate
and Congressional races, often related to these four issues.
I have written several times that Romney was a flawed candidate - and he was.
And that he had a bad message (mostly, a confused message, stemming from his
continuous flipflops and deliberate lies). And that he had a badly run
campaign. And that all is true. And those things all matter in the big election
race that did not decide this election. The 'beauty contest' part, for those
other 46 states. These four states were decided primarily on those four issues
and that is why Romney lost and Obama won. So says the math. So says the Exit
Polls and the actual vote counts.
Now Romney is not content in being the loser. He wants to become the dead man
in politics. His commentary to his donors on the phone call, where he reprised
his 47% themes now accusing the election for being stolen by bribes, again
tells of the extent to which the conservatives are willing to go to delusion,
to deny facing reality. What was Romney's promise of the navy bigger than in
World War 1? A bribe to Virginia and New Hampshire and Florida, where large
naval bases are and where ships are built.
What was Romney's promise of a tax cut to millionaires, and to the middle class
taxes also, other than a bribe, vote for me, I will cut your taxes, Obama will
raise your taxes. What was the promise that the Voucherizing of Medicare would
not hit current seniors, only those under 55 years of age - other than a bribe
to the elderly vote (one that worked too, for its intended age group, at least
in Florida, but it backfired in the larger younger age groups obviously). Don't
you go Romney calling the pot a kettle. All politicians pander and you did it
just as happily as Obama did, from promising jobs in Pennsylvania to coal
workers, to promising gas pipeline jobs in Colorado. Yes, now all Republicans
are running away from what remains of the political stature of Romney. He is
likely to become one of the most isolated political figures ever, in his last
days, well, maybe not as much as Nixon haha, but close.
IMAGINE IF IT HAD BEEN CHRISTIE OR JEB BUSH OR JINDAL
Imagine if the Republican candidate this year had been someone with a strong
Republican supporter base and history with the party. Romney was always the
outsider. So imagine if this exact same result now, was with someone else on
the top of the ticket, like a Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie or Jeb Bush.
The Republican party would be circling the wagons around their losing
candidate, pointing out - that hey, you won more popular votes than John McCain
the iconic war hero, against this populist sitting president (the votes are
still being counted, but its pretty obvious by the time all votes are in,
Romney will pass McCain with something like 100,000 more votes). Definitely,
Romney lost no state that McCain didn't lose, but Romney stole two states back
from Obama - Indiana and North Carolina. Romney did better, in what is a horrid
year for Republicans all over, when facing a sitting president. This was a wave
election against Republicans (a modest wave, not the Tsunami of 2008 for
Democrats, nor the massive wave that Republicans had in the mid-terms of 2010,
but a wave election nonetheless, Republicans lost in all three national races,
the President, Senate and Congress)
If Romney was popular with the base, they'd now be cheering him, you clawed
half-way back, now return to the race, lets work four years, and you'll win in
2016 ! Isn't that true? If it had been Christie or Jeb Bush or Jindal or
someone of that calibre, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, whoever, who had lost by only
206 Electoral College votes to 332, and the national popular vote cutting the
loss down from the 7% that McCain lost by, to only 3%. You know there would be
a big chorus yelling '2016, 2016, 2016' - but none of that. They want Romney to
vanish. The man who really threw it all away.
THERE IS NO ONE THING
Yes, there was a big youth support of Obama, and in many battleground states
his support among the youth was up from the record-setting 2008. But it was
flat in Ohio. The Youth did not deliver the election to Obama. Yes, there was a
massive national gender gap, on average 9 points for Obama. But in Colorado,
there was no gender gap at all, Romney tied Obama and Obama won the male vote,
not the female vote in that state. The reason Obama won was not the female
vote. There was a surge in Latin vote yes, in Florida and Colorado, but not in Ohio
or Virginia. There was a surprising increase in Black turnout in Ohio but not
in the other three battleground states that decided this election. If Hurricane
Sandy influenced voters, it would be a tiny percent of the total national vote
in 2012, but the decisive battleground states of Colorado and Virginia had long
since decided who they would vote for and the election result was sealed long
before those waves surged on the Jersey shore.
Romney was a flawed candidate. Romney had a confusing and often bad message.
Romney ran a bad campaign. And Romney was stuck in a year when the Republican
party was an anchor weighing him down unable to swim to his normal ability. But
there was no one thing that decided this election, not two or three things. The
election 2012 was decided in four states, that by election day would be
decisive - Colorado, Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Romney had to win a sweep of
those states, and of the five most contested states, these four were among the
tightest of this election cycle.
Romney lost Virginia due to the womens' issues and a strongly energized womens'
vote. His party did most of the damage there, led by Governor Ultrasound Bob
McDonnell of Virginia, the Republican, himself. Romney didn't help himself by
never saying if he was for wage fairness and damaged his position by naming
Paul Ryan his VP.
Romney lost Colorado due to 'self-deportation' - a position Romney was forced
to take in the prolonged and extremist Republican primary season, where Romney
sealed his fate in the state by January of the year, in a televised Republican
debate from Florida (another state where self-deportation would play badly).
Romney lost Florida, very very tightly, when he selected Paul Ryan as his VP
choice, and suddenly brought Medicare dead-center to all state politics with
high proportion of elderly voters. In Florida, the ticket did actually win over
the retired vote but lost the Medicare fight with the youger middle-aged voters
and younger voters, and it took away what otherwise would have been a
relatively 'safe' Republican 'red state' of Florida this year.
And Romney lost Ohio with his editorial 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' and its
aftermath including his silly Jeep jobs to China TV ad.
The Obama team knew what issues were relevant in these four states, as did
Romney's team. Obama passed the Dreamers Act in June to further capitalize on
the sentiment against self-deportation in Colorado (and helping also in
Florida). Romney knew that the Medicare issue was threatening Florida and thus
sent for example Paul Ryan (with his mom) to go explain to Floridians that they
were not going to take their Medicare away from the retired people. Obama knew the
women's issues were at play in Virginia, which is why he for example so visibly
embraced Sandra Fluke in the Rush Limbaugh aftermath, to the degree of giving
her a speaking slot at the Democratic Convention. And Romney knew that Ohio was
going to be won or lost around the auto bail-out, which is why he tried
everything he could to distance himself from the original editorial, including
claiming at one point, that the actual government bail-out that Obama enacted,
was only following Romney's advice. His Jeep ad was a cynical last-minute ploy
to try to use propaganda, just repeating a lie hoping it will be believed, in
trying to win Ohio.
The election was decided on four very distinct issues, each of which was
relevant in one state and sometimes more than one, but none of which was
relevant in each of the four final battleground states. There were five
elections. The big sham election for the national vote, which also Obama won,
the latest count says by nearly 4 million votes and a margin of 3%. And the
real decisive four elections, one in Colorado and one in Virginia, which we now
see, were decided months before election day; and one in Florida and one in
Ohio, which were fought for very closely up until the end.
Did the 47% tape play in the election? Of course it did. It helped solidify the
feeling that Romney and the Republicans didn't care for poorer voters like
minorities, so it helped bring Colorado and Florida to the Democratic side. It
directly hit retired people, some of whom voted for Obama no doubt because of
the 47% tape - even as Romney won that age group in Florida. Similarly most of
Romney's campaign mistakes from why was Chris Christie giving the keynote
address for the Republican Convention? (New Jersey was never in play this year)
Imagine if that speaking slot was instead given to Marco Rubio, the Latino vote
in Colorado and Florida would have been less lop-sided. Or if the keynote had
been by a strong female leader of the Republicans like Condi Rice or Kelly
Ayotte etc, and helped diminish the Virginia vote split in women. Or given to
Ohio senator Bob Portman, as New Jersey was never in play, why not let the Ohio
Senator - after all he was a finalist for the VP slot - give his heartfelt reasons
in the public arena, why Romney was a good man also for his state, inspite of
some auto industry editorial once..
Imagine if instead of Clint Eastwood speaking to an empty chair, he would have
re-shot his 'Detroit is back' TV ad, but with a 'I stand with Romney defending
US car industry' as its theme. That would have received as much air play as the
Chair Monologues but it would have been in a positive way, using the Hollywood
legend to help Romney, not hurt him. Romney kept going back to Michigan and to
Ohio giving speeches that the Trees Are The Right Height and how he loved
American cars (and his wife drove two Cadillacs). Imagine if Mr Detroit TV Ad
Eastwood would have been with Romney driving him in an open-top Gran Torino for
example, haha.. But Eastwood became the butt of all chair jokes for two months. Probably the biggest Hollywood icon to publically support the Republicans, was now an untouchable. If he'd not been allowed to embarrass himself on prime time TV with the Chair Monologues, Clint Eastwood could have - and judging by his strong support of Romney, would have - been one of the Romney ticket's biggest visibility draws in any state, doing publicity, drawing crowds. Now he was off the radar, Mr Confused Old Man.
At the Convention, a whole day was wasted on the utterly ridiculous 'You didn't
build that' meme. It was so useless, it was abandoned within weeks of the
Convention. What clown approved that, should be forever exiled from the
Republican party to go start his own party in the United States of Another
Reality. But again, imagine if on that day, the GOP had instead ran a theme of
'We are an open tent' and celebrated major Republican representatives who were
from minorities, from Bobby Jindal to the various Latinos and occasional blacks, to
for example Dick Cheney's daughter who is openly lesbian. How much would that
have diminshed the minorities voting gaps that the Republicans now faced. It
could not have fared worse than having every speaker of the day force into his
or her prepared speech the useless theme of 'You didn't build that' which
obviously was so rotten, it was discarded. But while the Republicans are not
currently known for being anything more than an old angry white guys' party, as
Senator Lindsey Graham himself calls it, at least some of that gap could have
been reduced by spending the day showcasing the ethnic diversity which still
exists to some degree in the party (I find it astonishing that in this day and
age, the Republicans actually lost women representatives in the Senate and
House, ie becoming even more male. Wow.)
OTHER QUICK FINDINGS FROM NATIONAL EXIT POLL
A few other tidbits that hit me from the national Exit Poll. A huge gender gap, gosh, 9% more of women voted for Obama - and why is this worse than the 7% more men who voted for Romney? Because women vote more in general, than men, 53/47. The GOP has to solve its gender gap, and fast. Electing ever less women to represent them at the highest offices is NOT the way to win the women over, while the Democrats vote in ever more women, obviously.
Whites broke 59/39 for Romney, the white guy, against the black dude. Yeah, how solid would that white vote be, if the GOP nominated a brown guy (or a black woman) and next time the Dems nominated a white woman named Clinton, H. Meanwhile how is the future demographic shift setting its preferences? George Bush 2 got up to 40% of the Hispanic vote. This time? Hispanics went 71/27 for Obama! Asians (who certainly are not lazy or expecting gifts or handouts haha) went 73/26 for Obama and the Blacks, well it was a total bloodbath as could be expected, 93/6. Houston we have a problem.. The demographic shifts favor the Democrats and most alarmingly they shift ever more strongly towards the Democrats.
Did Romney win the electorate over as a competent foreign policy President? He was lucky this was not a foreign policy election and there was no Iranian or North Korean 'October surprise'. Voters preferred Obama on foreign policy by 56/33. Luckily for Romney only 5% of the electorate considered foreign policy as the most important topic of this election. Obama meanwhile lost the issue of the federal deficit by even worse numbers 32/66.
How did the 47% comment play in the electorate (and the other Romney gaffes like his wife's two Cadillacs, the $10,000 dollar bet, the 'I like to fire people' and 'Corporations are people my friend' etc)? On the question of 'Cares about people like me' Romney lost 18/81. Thats a 63 point difference! Luckily for Romney, only 21% of the electorate said that issue mattered a lot.. But consider, that is 13% of the total electorate there, 16.7 million people who voted against Romney because he did not care about people like the voter (combined, with obviously in parallel, that they felt the President DID care about people like the voter).
On tax increases, 47% wanted to raise taxes on those earning over $250,000 and 13% felt like taxes should be raised on all. So Obama's position of raising at least some taxes had support of 60%. Romney's position of no new taxes only had support of 35%. Here again, both Romney and the formal Republican position is on the wrong side of history (and current budget negotiations and comments by many Republican leaders attest to the fact, that they have heard how the electorate has spoken on taxes).
The biggest issue was obviously the economy. Romney had argued that the economy was worse now than when Obama took over (a point that, like many of Romney's arguments, was factually incorrect). On the question of how is the US economy, the electorate verdict was brutal to Obama: only 23% felt the economy was good or excellent, while 77% felt it was not good or poor. How did they think of the direction? Here Romney loses the argument, 39% felt it was getting better and only 30% felt it was getting worse, with the rest saying it is about the same. But in trying to blame Obama for the economic mess, Romney's team had failed, the electorate said quite clearly at 53/38 the problems were due to President Bush 2, not due to Obama. Romney had essentially lost the economic argument! Romney was the business man, this was by far the biggest economy election since Carter v Reagan in 1980, and Romney couldn't get to the winning side of the economy, against a Law Professor and Community Organizer? But this was the constant fumbling and misguided messaging, the Romney campaign could not stay on message for even one week at a time.
How did the Romney the millionaire tax-dodger plutocrat argument play for Obama? 55% of the electorate felt that the US currently favors the rich, vs 39% who felt it was fair to all Americans. (Romney, why didn't you release those tax returns immediately?)
President Obama had a positive personal rating, 53/46. His job approval as President almost identical, 54/45, which were well above the performnace approval given to his administration which was only even at 49/49. Obama had higher personal ratings than that of his administration.
Mitt Romney's personal approval ended up minus at 3 points, 47/50. Its very tough to get elected if the majority of the country doesn't like you, and here Romney's wooden personality, his frequent elitist gaffes and some of his peculiar decisions (like not releasing his taxes) were no doubt at fault, giving the impression of a disdain and even contempt of the electorate - which then was multiplied by the 47% video (and again, now, after the election, his recordings about the bribes by gift-giving Obama to the minorities)
The Anti-Obama vote, ie the Fox Viewer poll was surprisingly light, nationally, only 5.1% of the electorate voted against Obama, rather than for Romney (or for Obama or against Romney). Equally, nationally, only 4.1% voted against Romney, inspite of all the final talk of revenge etc. So even as Obama's big summer push to paint Romney as unelectable did no doubt take its toll, nationally it didn't even match the Fox Vote against Obama.
There was a myth that the final vote breaks against the sitting president and for the challenger. That has now been proven to be untrue. The vote on the last day (3% of the total vote) broke 7 points for Obama, 51% to 44%.
IN SUM
The 2012 election was not lost because Romney was not
conservative enough. It was not lost, because Obama's Get-Out-The-Vote machine
outperformed Romney's. It was not won for Obama by Hurricane Sandy, nor was it
stolen for Obama by Chris Christie's hugs.
The 2012 election was decided in four states, which had four local elections,
decided each on a different issue. All Obama needed was to win one of those
four. Romney, however, landed on the wrong side of history on all four of those
four issues. Two of those four states were decided well before the debates or
even the Conventions. In Colorado Romney lost because he proposed 'Self
Deportation'. In Virginia Romney lost because the Virginia Republican party had
angered and activated the Virginia voter base to come out in force on women's
issues, including abortion.
In Ohio, Romney lost because of his earlier article suggesting to Let Detroit
Go Bankrupt, and in Florida Romney lost by bizarrely raising the sleeping issue
of Medicare, by appointing Mr Poster Child for Voucherizing Medicare,
Congressman Paul Ryan as his Vice President. The Ryan choice would also
energize Virginia voters even more against the Romney-Ryan ticket, due to
Ryan's extreme positions on abortion.
Can another candidate, who is 'better at the message' do better than Romney? If
the Republicans continue their wars against Latinos and an amnesty to them, and
the war against women and abortion, and threatening Medicare, they cannot in
2016 win Colorado or Virginia or Florida, even as the Detroit auto-bailout as
an issue will by then have receeded and other things might decide Ohio. If the
GOP doesn't abandon its archaic positions on so many areas where history has
moved on, they cannot win. Its not just about the demographics - which also are
pushing the battle against the Angry White Man's Party.
So what do you think? Make sense? And will we see actual numbers-oriented reality reported in the news, about how this election was really won?
UPDATE 6 DECEMBER - I have also calculated the performance metrics and data on the Get-Out-The-Vote activities of both camps, and their giant databases, Narwhal and Orca. You may enjoy the blog article comparing these two systems and their performance.
That's why, good analyst like Mr. Tomi Ahonen is like a rare gem.
Unlike so called analyst like pyramid research and other.... who were like RAW GAME... as raw as cheap coal
:)
Posted by: cycnus | November 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM
About the 'surprising 4% increase' in African American voting in Ohio.
You might remember Ohio as the state that somehow cant find enough voting machines in black precincts, even after 'learning' about the problem in 2008!
This year, Blacks were more ready to wait 4 hrs or more to cast their vote.
Voter resolve to make a difference by standing in line made the difference for the 'surprising' 4%.
Let's give them a hand. Applause.
Posted by: PK de Cville | November 19, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Is this analysis not a very long list of reasons why Romney would have been a bad president to begin with?
If the POTUS would make Romney's mistakes while in office, the disaster would have been horrific.
On the other hand, a person who can handle people and campaigns so well as to win re-election during a recession with massive unemployment, one can hope that s/he will recruit these talents to govern the country well.
Above all, the whole elections circus is also a "Governing test" for candidates. If you cannot handle your campaign well, you most likely will be unable to handle the office neither.
Posted by: Winter | November 19, 2012 at 01:04 PM
Whop. A great analysis from no one else but the master. I totally relished the 9000 + words of it. And I didn't regret any time spent on reading.
The US is a complex country quite alright, but in my opinion it is still the epitome of democracy worldwide.
Posted by: Afewgoodmen | November 19, 2012 at 01:49 PM
The best clown in a clown show is still a clown. And this time the Republicans fielded only clowns in their primary and ended up with Romney. Yet they still ended up with 48% of the vote even with such an unpalatable team. That could have been a landslide if the presidential and vice presidential candidates had been even minimally competent.
Posted by: Olavi | November 19, 2012 at 01:51 PM
It's been fascinating following the recriminations. Pardon for the mess below, HTML tags don't seem to want to work...
**********
Stop the circular firing squad. I’m here to tell you it is not only crazy, it is counterproductive.
No, Mitt was not the man we wanted. Yes, he was shoved on us by the establishment. But he was the best candidate we could have this year, and he campaigned well. He campaigned like he wanted it. Unlike McCain, he deserves our thanks, and a place as speaker at future conventions.
Why did we lose then?
Let’s start with the media. You don’t have to take my word for it. Go look at videos of the conventions. The Republicans’ reasonable convention, reasonable concentrating on the economy, made not a dent. But the Democrats abortionpalooza where we were told we belonged to the government, that became the great convention of the century.
**********
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/11/07/no-regrets-no-apologies/?singlepage=true
And a view from someone I'd regarded as a bit more level headed.
**********
I found out early on Election Day that Mitt Romney wouldn’t become our next president. I called my father, and he answered sounding somber. He told me that, based on early polling numbers, he didn't see a foreseeable way for Romney to pull it off. There’s a very specific tone of voice my father uses to deliver bad news, and I flashed back to 2008. Still, I must have been in denial, because I pointed out that Ohio and Florida hadn’t been called yet, and we all know that elections are decided in Ohio! My father just sighed and said, “Honey, I’m sorry.” I started to choke back tears.
**********
It is basic logic. When you alienate voting blocks, they vote against you. Less basic is that when you work for a voting block, only a certain percentage will vote for you.
As you said, effectively there were five elections. Each one had its specifics, while sharing some common ground, i.e. voteing blocks that cross state lines.
Romney alienated key voting blocks in battleground states. He also alienated several country-wide voting blocks. Alienating people doesn't win you votes. I'm surprised he gained so any votes, but I'm often surprised by the obtuseness of the American Electorate.
Neither of the two candidates was ready to tackle the big issues that face the United States.
1) The Corporate Welfare Bums (Lockheed Martin et al)
2) The over-incarceration issue
3) The runaway Patent/Copyright/Trademark systems
4) Under-regulation of the Finance system
5) The virtually non-existent Health Care System
6) Corporate capture of Agencies, and the Legislature
7) Politics controlled by the Rich
8) Tax reform
9) Corporate reform
So in 2016 they'll have another election, the same problems will still exist, and once again it will be style over substance.
Wayne
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 19, 2012 at 02:38 PM
Thank you. I live in Florida. IN 2010 we elected a Governor that everyone in Orlando hates. But the older gals in The Villages love. The Very, very retro Southern state legislators tossed out the republicans in democrat precincts by orchestrating six hour lines. Most Republicans in central and Southern Florida are over 65. Really, really stupid. Voter suppression made it prideful for the suppressed groups to stand tall- and vote. (besides being younger and able to)
The generation gap between baby boomers and the over 65 is still huge. They may not have jumped a guy and cut his hair but most wanted to. They still hate us. The male chauvinist pigs though love that their team is the bad boy and the females of the same age rub shoulder with some of those retro boys. Hey they hand their cash, their friend's cash and their family's cash to the ones with the bling. After all, ghetto culture got their ideas from Hollywood ideals. High school educated white males in the south also had Plantation owners for hundreds of years convincing them to hand their cash to their "betters." Where is the data showing sex and age and vote broken out so we can see that the women have wised up?
Democrats have the ethical and moral high ground. (See now Republicans can say that for 30 years and propagandize it.) Republicans set a very low bar. They stand for Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nothing to effect anyone I know or have ever known.
Except, they have the cash.
Posted by: Amanda | November 19, 2012 at 08:34 PM
Opiniones opinionibus profecto conveniens aliqua. Vestri blog suggero a recens inviso subject.Have arbitratus es circa aliquam inferendo socialis bookmarking buttons ad haec blogs. Saltem pro google.I realiter appreciate articles in vestri site. Vestri 'effectus mulctam job! Gratias multus.
Posted by: large acrylic pearls | November 20, 2012 at 08:32 AM
Wayne :
All these issues you describe for the US are true for other (many) countries as well.
Poor world
Posted by: vladkr | November 20, 2012 at 02:42 PM
Vladkr,
Agreed. They just tend to be more noticeable in the United States, because American news tends to show up everywhere in the Enlish speaking world. Chinese and Russian news doesn't.
And of course I live in Canada. We refer to our position as a "mouse sleeping next to an elephant", if the elephant rolls over, or trashes its economy, we are in trouble.
Wayne
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 20, 2012 at 02:57 PM
I've recently been in California and Hawaii... I was amazed that, according to US news, Sandy stopped at the Canadian border... just like Alien attacks, asteroids, viruses, etc. in Hollywood movies.
Is it thanks to Harper's super-strong border protection services ?
Posted by: vladkr | November 20, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Thanks for your work on digging through the numbers and coming up with these judgments backed by the exit polling data and your analysis.
I appreciate the effort.
May I please ask if you'd consider putting the Turnout Data (2012 vs 2008) for the four key swing states into an HTML table, or at least use a fixed-width font for them, so that it's easier for folks to read?
Posted by: Harper Mann | November 21, 2012 at 05:08 AM
Most Republicans in central and Southern Florida are over 65. Really, really stupid. Voter suppression made it prideful for the suppressed groups to stand tall- and vote. (besides being younger and able to)
The generation gap between baby boomers and the over 65 is still huge. They may not have jumped a guy and cut his hair but most wanted to. They still hate us. The male chauvinist pigs though love that their team is the bad boy and the females of the same age rub shoulder with some of those retro boys.
Posted by: Burberry Scarf | November 21, 2012 at 05:50 AM
Tomi, I've really enjoyed reading your views and analysis on this US election, although I'm a little surprised at the lack of Elop bashing contained within..haha. I just read an article confirming that Romney ultimately secured 47% of the popular vote, which is ironic karma given his judgemental comments targeted at 47% of the US population.
Posted by: Jon | November 23, 2012 at 07:40 PM
Very smart analysis, but take a look at this: "I think Republican consultants are mostly very stupid. I think they have no education. I think they have no sense of history. … If I throw away African Americans, and then I throw away Latinos, and then I throw away suburban women, and then I throw away people under 40, and then I throw away everything north of Philadelphia — there’s a morning where Republicans can’t get to a majority." This is the opinion of Newt Gingrich in 2007. And the position about inmigration of Romney was due to atacking the much less extreme position of Newt Gingrich about that.
Posted by: Bruno Crespo | November 24, 2012 at 05:16 PM
Lorem optimum, placuit hic multa scire velim mihi saepe videre, Optime!
Non multo identificatur circa vestri site et adhuc iam legentem secundum. 1 posui, ut relicta potero elit. i non evidens verificabitur dicens nisi ut Ive 'fruebatur legentem. Nice blog. minus valere, esse bookmarking custodiant visitans hoc web site valde typice.
Posted by: clarisonic mia | November 27, 2012 at 09:09 AM
Lots of observers have pointed out that Obama lost the white vote. The national numbers, however, are actually quite deceptive. Romney's margins amongst white voters nationally is the result of huge margins amongst these voters in traditionally Republican states, primarily those of the old Confederacy. Outside of the South, the state polls show that Obama split or won the white vote in most states.
Interestingly, this regional anomaly shows up in the rural/urban breakdown as well. Obama won most of the large Southern cities, but lost by massive margins in the rural areas. In the North, Midwest and West, the margins were much, much tighter. Romney's losses in wealthy, highly educated, suburbs of major cities- Somerset, NJ, Fairfax, VA, etc. bodes very poorly for Republicans moving forward.
Posted by: Hantu13 | November 28, 2012 at 03:48 AM
@Hantu13: Thank you for your observations. I wondered about that, "the white vote", and your comment clears up my uncertainty. Its the Southern male white vote that Obama had a problem with, not the white male in general.
Posted by: Eurofan | November 28, 2012 at 04:19 PM
What "the national exit poll" are you using? "The national Exit Poll says 65% of Americans want illegal immigrants to be given a chance to apply for legal status." "The split on immigration was 120,000 votes in Obama's favor" ??
Posted by: Don Breen | November 29, 2012 at 06:53 PM
Very quiet here, did you ran out of bad news and projections for Nokia as of late?
Posted by: globalcrawling | November 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM