In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to whether voters were contacted by the respective campaigns.
National Exits
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (13%) Obama 80, McCain 19
Only McCain (6%) McCain 82, Obama 17
Both (13%) McCain 51, Obama 47
Neither (66%) Obama 50, McCain 48
Contacted by the Obama/Kerry campaign?
Yes
(2004, 26%) Kerry 66, Bush 33
(2008, 26%) Obama 64, McCain 34
No
(2004, 74%) Bush 57, Kerry 42
(2008, 72%) McCain 50, Obama 48
Contacted by the McCain/Bush campaign?
Yes
(2004, 24%) Bush 62, Kerry 38
(2008, 18%) McCain 60, Obama 38
No
(2004, 76%) Kerry 52, Bush 47
(2008, 79%) Obama 55, McCain 43
Analysis. There is a wealth of information in this data which speaks very clearly to the effectiveness of the respective campaigns. Before looking over the information, we need to conceptualize how a good voter outreach operation works. In other words, who were the campaigns reaching out to, and why, and how does this data reveal whether the campaigns were effective in their outreach? In a campaign, the key group you are reaching out to is of course your base, the voters you want energized and out voting either on election day or earlier (depending on the state). After that, a good campaign is interested in reaching out to persuadables -- targeted voters who could swing to either side, and are thus worth lavishing attention on. Consider those voters only hit up by one campaign exclusively as base voters -- ones that one party wants to get out, and the other knows are unwinnable. The center is that group contacted by both parties, and is made up of many voters both campaigns see as winnable. Examining this latter group and the exits should give us a good idea which campaign was more persuasive with swingables.
Anyway, to my mind, one of the things that stands out most from this data is the wider net the Obama campaign was able to cast compared to that of Team McCain. As noted at the top, both campaigns had basically equal effectiveness with those voters who were only contacted by the individual campaigns, but the difference lies in the fact that there were twice as many such voters in Obama's pool than McCain's. Additionally, we can see that whereas Obama contacted the same percentage of voters as Kerry four years ago, McCain contacted 6% fewer voters than Team Bush in 2004. So, while Obama's level of success with contacted voters was slightly less than Kerry's, this was alright since the McCain campaign did such a mediocre job of voter contact.
Colorado
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (22%) Obama 81, McCain 17
Only McCain (5%) ?
Both (29%) Obama 52, McCain 47
Neither (42%) McCain 53, Obama 45
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (51%) Obama 64, McCain 34
No (49%) McCain 56, Obama 42
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (34%) McCain 51, Obama 48
No (64%) Obama 57, McCain 41
Analysis. Colorado was one of the very most important swing states in this past election. He was highly coveted by both sides, and expected to be very close. In the end, Obama won an easy victory here in part because of his tremendous campaign in the state. Note that whereas Obama's campaign touched just over half of the state's voters, Team McCain only hit one-third of voters, an enormous difference, which, as you can see, translated to a wide disparity among ultimate vote totals. It is a sad commentary that the sample of size of voters contacted by only the McCain campaign was so small that we cannot discern how effective the campaign's core outreach was.
Florida
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (15%) Obama 75, McCain 24
Only McCain (7%) McCain 71, Obama 27
Both (14%) McCain 52, Obama 45
Neither (63%) Obama 50, McCain 49
Contacted by the Obama/Kerry campaign?
Yes
(2004, 35%) Kerry 65, Bush 34
(2008, 29%) Obama 60, McCain 37
No
(2004, 65%) Bush 60, Kerry 39
(2008, 69%) McCain 51, Obama 48
Contacted by the McCain/Bush campaign?
Yes
(2004, 34%) Bush 63, Kerry 36
(2008, 20%) McCain 58, Obama 39
No
(2004, 66%) Kerry 54, Bush 44
(2008, 77%) Obama 55, McCain 44
Analysis. Again, we see that in terms of exclusive contacts, Obama's Florida operation hit twice as many voters as did McCain's, and the former's campaign was more effective to boot. Interestingly, far less voters were contacted in Florida than in 2004, by both sides. However, Team McCain only touched about one-fifth of voters in the state, a very lower number, and 14% below Bush/Cheney in 2004.
Indiana
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (23%) Obama 73, McCain 26
Only McCain (8%) McCain 80, Obama 19
Both (14%) McCain 53, Obama 43
Neither (54%) McCain 53, Obama 46
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (37%) Obama 62, McCain 36
No (62%) McCain 57, Obama 43
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (22%) McCain 63, Obama 34
No (77%) Obama 54, McCain 45
Analysis. As you can see, Indiana was a state where voter outreach made a huge difference. Over the summer, we postulated that McCain would have to leave states like Indiana untouched in hopes that they could hold on without large infusions of money. The rationale behind this view was simply that Team McCain would not have the funds to fight in traditional red states. In the end, McCain's (necessary) gambit failed, as Obama poured a lot of resources into Indiana with great impact. Obama hit 15% more voters than McCain. Obama lost every cross-section by a health margin except those nearly one-quarter of voters who were contacted. Obama won this group by just enough to win statewide. Voter outreach here made a big difference. Indeed, McCain badly lost voters he never contacted.
Nevada
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (26%) Obama 80, McCain 18
Only McCain (5%) McCain 88, Obama 10
Both (24%) Obama 50, McCain 49
Neither (43%) Obama 50, McCain 47
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (50%) Obama 66, McCain 33
No (48%) McCain 51, Obama 46
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (29%) McCain 55, Obama 43
No (69%) Obama 62, McCain 36
Analysis. I've said it before, and in light of this data I will say it again: the individuals who ran Obama's Nevada operation should be taken care of in the administration. Just look at one number: 50, as in the percentage of voters who were contacted by the Obama campaign. Half of the state's voters received a contact, and of that bloc, Obama won two out of every three votes. That's your ballgame right there. Now, Nevada was seemingly predisposed to support Obama this year, as indicated by McCain's slim lead among voters Obama did not contact (as opposed to a wide lead, which would have been expected). Still, Obama's incredible state operation played a big role in shaping that predisposition. How the heck did Obama exclusively contact one-quarter of voters, while McCain similarly hit only 5% in a state the GOP had only lost twice since 1948? I guess it was true what the NY Times reported when an unnamed operative said that McCain had no presence here.
North Carolina
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (14%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Only McCain (6%) McCain 85, Obama 15
Both (20%) Obama 50, McCain 49
Neither (58%) McCain 55, Obama 44
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (34%) Obama 66, McCain 33
No (64%) McCain 58, Obama 41
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (26%) McCain 58, Obama 41
No (72%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Because the two campaigns split down the middle the pool of switchables contacted by both camps, this race came down to which side was able to bring out its base better, and on that score, Obama won easily. He again doubled up on base contacts here, and brought them to the polls at a better clip.
Ohio
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (15%) Obama 81, McCain 19
Only McCain (8%) McCain 82, Obama 18
Both (28%) McCain 51, Obama 48
Neither (46%) Obama 51, McCain 48
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (43%) Obama 59, McCain 40
No (54%) McCain 53, Obama 46
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (36%) McCain 58, Obama 41
No (61%) Obama 58, McCain 41
Analysis. It seems like both sides were effective in turning people they contacted, but Obama contacted more people.
Virginia
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (22%) Obama 81, McCain 19
Only McCain (10%) McCain 84, Obama 15
Both (28%) McCain 57, Obama 42
Neither (38%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (50%) Obama 59, McCain 40
No (48%) McCain 54, Obama 45
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (38%) McCain 64, Obama 35
No (59%) Obama 63, McCain 36
Analysis. Like in Nevada, the Obama campaign was able to reach out to half of the people who ultimately voted. This is a hard thing to beat. Interestingly, Obama badly lost voters targeted by both sides, but he got his winning margin by comfortably winning uncontacted voters.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Breaking Down Swing State Exit Polls: When Voters Decided
In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to when voters decided which candidate to support.
National Exits
Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 4%) Obama 50, McCain 45
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 55, Bush 42
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 47
Last week
(2004, 2%) Bush 51, Kerry 48
(2008, 3%) McCain 50, Obama 48
In October
(2004, 10%) Kerry 54, Bush 44
(2008, 15%) Obama 54, McCain 43
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 53, Kerry 46
(2008, 74%) Obama 52, McCain 47
Analysis. Conventional wisdom (or at least just Republican postgame spin) has said that the financial crisis took a race that was veritably tied in late-September and gave it to Obama. The data says otherwise. Granted, the race was tighter prior to the Wall Street meltdown; Obama only led by by five points with voters who made a decision before October, and by 11% with voters who made a decision during October. Still, given that three-fourths of voters decided before October, McCain was likely in dire conditions anyway. In other words, even though the election may have turned out close had Lehman Brothers never collapsed, I think McCain still would have lost. Heck, he lost the voters who decided on November 4, and barely won voters who made a choice the last week. However, let me add that 50% more voters made a decision in October this year than in 2008. There is little doubt in my mind that the crisis had something to do with that, much to the McCain's detriment. Going further, just note how much better Obama did than Bush: in only one subset -- the final three days -- did McCain enjoy a lead outside the margin of error. Whereas Bush opened strongly enough to hold on to an overall 51-48 victory, Obama's campaign opened and closed strong -- a very impressive feat.
Colorado
Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 51, Bush 45
(2008, ?) ?
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 0%) ?
Last week
(2004, 2%) ?
(2008, 3%) ?
In October
(2004, 12%) Bush 50, Kerry 49
(2008, 12%) Obama 53, McCain 45
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 82%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Unfortunately, the small sample sizes give us no data for voters who decided late in the game. Nevertheless, we see that Obama had Colorado locked up before October. Even after the crisis broke and McCain foolishly "suspended" his campaign, he was already cooked in the state, In fact, Obama's level of support with pre-October deciding voters was just about identical to his support among voters who made a decision in October. In a state Kerry was trounced, Obama did spectacular.
Florida
Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 53, Bush 44
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 45
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 51, Obama 48
Last week
(2004, 3%) Kerry 68, Bush 29
(2008, 4%) Obama 55, McCain 42
In October
(2004, 12%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 12%) Obama 60, McCain 38
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 76%) Obama 51, McCain 48
Analysis. This was a close one, and McCain closed here late in strong fashion. The data seems to indicate that this is a state that was won because of the economic crisis. Why? Prior to October, three-fourths of the voters had decided, and Obama held a three-point lead with them. However, October-deciders broke for Obama by over 20 points, ensuring that McCain's late charge would not be enough to come back. This did not occur in 2004, where, despite the fact that people seemed to decide in the same percentages in October and pre-October, Bush had a huge lead with the latter group -- more than enough to counter-balance the +19% Kerry advantage with October voters.
Indiana
Election day
(2004, 5%) ?
(2008, 9%) Obama 50, McCain 46
Last three days
(2004, 4%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 50
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 45
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 56, Bush 43
(2008, 13%) Obama 55, McCain 44
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 65, Kerry 34
(2008, 67%) McCain 50, Obama 48
Analysis. The numbers that stand out here are the scores of people who remained undecided late in the game: in the last week of the campaign, about one in five voters were undecided, nearly double the national average. What happened here was that Obama was down prior to October, though not substantially, and as a result he wisely decided to spend big here. The economic crisis gave the Democrat a good cushion, and those voters who rarely went for a national Dem broke for him by just enough to award Obama a tiny statewide victory in one of the most unlikely of states.
Nevada
Election day
(2004, 8%) Bush 49, Kerry 48
(2008, 4%) Obama 53, McCain 47
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) Obama 50, McCain 44
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 48, Obama 44
In October
(2004, 13%) Kerry 57, Bush 40
(2008, 14%) Obama 59, McCain 40
Before October
(2004, 72%) Bush 54, Kerry 45
(2008, 74%) Obama 56, McCain 42
Analysis. Nevada was an old-fashioned beat-down. Obama organized the heck out of the state, and McCain never had a chance, even before the Wall Street crisis. Needless to say that the pre-October polls showing a real horse-race were not terribly accurate.
North Carolina
Election day
(2004, 4%) Kerry 71, Bush 26
(2008, 3%) Obama 55, McCain 42
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 57, Bush 43
(2008, 2%) Obama 54, McCain 42
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 67, Obama 32
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 50, Bush 48
(2008, 14%) McCain 60, Obama 39
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 60, Kerry 39
(2008, 77%) Obama 52, McCain 48
Analysis. Again we find another example where Obama was in strong shape before October. While his lead was fairly narrow, most of his work was done prior to October 1. McCain closed very strong in October and the last week -- the former period is interesting as the economic crisis did not deliver a new majority to Obama over October -- but Obama countered over the final days.
Ohio
Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 61, Bush 39
(2008, 5%) Obama 48, McCain 44
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 64, Bush 36
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 43
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) McCain 52, Obama 48
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 61, Bush 36
(2008, 16%) Obama 51, McCain 47
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 70%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Like in North Carolina, Obama actually did better pre-October than in October. Food for thought. And like in Indiana, we had more undecided voters after September than in many other states. It's likely that a lot of voters in Ohio could not commit to Obama, and many of the late deciders, didn't.
Virginia
Election day
(2004, 5%) Bush 48, Kerry 48
(2008, 5%) Obama 49, McCain 49
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) McCain 67, Obama 30
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) ?
In October
(2004, 8%) Bush 52, Kerry 45
(2008, 11%) Obama 59, McCain 40
Before October
(2004, 81%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 74%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Obama did most of his hard work in Virginia before the meltdown, but the event certainly clinched the state for him.
National Exits
Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 4%) Obama 50, McCain 45
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 55, Bush 42
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 47
Last week
(2004, 2%) Bush 51, Kerry 48
(2008, 3%) McCain 50, Obama 48
In October
(2004, 10%) Kerry 54, Bush 44
(2008, 15%) Obama 54, McCain 43
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 53, Kerry 46
(2008, 74%) Obama 52, McCain 47
Analysis. Conventional wisdom (or at least just Republican postgame spin) has said that the financial crisis took a race that was veritably tied in late-September and gave it to Obama. The data says otherwise. Granted, the race was tighter prior to the Wall Street meltdown; Obama only led by by five points with voters who made a decision before October, and by 11% with voters who made a decision during October. Still, given that three-fourths of voters decided before October, McCain was likely in dire conditions anyway. In other words, even though the election may have turned out close had Lehman Brothers never collapsed, I think McCain still would have lost. Heck, he lost the voters who decided on November 4, and barely won voters who made a choice the last week. However, let me add that 50% more voters made a decision in October this year than in 2008. There is little doubt in my mind that the crisis had something to do with that, much to the McCain's detriment. Going further, just note how much better Obama did than Bush: in only one subset -- the final three days -- did McCain enjoy a lead outside the margin of error. Whereas Bush opened strongly enough to hold on to an overall 51-48 victory, Obama's campaign opened and closed strong -- a very impressive feat.
Colorado
Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 51, Bush 45
(2008, ?) ?
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 0%) ?
Last week
(2004, 2%) ?
(2008, 3%) ?
In October
(2004, 12%) Bush 50, Kerry 49
(2008, 12%) Obama 53, McCain 45
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 82%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Unfortunately, the small sample sizes give us no data for voters who decided late in the game. Nevertheless, we see that Obama had Colorado locked up before October. Even after the crisis broke and McCain foolishly "suspended" his campaign, he was already cooked in the state, In fact, Obama's level of support with pre-October deciding voters was just about identical to his support among voters who made a decision in October. In a state Kerry was trounced, Obama did spectacular.
Florida
Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 53, Bush 44
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 45
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 51, Obama 48
Last week
(2004, 3%) Kerry 68, Bush 29
(2008, 4%) Obama 55, McCain 42
In October
(2004, 12%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 12%) Obama 60, McCain 38
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 76%) Obama 51, McCain 48
Analysis. This was a close one, and McCain closed here late in strong fashion. The data seems to indicate that this is a state that was won because of the economic crisis. Why? Prior to October, three-fourths of the voters had decided, and Obama held a three-point lead with them. However, October-deciders broke for Obama by over 20 points, ensuring that McCain's late charge would not be enough to come back. This did not occur in 2004, where, despite the fact that people seemed to decide in the same percentages in October and pre-October, Bush had a huge lead with the latter group -- more than enough to counter-balance the +19% Kerry advantage with October voters.
Indiana
Election day
(2004, 5%) ?
(2008, 9%) Obama 50, McCain 46
Last three days
(2004, 4%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 50
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 45
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 56, Bush 43
(2008, 13%) Obama 55, McCain 44
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 65, Kerry 34
(2008, 67%) McCain 50, Obama 48
Analysis. The numbers that stand out here are the scores of people who remained undecided late in the game: in the last week of the campaign, about one in five voters were undecided, nearly double the national average. What happened here was that Obama was down prior to October, though not substantially, and as a result he wisely decided to spend big here. The economic crisis gave the Democrat a good cushion, and those voters who rarely went for a national Dem broke for him by just enough to award Obama a tiny statewide victory in one of the most unlikely of states.
Nevada
Election day
(2004, 8%) Bush 49, Kerry 48
(2008, 4%) Obama 53, McCain 47
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) Obama 50, McCain 44
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 48, Obama 44
In October
(2004, 13%) Kerry 57, Bush 40
(2008, 14%) Obama 59, McCain 40
Before October
(2004, 72%) Bush 54, Kerry 45
(2008, 74%) Obama 56, McCain 42
Analysis. Nevada was an old-fashioned beat-down. Obama organized the heck out of the state, and McCain never had a chance, even before the Wall Street crisis. Needless to say that the pre-October polls showing a real horse-race were not terribly accurate.
North Carolina
Election day
(2004, 4%) Kerry 71, Bush 26
(2008, 3%) Obama 55, McCain 42
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 57, Bush 43
(2008, 2%) Obama 54, McCain 42
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 67, Obama 32
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 50, Bush 48
(2008, 14%) McCain 60, Obama 39
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 60, Kerry 39
(2008, 77%) Obama 52, McCain 48
Analysis. Again we find another example where Obama was in strong shape before October. While his lead was fairly narrow, most of his work was done prior to October 1. McCain closed very strong in October and the last week -- the former period is interesting as the economic crisis did not deliver a new majority to Obama over October -- but Obama countered over the final days.
Ohio
Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 61, Bush 39
(2008, 5%) Obama 48, McCain 44
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 64, Bush 36
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 43
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) McCain 52, Obama 48
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 61, Bush 36
(2008, 16%) Obama 51, McCain 47
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 70%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Like in North Carolina, Obama actually did better pre-October than in October. Food for thought. And like in Indiana, we had more undecided voters after September than in many other states. It's likely that a lot of voters in Ohio could not commit to Obama, and many of the late deciders, didn't.
Virginia
Election day
(2004, 5%) Bush 48, Kerry 48
(2008, 5%) Obama 49, McCain 49
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) McCain 67, Obama 30
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) ?
In October
(2004, 8%) Bush 52, Kerry 45
(2008, 11%) Obama 59, McCain 40
Before October
(2004, 81%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 74%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Obama did most of his hard work in Virginia before the meltdown, but the event certainly clinched the state for him.
Breaking Down Swing State Exit Polls: Party ID
In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to voter party identification.
National Exits
Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 89, Bush 11
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: None
Republicans
(2004, 37%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 32%) McCain 90, Obama 9
Turnout: Down 5% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 49, Bush 48
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: Up 3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Analysis. Let's first look at the turnout picture. The percentage of voters who were self-identified Dems rose a slight 2%, but more importantly the number of GOPers dropped a not-too-small 5%. There were also 3% more indies out there. How did this translate in the election? Well, interestingly, Obama improved over Kerry very marginally with Democrats, while jumping three percent in support with the other two groups. This is where the election was won for the Democrat: among disillusioned Republicans and indies. In 2004, when Bush won just about every single Republican -- with GOPers equal to Dems as part of the voting populace -- Kerry lost when he ended up basically tied with indies. Obama's big victory with independents, combined with the drop in self-IDed Republicans equaled a cool victory.
Colorado
Democrats
(2004, 29%) Kerry 93, Bush 7
(2008, 30%) Obama 92, McCain 7
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 38%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 87, Obama 13
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 33%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 39%) Obama 54, McCain 44
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Colorado's results mirror some of the national numbers. Obama won the state by enjoying a larger slice of a smaller Republican pie, and a bigger piece of a bigger indie pie. It looks like a lot of GOPers identified themselves as indies, many of them crossing party lines to support Obama in the process.
Florida
Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 85, Bush 14
(2008, 37%) Obama 87, McCain 12
Turnout: No change
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 41%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 34%) McCain 87, Obama 12
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 23%) Kerry 57, Bush 41
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, Bush 45
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -5% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -8% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Florida was an interesting state in this election, and one I certainly want to write separately about in time. As we saw with the breakdown on ideology, Obama did not improve over 2004 with moderates, nor any better with independents. The difference was at the poles, where he saw decent imrprovement among Dems and very good movement with Republicans. Later, I will come back to look at how the Florida counties voted. As we will see later, Obama did not achieve across the board improvement in the state, and focused on his base counties to win.
Indiana
Democrats
(2004, 32%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 36%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 46%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 41%) McCain 86, Obama 13
Turnout: -5% under 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 22%) Bush 51, Obama 46
(2008, 24%) Obama 54, McCain 43
Turnout: +2% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Really, changes in turnout between 2004 and 2008 were not drastic. Sure, more Democrats and less Republicans came out, but GOPers still outnumbered Democrats by 5%. The key fact to be gleaned from the exit data is simple: Obama played in Indiana -- something Dems never do -- and he was able to improve across the board. I really don't think it was any neat trick. It was smart, absolutely, but just by entering the state, there was low-hanging fruit to be plucked. Kerry 39% in Indiana or whatever it was does not reflect Democratic support in the state. This is not to say that national Democrats should win in Indiana, just that their real level of support is not that low. To my mind, Indiana was the most impressive result of election night. That Obama was able to close such a large gap in four years, in a very conservative state, is a testament to his strengths as a candidate, the national environment, and his campaign's intelligence. As we will see in a future separate post, his improvements were across the geographic and partisan spectrum.
Nevada
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 38%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 30%) McCain 88, Obama 11
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 54, Bush 42
(2008, 32%) Obama 54, McCain 41
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Huge cause for worry for Republicans: self-identified Republicans dropped 9% in the state from 2004 when the two parties enjoyed parity. This rate is nearly double what the national drop was (average 5% nationally). In a state that has been reliably Republican in presidential contests for decades, Republicans need to turn things around fast or risk losing control of this key fast-growing Western state.
North Carolina
Democrats
(2004, 39%) Kerry 86, Bush 14
(2008, 42%) Obama 90, McCain 9
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 96, Kerry 4
(2008, 31%) McCain 95, Obama 4
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 21%) Bush 56, Kerry 41
(2008, 27%) McCain 60, Obama 39
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -2% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -5% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Obama won this state by consolidating support among Democrats. While his numbers with the other two groups appears, underwhelming, that is not entirely true. His support with GOPers was the same as Kerry's, but because turnout dropped 9%, Obama ended up with many more Republicans voters than did Kerry. Similarly, his support with indies was lower than Kerry's, but with a jump in turnout, Obama did slightly better than break even. In the end, all of it was enough to give Obama a very narrow victory here.
Ohio
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 9
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 94, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 25%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 30%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: +5% over 2004
Change: -7% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -10% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. We've talked a little about Ohio so far. While it is incredible Obama was able to get a majority in the state despite the drop in support he received with indies, it is important to keep in mind that Kerry lost the state with 49%, so Democrats did not need enormous improvement to take the state. Ohio was won by Obama's performance with Republicans. That marginal uptick made the difference. As we will see when we look at the geographic splits in the state, Obama's hard work in western Ohio won him the state's 20 electoral votes.
Virginia
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 92, Bush 8
(2008, 39%) Obama 92, McCain 8
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference
Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 33%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -6% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference
Independents
(2004, 26%) Bush 54, Kerry 44
(2008, 27%) Obama 49, McCain 48
Turnout: +1% over 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. It's interesting that Obama's percentages among both Dems and GOPers was identical to Kerry's rates four years ago. However, with Dem participation rising 4% while GOP participation dropping 6%, Obama ended up in the black in terms of gaining more voters. The state was won among independents, with whom Obama squeezed out a tight win. In fact, he did better with indies in the Commonwealth than nationally.
National Exits
Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 89, Bush 11
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: None
Republicans
(2004, 37%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 32%) McCain 90, Obama 9
Turnout: Down 5% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 49, Bush 48
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: Up 3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Analysis. Let's first look at the turnout picture. The percentage of voters who were self-identified Dems rose a slight 2%, but more importantly the number of GOPers dropped a not-too-small 5%. There were also 3% more indies out there. How did this translate in the election? Well, interestingly, Obama improved over Kerry very marginally with Democrats, while jumping three percent in support with the other two groups. This is where the election was won for the Democrat: among disillusioned Republicans and indies. In 2004, when Bush won just about every single Republican -- with GOPers equal to Dems as part of the voting populace -- Kerry lost when he ended up basically tied with indies. Obama's big victory with independents, combined with the drop in self-IDed Republicans equaled a cool victory.
Colorado
Democrats
(2004, 29%) Kerry 93, Bush 7
(2008, 30%) Obama 92, McCain 7
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 38%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 87, Obama 13
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 33%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 39%) Obama 54, McCain 44
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Colorado's results mirror some of the national numbers. Obama won the state by enjoying a larger slice of a smaller Republican pie, and a bigger piece of a bigger indie pie. It looks like a lot of GOPers identified themselves as indies, many of them crossing party lines to support Obama in the process.
Florida
Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 85, Bush 14
(2008, 37%) Obama 87, McCain 12
Turnout: No change
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 41%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 34%) McCain 87, Obama 12
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 23%) Kerry 57, Bush 41
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, Bush 45
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -5% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -8% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Florida was an interesting state in this election, and one I certainly want to write separately about in time. As we saw with the breakdown on ideology, Obama did not improve over 2004 with moderates, nor any better with independents. The difference was at the poles, where he saw decent imrprovement among Dems and very good movement with Republicans. Later, I will come back to look at how the Florida counties voted. As we will see later, Obama did not achieve across the board improvement in the state, and focused on his base counties to win.
Indiana
Democrats
(2004, 32%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 36%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 46%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 41%) McCain 86, Obama 13
Turnout: -5% under 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 22%) Bush 51, Obama 46
(2008, 24%) Obama 54, McCain 43
Turnout: +2% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Really, changes in turnout between 2004 and 2008 were not drastic. Sure, more Democrats and less Republicans came out, but GOPers still outnumbered Democrats by 5%. The key fact to be gleaned from the exit data is simple: Obama played in Indiana -- something Dems never do -- and he was able to improve across the board. I really don't think it was any neat trick. It was smart, absolutely, but just by entering the state, there was low-hanging fruit to be plucked. Kerry 39% in Indiana or whatever it was does not reflect Democratic support in the state. This is not to say that national Democrats should win in Indiana, just that their real level of support is not that low. To my mind, Indiana was the most impressive result of election night. That Obama was able to close such a large gap in four years, in a very conservative state, is a testament to his strengths as a candidate, the national environment, and his campaign's intelligence. As we will see in a future separate post, his improvements were across the geographic and partisan spectrum.
Nevada
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 38%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 30%) McCain 88, Obama 11
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 54, Bush 42
(2008, 32%) Obama 54, McCain 41
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Huge cause for worry for Republicans: self-identified Republicans dropped 9% in the state from 2004 when the two parties enjoyed parity. This rate is nearly double what the national drop was (average 5% nationally). In a state that has been reliably Republican in presidential contests for decades, Republicans need to turn things around fast or risk losing control of this key fast-growing Western state.
North Carolina
Democrats
(2004, 39%) Kerry 86, Bush 14
(2008, 42%) Obama 90, McCain 9
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 96, Kerry 4
(2008, 31%) McCain 95, Obama 4
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 21%) Bush 56, Kerry 41
(2008, 27%) McCain 60, Obama 39
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -2% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -5% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Obama won this state by consolidating support among Democrats. While his numbers with the other two groups appears, underwhelming, that is not entirely true. His support with GOPers was the same as Kerry's, but because turnout dropped 9%, Obama ended up with many more Republicans voters than did Kerry. Similarly, his support with indies was lower than Kerry's, but with a jump in turnout, Obama did slightly better than break even. In the end, all of it was enough to give Obama a very narrow victory here.
Ohio
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 9
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 94, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 25%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 30%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: +5% over 2004
Change: -7% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -10% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. We've talked a little about Ohio so far. While it is incredible Obama was able to get a majority in the state despite the drop in support he received with indies, it is important to keep in mind that Kerry lost the state with 49%, so Democrats did not need enormous improvement to take the state. Ohio was won by Obama's performance with Republicans. That marginal uptick made the difference. As we will see when we look at the geographic splits in the state, Obama's hard work in western Ohio won him the state's 20 electoral votes.
Virginia
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 92, Bush 8
(2008, 39%) Obama 92, McCain 8
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference
Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 33%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -6% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference
Independents
(2004, 26%) Bush 54, Kerry 44
(2008, 27%) Obama 49, McCain 48
Turnout: +1% over 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. It's interesting that Obama's percentages among both Dems and GOPers was identical to Kerry's rates four years ago. However, with Dem participation rising 4% while GOP participation dropping 6%, Obama ended up in the black in terms of gaining more voters. The state was won among independents, with whom Obama squeezed out a tight win. In fact, he did better with indies in the Commonwealth than nationally.
Jonathan Martin and Politico: GOP Hackery in Perfect Symmetry
Regular readers know that I have a love-hate relationship with the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico. While I often link to stories from Politico, and I think there are many good pieces in the paper, on the whole I think Politico leans to the right. Perhaps more annoying, reading Politico you get the impression that all of its writers are of the too-cool-for-school variety, and their articles drip with unnecessary snark. A few days ago, I made some of these points in criticizing a recent piece by Politico writer Jonathan Martin which attacked Barack Obama for not appointing enough Republicans to his cabinet -- well before Obama had made any appointments at all. To me, Martin's article is typical of a lot of the stuff in Politico, and it is why Politico, despite the big ego of its writers, is what I read third after Roll Call and The Hill in the morning.
Anyway, I was curious to see what else Martin has recently written. Maybe that article was an aberration, right? Here are Martin's last five pieces:
Doves keep the faith as Obama team tilts right (11/27)
Bill Richardson: Downwardly Mobile? (11/24)
Obama skips church, heads to gym (11/23)
Whither the cabinet Republicans? (11/23)
Would-be appointees quizzed on guns (11/20)
Wow, if I had not told you these were news stories in Politico, you might have wondered if these headlines were plucked directly from the Drudge Report, because clearly, each of them has an anti-Democratic agenda.
The first one seems to be interesting in sowing dissent among Democrats (classic Drudge). The second one is typical Politico snark, snickering at Bill Richardson for taking a cabinet position that Politico seems to believe is a step down in prestige for the former Energy and UN Secretary and current New Mexico Governor. The third one wants to make Obama appear disinterested in religion and piety. The fourth one we've discussed: Martin would like to assail Obama for actions he has not yet taken. And the fifth one is a nice dig and a way for Martin to draw Obama as anti-gun. Great GOP hackery all around.
You will note that I called these "news" stories, and therein lies the problem. If these were opinion pieces, that would be one thing entirely, but they are not, and nowhere are they labeled as such. In fact, in four of these pieces, the word "news" appears in the URL. Only the Richardson piece is not a news article, as it appears on Politico's diary of the Obama transition. These are thus not news articles. They are slanted pieces, Matt Drudge-style, clearly written to push a particular viewpoint, in this case, a Republican viewpoint.
Does Martin's own bio provide any guidance for us? Let's take a look. This is lifted directly from the short bio provided by Politico:
Martin comes to Politico from National Review, where he wrote about politics for the magazine and the Web site. Prior to that, he worked for The Hotline covering topics ranging from gubernatorial contests to congressional leadership battles.
A former writer for the National Review? Shocking!
Look, just because a guy has written for a partisan body should not permanently disqualify him from professional journalism with what is meant to be a party-less publication. But to do so, we need one of two things: either Politico needs to point out that Martin is an opinion writer and not a news writer, or Martin, if he wants to write news, needs to actually do that instead of Republican hit-pieces.
Politico is new to the scene, and if it ever wants to be as good as Roll Call, it really needs to clean up its act.
Anyway, I was curious to see what else Martin has recently written. Maybe that article was an aberration, right? Here are Martin's last five pieces:
Doves keep the faith as Obama team tilts right (11/27)
Bill Richardson: Downwardly Mobile? (11/24)
Obama skips church, heads to gym (11/23)
Whither the cabinet Republicans? (11/23)
Would-be appointees quizzed on guns (11/20)
Wow, if I had not told you these were news stories in Politico, you might have wondered if these headlines were plucked directly from the Drudge Report, because clearly, each of them has an anti-Democratic agenda.
The first one seems to be interesting in sowing dissent among Democrats (classic Drudge). The second one is typical Politico snark, snickering at Bill Richardson for taking a cabinet position that Politico seems to believe is a step down in prestige for the former Energy and UN Secretary and current New Mexico Governor. The third one wants to make Obama appear disinterested in religion and piety. The fourth one we've discussed: Martin would like to assail Obama for actions he has not yet taken. And the fifth one is a nice dig and a way for Martin to draw Obama as anti-gun. Great GOP hackery all around.
You will note that I called these "news" stories, and therein lies the problem. If these were opinion pieces, that would be one thing entirely, but they are not, and nowhere are they labeled as such. In fact, in four of these pieces, the word "news" appears in the URL. Only the Richardson piece is not a news article, as it appears on Politico's diary of the Obama transition. These are thus not news articles. They are slanted pieces, Matt Drudge-style, clearly written to push a particular viewpoint, in this case, a Republican viewpoint.
Does Martin's own bio provide any guidance for us? Let's take a look. This is lifted directly from the short bio provided by Politico:
Martin comes to Politico from National Review, where he wrote about politics for the magazine and the Web site. Prior to that, he worked for The Hotline covering topics ranging from gubernatorial contests to congressional leadership battles.
A former writer for the National Review? Shocking!
Look, just because a guy has written for a partisan body should not permanently disqualify him from professional journalism with what is meant to be a party-less publication. But to do so, we need one of two things: either Politico needs to point out that Martin is an opinion writer and not a news writer, or Martin, if he wants to write news, needs to actually do that instead of Republican hit-pieces.
Politico is new to the scene, and if it ever wants to be as good as Roll Call, it really needs to clean up its act.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Ted Stevens and John Dingell
"Politics is a fateful calling. The voters can end a political life in a few hours on any Tuesday. Promising public careers can be terminated abruptly. But like life itself, political life should be measured by its quality rather than its quantity."
-Senator Dick Durbin
Late last week we saw the end of the political careers of two congressional titans: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative John Dingell of Michigan (yes, I realize Dingell was not beaten for re-election, but he lost his very reason for being in office, his gavel). In an eerie coincidence, literally minutes after Dingell was ousted as the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee -- a post he has held continuously for nearly 30 years -- Stevens came to the Senate floor to deliver his final speech. That both men met the low points of their long careers moments apart was a little strange, but perhaps very appropriate. For, despite the fact that one is a staunch Republican and the other a lifelong FDR Democrat, both men are examples of politicians who probably stayed around a little too long.
I have to be honest, while I think that what happened to both Stevens and Dingell was good for the country, I felt sorry for both men. Seeing the two old political warriors, men who not long ago were among the most powerful in the country completely stripped of their power and their dignity was striking and really, somewhat tragic. But both men could have avoided their fates if they had just relinquished their positions earlier and not been so stubborn.
Ted Stevens first came to the Senate in 1968, and before this year, he never faced a close re-election. He was the King of Alaska, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Yet, when his house was raided by the FBI at the age of 84, Stevens should have announced his retirement right then and there. He could have left on the right note, and had his legacy preserved. Perhaps his retirement would have even made him a less attractive target to the Justice Department. Alas, Stevens arrogantly plowed ahead with his re-elections plans. Even after he was indicted, he remained unbowed, and we all know how that ended: he was convicted on all charges, and last week, it was determined that he was ousted from his seat, albeit narrowly. Today, his career is over and prison time appears likely. This is a pathetic ending for such a distinguished and self-made public servant.
While John Dingell was not indicted or disgraced like Stevens, he too should have seen the writing on the wall. He had run the E and C committee for decades, sure, but he has had problems with Nancy Pelosi for some time, and was thus a marked man in politics of sorts. Furthermore, how did he not watch out for Henry Waxman as the California donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to fellow members and Democratic challengers across the country? After all, Dingell was there in 1978 when Waxman ousted another more senior member to take over a powerful panel. Simply put, Dingell did not watch his back and protect himself enough. He has no one to blame for his downfall but himself.
It may seem surprising that a political hack like me would feel sorry for two Old Bulls, one of whom -- Stevens -- is someone I have taken a lot of shots at in recent months. But my personal affection for either man (or lack thereof) is largely irrelevant. As a political follower, it is difficult for me not to feel some sympathy for men who could have ended their careers with much more grace and dignity. Unfortunately, the combined 93 years of service of both men will be greatly overshadowed now. The obituaries of both men will mention their recent downfalls in the first paragraph, and I think that's regrettable.
-Senator Dick Durbin
Late last week we saw the end of the political careers of two congressional titans: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative John Dingell of Michigan (yes, I realize Dingell was not beaten for re-election, but he lost his very reason for being in office, his gavel). In an eerie coincidence, literally minutes after Dingell was ousted as the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee -- a post he has held continuously for nearly 30 years -- Stevens came to the Senate floor to deliver his final speech. That both men met the low points of their long careers moments apart was a little strange, but perhaps very appropriate. For, despite the fact that one is a staunch Republican and the other a lifelong FDR Democrat, both men are examples of politicians who probably stayed around a little too long.
I have to be honest, while I think that what happened to both Stevens and Dingell was good for the country, I felt sorry for both men. Seeing the two old political warriors, men who not long ago were among the most powerful in the country completely stripped of their power and their dignity was striking and really, somewhat tragic. But both men could have avoided their fates if they had just relinquished their positions earlier and not been so stubborn.
Ted Stevens first came to the Senate in 1968, and before this year, he never faced a close re-election. He was the King of Alaska, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Yet, when his house was raided by the FBI at the age of 84, Stevens should have announced his retirement right then and there. He could have left on the right note, and had his legacy preserved. Perhaps his retirement would have even made him a less attractive target to the Justice Department. Alas, Stevens arrogantly plowed ahead with his re-elections plans. Even after he was indicted, he remained unbowed, and we all know how that ended: he was convicted on all charges, and last week, it was determined that he was ousted from his seat, albeit narrowly. Today, his career is over and prison time appears likely. This is a pathetic ending for such a distinguished and self-made public servant.
While John Dingell was not indicted or disgraced like Stevens, he too should have seen the writing on the wall. He had run the E and C committee for decades, sure, but he has had problems with Nancy Pelosi for some time, and was thus a marked man in politics of sorts. Furthermore, how did he not watch out for Henry Waxman as the California donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to fellow members and Democratic challengers across the country? After all, Dingell was there in 1978 when Waxman ousted another more senior member to take over a powerful panel. Simply put, Dingell did not watch his back and protect himself enough. He has no one to blame for his downfall but himself.
It may seem surprising that a political hack like me would feel sorry for two Old Bulls, one of whom -- Stevens -- is someone I have taken a lot of shots at in recent months. But my personal affection for either man (or lack thereof) is largely irrelevant. As a political follower, it is difficult for me not to feel some sympathy for men who could have ended their careers with much more grace and dignity. Unfortunately, the combined 93 years of service of both men will be greatly overshadowed now. The obituaries of both men will mention their recent downfalls in the first paragraph, and I think that's regrettable.
Norm Coleman's Bush-Like Recount Strategy
Nate Silver has a good post up on Minnesota Senate, where he notes that Senator Norm Coleman and his campaign are challenging more and votes as the recount moves along.
We'll update these numbers "officially" with the Secretary of State's data dump at 8 PM, but based on intraday numbers compiled by the Star Tribune (as of 4:42 PM local time), Norm Coleman's rate of challenges continues to skyrocket while Al Franken's -- though much higher than it had been on the first couple days of the recount process -- has leveled off some.
Coleman's rate of challenges thus far today is approximately 23.4 for every 10,000 ballots cast. On Wednesday, the first day of the recount, Coleman's rate of challenges was 2.5 per 10,000 ballots. So for some reason, the Coleman campaign is finding reason to challenge more than nine times as many ballots as it did on Wednesday (and the Franken campaign, for its part, is finding reason to challenge about five times as many ballots).
Now, the Coleman campaign isn't being devious or anything like that; they're simply exploiting a flawed system and trying to win a spin war...
Great info, but I disagree with Nate on one thing: Coleman is being very devious here, and is channeling Bush's campaign in 2000 in the process.
Norm Coleman has one goal right now: he wants to be ahead at the end of the recount. Sounds simple, yes, but it isn't. If Coleman is ahead at the end, but before thousands of challenged ballots are resolved and counted one way or the other, watch for the Senator to loudly declare himself the winner. This will accomplish two things. First, it will give Coleman legitimacy and allow him to solidify claims, whether fair or not, that he won the race. Second, it will allow Coleman and the GOP to demonize Franken for trying to get challenged ballots counted. Republicans will argue that such moves are Franken and the Democrats' way of trying to "steal" the election.
I have no doubt this is what Team Coleman is aiming for. They have to be ahead at the end of this process, regardless of whether many ballots are not including in those numbers. Heck, this is a guy who declared himself the winner on election night despite all of the uncertainties.
What should bother Democrats is that Team Franken seemingly has no strategy to counter Coleman's public relations moves. As Coleman's lawyers have been challenging votes left and right -- assuredly, 99%+ of which are Franken votes, if votes at all -- we've heard very little from Franken or the national Democratic Party.
After Florida 2000, you would think Dems have grown a spine, but you would be wrong. The Dems, after all of their successes, are still weak while Republicans are willing to say and do anything to win an election. This race is going to get very ugly, and watch for these events to transpire if Coleman has his slim lead intact before challenges are resolved.
We'll update these numbers "officially" with the Secretary of State's data dump at 8 PM, but based on intraday numbers compiled by the Star Tribune (as of 4:42 PM local time), Norm Coleman's rate of challenges continues to skyrocket while Al Franken's -- though much higher than it had been on the first couple days of the recount process -- has leveled off some.
Coleman's rate of challenges thus far today is approximately 23.4 for every 10,000 ballots cast. On Wednesday, the first day of the recount, Coleman's rate of challenges was 2.5 per 10,000 ballots. So for some reason, the Coleman campaign is finding reason to challenge more than nine times as many ballots as it did on Wednesday (and the Franken campaign, for its part, is finding reason to challenge about five times as many ballots).
Now, the Coleman campaign isn't being devious or anything like that; they're simply exploiting a flawed system and trying to win a spin war...
Great info, but I disagree with Nate on one thing: Coleman is being very devious here, and is channeling Bush's campaign in 2000 in the process.
Norm Coleman has one goal right now: he wants to be ahead at the end of the recount. Sounds simple, yes, but it isn't. If Coleman is ahead at the end, but before thousands of challenged ballots are resolved and counted one way or the other, watch for the Senator to loudly declare himself the winner. This will accomplish two things. First, it will give Coleman legitimacy and allow him to solidify claims, whether fair or not, that he won the race. Second, it will allow Coleman and the GOP to demonize Franken for trying to get challenged ballots counted. Republicans will argue that such moves are Franken and the Democrats' way of trying to "steal" the election.
I have no doubt this is what Team Coleman is aiming for. They have to be ahead at the end of this process, regardless of whether many ballots are not including in those numbers. Heck, this is a guy who declared himself the winner on election night despite all of the uncertainties.
What should bother Democrats is that Team Franken seemingly has no strategy to counter Coleman's public relations moves. As Coleman's lawyers have been challenging votes left and right -- assuredly, 99%+ of which are Franken votes, if votes at all -- we've heard very little from Franken or the national Democratic Party.
After Florida 2000, you would think Dems have grown a spine, but you would be wrong. The Dems, after all of their successes, are still weak while Republicans are willing to say and do anything to win an election. This race is going to get very ugly, and watch for these events to transpire if Coleman has his slim lead intact before challenges are resolved.
Keeping It Warm
In what should be a surprise to absolutely no one, outgoing Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Miner has announced that she will appoint to Joe Biden's soon-to-vacated Senate seat one Ted Kaufman, Sen. Biden's former Chief of Staff. Kaufman will hold the seat until a special election can be held in November 2010. At that time, there should be zero doubt that Biden's son, state Attorney General Beau Biden will run and win the seat his father first took in 1972. Little Biden was unable to take the appointment now because he was recently deployed as a member of the National Guard.
This appointment has many similarities to what happened to JFK's Senate seat. In 1960, after Kennedy was elected to the presidency, it seemed natural that his younger brother Ted would get the seat. However, at that time Ted was not yet 30 years old, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to sit in the Upper Chamber. Consequently, the governor appointed a man named Benjamin Smith to the seat. Smith, who had been JFK's college roommate, was a Kennedy loyalist, and sure enough, in 1962 when a special election was held, Smith vacated the seat and Ted ran, winning the slot he sits in to this day.
While I've been expecting this to happen since the moment Biden took the veep spot on the Democratic ticket -- and really, even before then as I have always figured Joe's son would one day get this seat -- it is nonetheless disappointing. There may be nothing else in politics that angers me more than naked nepotism. Seats in the United States Senate should not be treated like family heirlooms, or even birthrights that can be bequeathed like a piece of property in a will. Yet, that is exactly what often happens.
Outgoing Lieutenant Governor John Carney, who lost very narrowly in this year's Democratic gubernatorial primary to state Treasurer and now-incoming Governor Jack Markell, was seen as someone who could have gotten the nod. He is obviously close to Miner, and has wide support in the state. Still, that he was snubbed should not surprise him or anyone else. Beau's eventual ascension to this seat is about as likely as the sun rising tomorrow morning. And that's a shame.
This is not change we can believe in.
This appointment has many similarities to what happened to JFK's Senate seat. In 1960, after Kennedy was elected to the presidency, it seemed natural that his younger brother Ted would get the seat. However, at that time Ted was not yet 30 years old, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to sit in the Upper Chamber. Consequently, the governor appointed a man named Benjamin Smith to the seat. Smith, who had been JFK's college roommate, was a Kennedy loyalist, and sure enough, in 1962 when a special election was held, Smith vacated the seat and Ted ran, winning the slot he sits in to this day.
While I've been expecting this to happen since the moment Biden took the veep spot on the Democratic ticket -- and really, even before then as I have always figured Joe's son would one day get this seat -- it is nonetheless disappointing. There may be nothing else in politics that angers me more than naked nepotism. Seats in the United States Senate should not be treated like family heirlooms, or even birthrights that can be bequeathed like a piece of property in a will. Yet, that is exactly what often happens.
Outgoing Lieutenant Governor John Carney, who lost very narrowly in this year's Democratic gubernatorial primary to state Treasurer and now-incoming Governor Jack Markell, was seen as someone who could have gotten the nod. He is obviously close to Miner, and has wide support in the state. Still, that he was snubbed should not surprise him or anyone else. Beau's eventual ascension to this seat is about as likely as the sun rising tomorrow morning. And that's a shame.
This is not change we can believe in.
Politico Malarkey
Can the Republican hacks at Politico wait for Barack Obama to actually name his cabinet before they declare that he has broken his promise to name Republicans to his inner circle? In an article that made me laugh, Politico declares the following:
As the top tier of his Cabinet begins to come into focus, however, it looks increasingly unlikely that Obama will break new ground when it comes to fashioning a bipartisan government.
Instead, he appears to be taking a check-the-box approach that would differ little from the pattern set by predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Huh? Exactly how many names have officially been announced by Obama, fellas? Can you give the guy a little time? And besides, if you are reading the tea leaves, doesn't the fact that Robert Gates appears likely to stay on at Defense mean anything? Reminds of when Bill Clinton tapped Republican Bill Cohen as his own Defense Secretary.
Perhaps I am just foolish, but Secretary of Defense doesn't exactly seem like small potatos like Transportation or Veteran's Affairs. And remind me, but exactly how many Dems did Bush put in his cabinet in eight years? Hmm, let's see...exactly one: the aged, ineffective Norm Mineta in the Transportation post. Comparing Bush to Clinton or even Obama before he takes office is a joke.
Politico has a lot of good stuff, but in just its second year, its writers are pretty snarky, and please excuse me, they also often seem to possess GOP biases. Good job guys.
As the top tier of his Cabinet begins to come into focus, however, it looks increasingly unlikely that Obama will break new ground when it comes to fashioning a bipartisan government.
Instead, he appears to be taking a check-the-box approach that would differ little from the pattern set by predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Huh? Exactly how many names have officially been announced by Obama, fellas? Can you give the guy a little time? And besides, if you are reading the tea leaves, doesn't the fact that Robert Gates appears likely to stay on at Defense mean anything? Reminds of when Bill Clinton tapped Republican Bill Cohen as his own Defense Secretary.
Perhaps I am just foolish, but Secretary of Defense doesn't exactly seem like small potatos like Transportation or Veteran's Affairs. And remind me, but exactly how many Dems did Bush put in his cabinet in eight years? Hmm, let's see...exactly one: the aged, ineffective Norm Mineta in the Transportation post. Comparing Bush to Clinton or even Obama before he takes office is a joke.
Politico has a lot of good stuff, but in just its second year, its writers are pretty snarky, and please excuse me, they also often seem to possess GOP biases. Good job guys.
It's Never Too Early
Bobby Jindal's headed to Iowa. I'm sure it is to go on a fact-finding mission for the benefit of Louisiana's sugar industry or something similar.
Yeah, right. It never ceases to amaze me how early politicians are thinking about the future. Jindal is certainly a conservative star to be reckoned with, and if the economy is in the toilet come 2011, his business-oriented background will make him very attractive. Still, I question if his extremist views might ultimately doom him.
This is a guy I am going to enjoy watching over the next few years.
Yeah, right. It never ceases to amaze me how early politicians are thinking about the future. Jindal is certainly a conservative star to be reckoned with, and if the economy is in the toilet come 2011, his business-oriented background will make him very attractive. Still, I question if his extremist views might ultimately doom him.
This is a guy I am going to enjoy watching over the next few years.
Must-Read of the Day
Is he right? Who the heck knows, but given Nate Silver's track record, I strongly suggest you read his most recent write-up on the Minnesota Senate race recount. Right or wrong, it is fascinating stuff as usual. We likely won't know the ultimate winner of this race for a while.
Friday, November 21, 2008
What Hillary's Thinking
The New York Times has an excellent article today on Hillary Clinton and her role in the Senate. While the piece focuses on some enhanced opportunities for Clinton in the Senate should she choose to stay there, I think it does a better job in spelling out why I think it is more likely for her to end up in Foggy Bottom as the Secretary of State. Here's the part to me:
As I've said before, a lot of this is about ego. If this was about being Secretary of the Interior or Veterans Affairs, it would be a non-starter. But Secretary of State is one of two plums prestigious enough for Clinton to the leave the Senate. Clearly, she is torn because she is still calculating if a future presidential run is possible. Assuming she realizes that it is almost impossible, she will take the appointment (of course, if she does not come to that, she will stay in order to fight towards 2016). Nevertheless, the Times here draws a good picture of why Clinton is likely to go to State.
But driving her consideration, friends said, is a sense of disenchantment with the Senate, where despite her stature she remains low in the ranks of seniority that governs the body. She was particularly upset, they said, at the reception she felt she received when she returned from the campaign after collecting 18 million votes and almost becoming the first woman nominated for president by a major party.
“Her experience in the Senate with some of her colleagues has not been the easiest time for her,” said one longtime friend who insisted on anonymity in exchange for sharing Mrs. Clinton’s sentiments. “She’s still a very junior senator. She doesn’t have a committee. And she’s had some disappointing times with her colleagues.”
In particular, the friend said, Mrs. Clinton was upset when the leadership rejected the possibility of her heading a special new task force with a staff and a mandate to develop legislation expanding health care coverage.
In dismissing the idea, Senate leaders noted that Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, chairman of the health committee, planned to play the leading role in shaping a plan for universal coverage even as he battles brain cancer. In the current Congress, Mrs. Clinton is eighth in seniority among Democrats on Mr. Kennedy’s committee.
Other Democratic officials said Mrs. Clinton had then wanted to serve in a broader leadership role, perhaps as chairwoman of the Democratic Policy Committee, a sort of internal “think tank” with a staff, a budget and office space. But the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, refused to give her that post, because he did not want to force out the current chairman, Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, the officials said.
Basically, life in the Senate is not all peaches and cream for Clinton. When she first elected in 2000, clearly the job was a stepping stone for a presidential run down the road. We all know how that turned out. Now, Clinton has little seniority and she is forced to see every day colleagues who backed Barack Obama.As I've said before, a lot of this is about ego. If this was about being Secretary of the Interior or Veterans Affairs, it would be a non-starter. But Secretary of State is one of two plums prestigious enough for Clinton to the leave the Senate. Clearly, she is torn because she is still calculating if a future presidential run is possible. Assuming she realizes that it is almost impossible, she will take the appointment (of course, if she does not come to that, she will stay in order to fight towards 2016). Nevertheless, the Times here draws a good picture of why Clinton is likely to go to State.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Now It's 174 Votes
The recount has begun in Minnesota, and what was once a 205, then a 206, then a 215 vote lead for Norm Coleman, is now down to 174 votes. Across the state, approximately 18% of all ballots, in counties are across the state, have been recounted. As Nate Silver points out, if Franken continues to gain at the same rate through the other 82% of ballots, he would squeeze out a tight win. Of course, there is zero guarantee that this will occur.
Compounding the problem is that both campaigns are challenging scores of ballots.
Campaign monitors from both sides had challenged a total of 269 votes statewide, with Coleman observers disputing 146 ballots while the Franken camp challenged 123.
Here's betting that this one gets really ugly before it is finally settled, God knows when.
Compounding the problem is that both campaigns are challenging scores of ballots.
Campaign monitors from both sides had challenged a total of 269 votes statewide, with Coleman observers disputing 146 ballots while the Franken camp challenged 123.
If that pace continues, challenged votes could wind up being a major factor in a race where the margin is down to hundreths of a percentage point. Challenged votes will be set aside until mid-December, when a five-member state Canvassing Board will review them individually.
Indeed, it is looking increasingly likely that the number of challenged ballots will exceed the final victory margin for either Coleman or Franken once the recount is concluded. What does this mean? Simply that the fight for the seat could be decided by the courts.Here's betting that this one gets really ugly before it is finally settled, God knows when.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A Final Word on Lieberman
Needless to say I was irritated but not at all surprised by the slap on the wrist Lieberman got from the Senate Democratic Caucus. In a word, the 42 Democrats who voted to allow Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship are pathetic. And weenies. Make that two words. Of course, Joe, knowing he got away with murder, expressed not a syllable of an apology, and was anything but contrite. Indeed, in his televised interview tonight, he was defiant and denied that he was even punished.
If I was a Senator and was able to speak at the meeting, I would have had one simple question for my colleagues: Assuming John McCain had won and Joe was tapped for his cabinet -- which would have been extremely likely -- how do they think Lieberman would have felt, leaving and knowing full well that Connecticut GOP Gov. Jodi Rell was going to replace him was a Republican, in all likelihood Chris Shays? I think the answer is clear: the prospect would have delighted Lieberman, as it would have allowed him to stick a final knife in the back of his former party members.
And that is the man they just rewarded? Brilliant. I said it before, and I will say it again: this episode demonstrates just how weak Harry Reid and Senate Democrats are. When Lieberman threatened them with switching, Reid was terrified of any fight, and backed off instantly, all despite the fact that Lieberman had zero leverage from which to make threats. It's nuts.
A lot of people think that angry bloggers like Markos and others are being over the top in their calls to strip Lieberman. I concede that there have been times where Kos has been over the top in matters relating to Lieberman. However, he is dead-right here. This is not about punishment or retribution, or getting even. Lieberman exhibited continued and outrageous behavior for a Democratic member of the United States Senate. He was a part of the caucus, and he backed not just John McCain, but Republicans up for re-election in key races like Maine and Minnesota. This all is a non-starter. Lieberman should have been tossed immediately. But again, Harry Reid is a weenie.
Given that he may face tough re-election in two years, I wish Reid would be ousted from his perch, but I know that won't happen. He's too entrenched, and besides, if Democrats lacked the guts to toss Lieberman for his behavior, there is no way they would have the stomach to push out Reid.
If I was a Senator and was able to speak at the meeting, I would have had one simple question for my colleagues: Assuming John McCain had won and Joe was tapped for his cabinet -- which would have been extremely likely -- how do they think Lieberman would have felt, leaving and knowing full well that Connecticut GOP Gov. Jodi Rell was going to replace him was a Republican, in all likelihood Chris Shays? I think the answer is clear: the prospect would have delighted Lieberman, as it would have allowed him to stick a final knife in the back of his former party members.
And that is the man they just rewarded? Brilliant. I said it before, and I will say it again: this episode demonstrates just how weak Harry Reid and Senate Democrats are. When Lieberman threatened them with switching, Reid was terrified of any fight, and backed off instantly, all despite the fact that Lieberman had zero leverage from which to make threats. It's nuts.
A lot of people think that angry bloggers like Markos and others are being over the top in their calls to strip Lieberman. I concede that there have been times where Kos has been over the top in matters relating to Lieberman. However, he is dead-right here. This is not about punishment or retribution, or getting even. Lieberman exhibited continued and outrageous behavior for a Democratic member of the United States Senate. He was a part of the caucus, and he backed not just John McCain, but Republicans up for re-election in key races like Maine and Minnesota. This all is a non-starter. Lieberman should have been tossed immediately. But again, Harry Reid is a weenie.
Given that he may face tough re-election in two years, I wish Reid would be ousted from his perch, but I know that won't happen. He's too entrenched, and besides, if Democrats lacked the guts to toss Lieberman for his behavior, there is no way they would have the stomach to push out Reid.
Texas Sunset
Politico has a good article this week on Texas' loss of political clout in Washington with Bush leaving office and Democrats strengthening their grip on power in Congress. Embedded in the article is a small piece I wanted to highlight:
And while The Hammer’s redistricting crusade in 2003 certainly helped Texas Republicans at the time, it has come back to haunt the state under Democratic rule. If not for DeLay’s machinations, three Texas Democrats would likely be sitting pretty these days as chairmen of powerful House committees: former Reps. Jim Turner (Homeland Security), Martin Frost (Rules) and Charlie Stenholm (Agriculture).
The "Hammer" is obviously a reference to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who was from Sugar Land. It was DeLay who mastermined the mid-decade redistricting scheme that led to the ouster of Turner, Frost, and others.
Think about that. If not for DeLay's gross power grab, Texas would now have three homestate reps at the helm of powerful committees. And this does not even include ex-congressman Max Sandlin who may have gotten to head the Ag Approps subcommittee.
That one has come back to bite Texas on the butt, hasn't it? And you know what's telling? I have no doubt that if you asked him, DeLay would do it all over again in the same exact way.
And while The Hammer’s redistricting crusade in 2003 certainly helped Texas Republicans at the time, it has come back to haunt the state under Democratic rule. If not for DeLay’s machinations, three Texas Democrats would likely be sitting pretty these days as chairmen of powerful House committees: former Reps. Jim Turner (Homeland Security), Martin Frost (Rules) and Charlie Stenholm (Agriculture).
The "Hammer" is obviously a reference to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who was from Sugar Land. It was DeLay who mastermined the mid-decade redistricting scheme that led to the ouster of Turner, Frost, and others.
Think about that. If not for DeLay's gross power grab, Texas would now have three homestate reps at the helm of powerful committees. And this does not even include ex-congressman Max Sandlin who may have gotten to head the Ag Approps subcommittee.
That one has come back to bite Texas on the butt, hasn't it? And you know what's telling? I have no doubt that if you asked him, DeLay would do it all over again in the same exact way.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Alienated Libertarians and the GOP
Please check out this opinion piece in week's Denver Post from a Colorado Republican-turned-independent who spurned all GOP candidates this year out of his disgust for the Republican Party's beholdence to the Religious Right. Here's a piece:
After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, "Why did we lose?"
I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.
I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.
But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans" embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
I have little doubt that this gentleman is not alone, in Colorado and elsewhere. The Republican Party has over-reached, and there are many conservatives who have been turned off by the party's policies which intrude into peoples' personal lives as well as the GOP's over-reliance on obtaining approval from divisive figures like James Dobson and Tony Perkins. This alienation of libertarians away from the GOP may be one of the key storylines coming out of the election and perhaps impacting the nation's political landscape in years to come.
After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, "Why did we lose?"
I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.
I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.
But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans" embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
I have little doubt that this gentleman is not alone, in Colorado and elsewhere. The Republican Party has over-reached, and there are many conservatives who have been turned off by the party's policies which intrude into peoples' personal lives as well as the GOP's over-reliance on obtaining approval from divisive figures like James Dobson and Tony Perkins. This alienation of libertarians away from the GOP may be one of the key storylines coming out of the election and perhaps impacting the nation's political landscape in years to come.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Breaking Down Swing State Exit Polls: Ideology
In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to voter ideology. In the post following this, we will compare the results to the data regarding party voting.
National Exits
Liberals
(2004, 21%) Kerry 85, Bush 13
(2008, 22%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Moderates
(2004, 45%) Kerry 54, Bush 45
(2008, 44%) Obama 60, McCain 39
Turnout: Down 1% under 2004
Change: +6% Obama over Kerry
Conservatives
(2004, 34%) Bush 84, Kerry 15
(2008, 34%) McCain 78, Obama 20
Turnout. Same as 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Analysis. This data is absolutely fascinating. For the most part, the break-down of voters' ideologies was identical to 2004, with a tiny bit of movement involving the percentages of liberals and moderates. This data provides a strong counter to the argument that the electorate that came out this year was vastly different from that four years ago. This isn't to say that the electorate is unchanged, or that it is less Democratic-leaning, just that in terms of how voters self-identified their ideologies, there is little difference. As you can see, Obama improved over Kerry almost equally among the groups, but most with the vital moderates in the middle who make up almost one half of national voters. This split shows perhaps better than any other information that McCain did not lose this election one front: he was pounded across the board.
Colorado
Liberals
(2004, 22%) Kerry 88, Bush 11
(2008, 17%) Obama 96, McCain 3
Turnout: Down 5% under 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 43%) Kerry 54, Bush 45
(2008, 46%) Obama 63, McCain 35
Turnout: Up 3% over 2004
Change: +9% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 35%) Bush 88, Kerry 12
(2008, 36%) McCain 79, Obama 18
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +6% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. The big storylines here are Obama's big gains with liberals and moderates. Interestingly, liberal participation dropped 5% from the rate in 2008, but it did not impact Obama since he did so much better among both voters on the left, and moderates whose participation level 3%.
Florida
Liberals
(2004, 20%) Kerry 81, Bush 18
(2008, 19%) Obama 91, Kerry 8
Turnout: Down 1% under 2004
Change: +10% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +6% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 47%) Kerry 56, Bush 43
(2008, 47%) Obama 57, McCain 41
Turnout: Same as 2004
Change: +1% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -5% under national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 34%) Bush 86, Kerry 13
(2008, 35%) McCain 77, Obama 21
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. For reasons I am going to get to into in much great detail in a separate post, Obama won the state of Florida on the margins by running up the score with his key groups and areas. This was not a state like Indiana where he won by improving statewide. In point of fact, Obama's numbers were below Kerry in many areas of the state, particularly in northern Florida. Here, we see that Obama ran up the score with liberals, and also made some good improvement with conservatives. Interestingly, Obama opened up almost no difference in his success rate with moderates with Kerry. Note that turnout numbers for each group were basically the same as 2004, making us wonder how much Florida's electorate is changing, if at all, and whether Obama won Florida because of a tremendous campaign plan instead of any perceivable leftward movement in the state.
Indiana
Liberals
(2004, 14%) Kerry 79, Bush 21
(2008, 20%) Obama 87, McCain 12
Turnout: Up 6% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 43%) Kerry 50, Bush 48
(2008, 44%) Obama 60, McCain 39
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +10% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 42%) Bush 85, Kerry 14
(2008, 36%) McCain 83, Obama 16
Turnout: Down 6% under 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. Obama did not win the state of Indiana by appealing more to conservatives. He won the state because he turned out an incredible number of self-identified liberals and also did far better with moderates. Note that liberal turnout jumped 6% while conservative turnout dropped 5%. This plus gains among moderates made winning the state possible.
Nevada
Liberals
(2004, 18%) Kerry 84, Bush 14
(2008, 22%) Obama 87, McCain 11
Turnout: Up 4% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 47%) Kerry 55, Bush 43
(2008, 44%) Obama 64, McCain 33
Turnout: Down 3% under 2004
Change: +9% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 34%) Bush 81, Kerry 18
(2008, 34%) McCain 77, Obama 21
Turnout: Same as 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -2% under national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. Obama's improvement with conservatives was only marginal. He did better with liberals, which meant a good deal more since liberal turnout relative to overall turnout was +4%. However, Obama won the Silver State by such a lopsided margin because of moderates. When you win two-thirds of voters in the center in a swing state, it makes sense that you take the state so overwhelmingly. This is a state to watch as it gets larger. If Obama can consolidate Democratic strength here -- Dems now control two of the three congressional seats, with a fourth to be added in the next census and the legislature -- that would be a big loss to the Republican Party on the state and national level.
North Carolina
Liberals
(2004, 17%) Kerry 80, Bush 18
(2008, 19%) Obama 87, McCain 13
Turnout: Up 2% over 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 44%) Kerry 50, Bush 49
(2008, 44%) Obama 63, McCain 37
Turnout: Same as 2004
Change: +13% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +7% over national Dem gains with liberals
Conservatives
(2004, 40%) Bush 81, Kerry 18
(2008, 37%) McCain 84, Obama 15
Turnout: Down 3% under 2004
Change: -3% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national Dem gains: -8% under national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. The voting patterns in North Carolina represent some of the biggest extremes in swing states this year. Obama did better with moderates over Kerry to the tune of an enormous 13%, which was important since moderate voters remained 44% of the electorate. Not to mention big gains with Dems, who turned out in greater numbers this year. On the other side of the coin, conservative voting was one of the rare cross-sections where Obama's numbers were below Kerry's. Clearly, while less conservatives showed up this year (or likely, many identified themselves as moderates), there were plenty of voters who could not pull the lever for Obama. Whether you want to chalk this up to race is up to you, but I think that this was certainly an issue for some voters in North Carolina (as well as elsewhere in the South). There is little other explanation considering that Obama improved so heavily in a state Kerry lost by 12% four years.
Ohio
Liberals
(2004, 19%) Kerry 85, Bush 14
(2008, 20%) Obama 83, McCain 16
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: -2% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -6% under national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 47%) Kerry 59, Bush 41
(2008, 45%) Obama 61, McCain 38
Turnout: Down 2% under 2004
Change: +2 Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -4% under national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 34%) Bush 87, Kerry 13
(2008, 35%) McCain 76, Obama 22
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +9% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over national Dem gains with moderates
Analysis. Looking at these numbers, you need to keep two things in mind: First, Bush won here in 2004 by just 51-49, and second, this year, Obama won 51-47. In other words, the difference between 2004 and 2008 -- besides the flipping of 20 electoral votes and the state -- was small in the numbers. This is important to remember because the gains Obama made over Kerry appear so incremental compared to what happened in places like Indiana and North Carolina, where Obama made massive improvements over the 2004 Kerry numbers basically across the geographic and demographic boards. Anyway, note Obama's seemingly strange decline among Ohio liberals. Hmm, what could account for that? It definitely appears unusual since Obama improved on Kerry's overall state showing to the tune of 2%+. Take Mahoning County in eastern Ohio, a blue collar, staunch Democratic County. Kerry got 63% here, and Obama took 62%, a very slight drop. Food for thought, as we may have seen socially conservative Democrats unable to vote for a black liberal. Nonetheless, Obama won Ohio through different means this year: he had incredible improvement with the state's conservatives. This shows to me that the campaign focused heavily on areas in the state that are generally not as hospitable to Dems, and it paid off big-time. Keep in mind that in 2004, Kerry won liberals by 72 points, and more importantly he won moderates by 18% and still lost. I would bet anyone a Coke that Obama's team saw that data, realized that Kerry did great with the middle, and wanted to work on improving in places Kerry likely did not pay as much attention to like western Ohio. Want proof? Check out tiny Henry, Van Wert, and Williams counties in northwestern Ohio: Obama improved by 8, 7, and 9% respectively in the three. All of that work in red areas made a big difference, just as it did more broadly across Indiana (which is really red everywhere).
Virginia
Liberals
(2004, 17%) Kerry 83, Bush 17
(2008, 21%) Obama 90, McCain 9
Turnout: Up 4% over 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 45%) Kerry 57, Bush 42
(2008, 46%) Obama 58, McCain 41
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +1% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -7% under national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 38%) Bush 85, Kerry 15
(2008, 33%) McCain 80, Obama 18
Turnout: Down 5% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -2% under national Dem gains with moderates
Analysis. This data provides more evidence why there should be no question that Virginia is now a purple state, and Republicans are actively losing a lot of ground here. While conservative voter participation remained the same nationally between 2004 and 2008, it dropped a not-insignificant 5% in Virginia, while liberal participation jumped 4% in the Commonwealth. Obama's gains with conservatives and moderates were solid, but he won on his huge growth with the expanding liberal base in the state. A big state with 13 electoral votes and 11 congressmen, the GOP cannot afford to lose the state nationally over the long haul, but things are not treading the party's way. Not to mention that Mark Warner won a Senate seat, and Dems captured three GOP House seats and in the process knocked off two incumbents. The state's GOP has done a terrible job and needs to get its act together fast.
National Exits
Liberals
(2004, 21%) Kerry 85, Bush 13
(2008, 22%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Moderates
(2004, 45%) Kerry 54, Bush 45
(2008, 44%) Obama 60, McCain 39
Turnout: Down 1% under 2004
Change: +6% Obama over Kerry
Conservatives
(2004, 34%) Bush 84, Kerry 15
(2008, 34%) McCain 78, Obama 20
Turnout. Same as 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Analysis. This data is absolutely fascinating. For the most part, the break-down of voters' ideologies was identical to 2004, with a tiny bit of movement involving the percentages of liberals and moderates. This data provides a strong counter to the argument that the electorate that came out this year was vastly different from that four years ago. This isn't to say that the electorate is unchanged, or that it is less Democratic-leaning, just that in terms of how voters self-identified their ideologies, there is little difference. As you can see, Obama improved over Kerry almost equally among the groups, but most with the vital moderates in the middle who make up almost one half of national voters. This split shows perhaps better than any other information that McCain did not lose this election one front: he was pounded across the board.
Colorado
Liberals
(2004, 22%) Kerry 88, Bush 11
(2008, 17%) Obama 96, McCain 3
Turnout: Down 5% under 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 43%) Kerry 54, Bush 45
(2008, 46%) Obama 63, McCain 35
Turnout: Up 3% over 2004
Change: +9% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 35%) Bush 88, Kerry 12
(2008, 36%) McCain 79, Obama 18
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +6% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. The big storylines here are Obama's big gains with liberals and moderates. Interestingly, liberal participation dropped 5% from the rate in 2008, but it did not impact Obama since he did so much better among both voters on the left, and moderates whose participation level 3%.
Florida
Liberals
(2004, 20%) Kerry 81, Bush 18
(2008, 19%) Obama 91, Kerry 8
Turnout: Down 1% under 2004
Change: +10% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +6% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 47%) Kerry 56, Bush 43
(2008, 47%) Obama 57, McCain 41
Turnout: Same as 2004
Change: +1% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -5% under national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 34%) Bush 86, Kerry 13
(2008, 35%) McCain 77, Obama 21
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. For reasons I am going to get to into in much great detail in a separate post, Obama won the state of Florida on the margins by running up the score with his key groups and areas. This was not a state like Indiana where he won by improving statewide. In point of fact, Obama's numbers were below Kerry in many areas of the state, particularly in northern Florida. Here, we see that Obama ran up the score with liberals, and also made some good improvement with conservatives. Interestingly, Obama opened up almost no difference in his success rate with moderates with Kerry. Note that turnout numbers for each group were basically the same as 2004, making us wonder how much Florida's electorate is changing, if at all, and whether Obama won Florida because of a tremendous campaign plan instead of any perceivable leftward movement in the state.
Indiana
Liberals
(2004, 14%) Kerry 79, Bush 21
(2008, 20%) Obama 87, McCain 12
Turnout: Up 6% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 43%) Kerry 50, Bush 48
(2008, 44%) Obama 60, McCain 39
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +10% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 42%) Bush 85, Kerry 14
(2008, 36%) McCain 83, Obama 16
Turnout: Down 6% under 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. Obama did not win the state of Indiana by appealing more to conservatives. He won the state because he turned out an incredible number of self-identified liberals and also did far better with moderates. Note that liberal turnout jumped 6% while conservative turnout dropped 5%. This plus gains among moderates made winning the state possible.
Nevada
Liberals
(2004, 18%) Kerry 84, Bush 14
(2008, 22%) Obama 87, McCain 11
Turnout: Up 4% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 47%) Kerry 55, Bush 43
(2008, 44%) Obama 64, McCain 33
Turnout: Down 3% under 2004
Change: +9% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 34%) Bush 81, Kerry 18
(2008, 34%) McCain 77, Obama 21
Turnout: Same as 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -2% under national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. Obama's improvement with conservatives was only marginal. He did better with liberals, which meant a good deal more since liberal turnout relative to overall turnout was +4%. However, Obama won the Silver State by such a lopsided margin because of moderates. When you win two-thirds of voters in the center in a swing state, it makes sense that you take the state so overwhelmingly. This is a state to watch as it gets larger. If Obama can consolidate Democratic strength here -- Dems now control two of the three congressional seats, with a fourth to be added in the next census and the legislature -- that would be a big loss to the Republican Party on the state and national level.
North Carolina
Liberals
(2004, 17%) Kerry 80, Bush 18
(2008, 19%) Obama 87, McCain 13
Turnout: Up 2% over 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 44%) Kerry 50, Bush 49
(2008, 44%) Obama 63, McCain 37
Turnout: Same as 2004
Change: +13% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +7% over national Dem gains with liberals
Conservatives
(2004, 40%) Bush 81, Kerry 18
(2008, 37%) McCain 84, Obama 15
Turnout: Down 3% under 2004
Change: -3% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national Dem gains: -8% under national Dem gains with conservatives
Analysis. The voting patterns in North Carolina represent some of the biggest extremes in swing states this year. Obama did better with moderates over Kerry to the tune of an enormous 13%, which was important since moderate voters remained 44% of the electorate. Not to mention big gains with Dems, who turned out in greater numbers this year. On the other side of the coin, conservative voting was one of the rare cross-sections where Obama's numbers were below Kerry's. Clearly, while less conservatives showed up this year (or likely, many identified themselves as moderates), there were plenty of voters who could not pull the lever for Obama. Whether you want to chalk this up to race is up to you, but I think that this was certainly an issue for some voters in North Carolina (as well as elsewhere in the South). There is little other explanation considering that Obama improved so heavily in a state Kerry lost by 12% four years.
Ohio
Liberals
(2004, 19%) Kerry 85, Bush 14
(2008, 20%) Obama 83, McCain 16
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: -2% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -6% under national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 47%) Kerry 59, Bush 41
(2008, 45%) Obama 61, McCain 38
Turnout: Down 2% under 2004
Change: +2 Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -4% under national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 34%) Bush 87, Kerry 13
(2008, 35%) McCain 76, Obama 22
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +9% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over national Dem gains with moderates
Analysis. Looking at these numbers, you need to keep two things in mind: First, Bush won here in 2004 by just 51-49, and second, this year, Obama won 51-47. In other words, the difference between 2004 and 2008 -- besides the flipping of 20 electoral votes and the state -- was small in the numbers. This is important to remember because the gains Obama made over Kerry appear so incremental compared to what happened in places like Indiana and North Carolina, where Obama made massive improvements over the 2004 Kerry numbers basically across the geographic and demographic boards. Anyway, note Obama's seemingly strange decline among Ohio liberals. Hmm, what could account for that? It definitely appears unusual since Obama improved on Kerry's overall state showing to the tune of 2%+. Take Mahoning County in eastern Ohio, a blue collar, staunch Democratic County. Kerry got 63% here, and Obama took 62%, a very slight drop. Food for thought, as we may have seen socially conservative Democrats unable to vote for a black liberal. Nonetheless, Obama won Ohio through different means this year: he had incredible improvement with the state's conservatives. This shows to me that the campaign focused heavily on areas in the state that are generally not as hospitable to Dems, and it paid off big-time. Keep in mind that in 2004, Kerry won liberals by 72 points, and more importantly he won moderates by 18% and still lost. I would bet anyone a Coke that Obama's team saw that data, realized that Kerry did great with the middle, and wanted to work on improving in places Kerry likely did not pay as much attention to like western Ohio. Want proof? Check out tiny Henry, Van Wert, and Williams counties in northwestern Ohio: Obama improved by 8, 7, and 9% respectively in the three. All of that work in red areas made a big difference, just as it did more broadly across Indiana (which is really red everywhere).
Virginia
Liberals
(2004, 17%) Kerry 83, Bush 17
(2008, 21%) Obama 90, McCain 9
Turnout: Up 4% over 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with liberals
Moderates
(2004, 45%) Kerry 57, Bush 42
(2008, 46%) Obama 58, McCain 41
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: +1% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -7% under national Dem gains with moderates
Conservatives
(2004, 38%) Bush 85, Kerry 15
(2008, 33%) McCain 80, Obama 18
Turnout: Down 5% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -2% under national Dem gains with moderates
Analysis. This data provides more evidence why there should be no question that Virginia is now a purple state, and Republicans are actively losing a lot of ground here. While conservative voter participation remained the same nationally between 2004 and 2008, it dropped a not-insignificant 5% in Virginia, while liberal participation jumped 4% in the Commonwealth. Obama's gains with conservatives and moderates were solid, but he won on his huge growth with the expanding liberal base in the state. A big state with 13 electoral votes and 11 congressmen, the GOP cannot afford to lose the state nationally over the long haul, but things are not treading the party's way. Not to mention that Mark Warner won a Senate seat, and Dems captured three GOP House seats and in the process knocked off two incumbents. The state's GOP has done a terrible job and needs to get its act together fast.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Hillary Frontrunner for State?
If true, this would be an incredible turnaround for Obama.
Several Obama transition advisers are strongly advocating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for secretary of State, a move that would create the ultimate “Team of Rivals” cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions.
President-elect Obama has narrowed the possibilities for secretary of State and Clinton is among those being strongly considered, the officials said. Some even call her the favorite.
It is not known what Obama himself thinks of the idea. But the fact that it is being entertained within his camp shows how much things have changed in the months since he defeated her for the Democratic nomination in a protracted primary marathon.
Back in June-July, we noted that there were only two positions, besides veep, which we felt Hillary would take over her Senate seat: Associate Justice on the Supreme Court or Secretary of State. While we spent a great deal of time discussing the possibility of putting Hillary on the High Court (ultimately determining that while she would be qualified for the position, she would be too old and her confirmation would be too difficult for Obama to ever nominate her), we dismissed the possibility of State out of hand. My initial feeling on the matter was that Obama would not place one of his biggest rivals in the top spot in his cabinet. After Obama never considered Clinton for his running mate, and his chilly relationship with Bill continued, I did not change my view one iota.
While I will believe this article when I actually see Clinton get the appointment, the storyline is nonetheless noteworthy. As the author states, the very fact that Team Obama is even talking seriously about Clinton -- as opposed to during the veep search when she was never formally interviewed or even vetted -- says a lot about Obama's mindset today. Has he moved past his mediocre relationship with the Clintons? I doubt it very much, but that's not the point. His consideration of Clinton for the job may be an important sign of both his confidence, and in turn his sense of magnanimity to reach out to his rivals, past and even present, and work to bring them into the fold.
On a personal level, I would be very impressed with Obama if he ultimately picked Clinton for the vital post. Not because I was supporting her in the primary. Not because I remain a strong fan of her husband's presidency. And not because I think she would be the very best choice. I would be impressed because it would show me vital growth on the part of the President-elect, and an ability on his part to be a good winner in the same way Winston Churchill was.
Up to now, one thing tht has disappointed me about Obama is his arrogant refusal to reach out to Bill Clinton and let bygones be bygones. Perhaps victory has changed his mindset some. We'll see if it happens, but this is intriguing and completely out to the blue for me.
Several Obama transition advisers are strongly advocating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for secretary of State, a move that would create the ultimate “Team of Rivals” cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions.
President-elect Obama has narrowed the possibilities for secretary of State and Clinton is among those being strongly considered, the officials said. Some even call her the favorite.
It is not known what Obama himself thinks of the idea. But the fact that it is being entertained within his camp shows how much things have changed in the months since he defeated her for the Democratic nomination in a protracted primary marathon.
Back in June-July, we noted that there were only two positions, besides veep, which we felt Hillary would take over her Senate seat: Associate Justice on the Supreme Court or Secretary of State. While we spent a great deal of time discussing the possibility of putting Hillary on the High Court (ultimately determining that while she would be qualified for the position, she would be too old and her confirmation would be too difficult for Obama to ever nominate her), we dismissed the possibility of State out of hand. My initial feeling on the matter was that Obama would not place one of his biggest rivals in the top spot in his cabinet. After Obama never considered Clinton for his running mate, and his chilly relationship with Bill continued, I did not change my view one iota.
While I will believe this article when I actually see Clinton get the appointment, the storyline is nonetheless noteworthy. As the author states, the very fact that Team Obama is even talking seriously about Clinton -- as opposed to during the veep search when she was never formally interviewed or even vetted -- says a lot about Obama's mindset today. Has he moved past his mediocre relationship with the Clintons? I doubt it very much, but that's not the point. His consideration of Clinton for the job may be an important sign of both his confidence, and in turn his sense of magnanimity to reach out to his rivals, past and even present, and work to bring them into the fold.
On a personal level, I would be very impressed with Obama if he ultimately picked Clinton for the vital post. Not because I was supporting her in the primary. Not because I remain a strong fan of her husband's presidency. And not because I think she would be the very best choice. I would be impressed because it would show me vital growth on the part of the President-elect, and an ability on his part to be a good winner in the same way Winston Churchill was.
Up to now, one thing tht has disappointed me about Obama is his arrogant refusal to reach out to Bill Clinton and let bygones be bygones. Perhaps victory has changed his mindset some. We'll see if it happens, but this is intriguing and completely out to the blue for me.
Grading My Predictions
In the spirit of grading election pollsters, I wanted to go back over my election day predictions to talk about how I ended up doing. I think you will see that in sum, we did alright, but definitely not spectacularly.
President
T2L Electoral College prediction: Obama would ultimately win 359 Electoral Votes
(29 states + DC: CA (55), CO (9), CT (7), DC (3), DE (3), FL (27), HI (4), IL (21), IA (7), ME (4), MD (10), MA (12), MI (17), MN (10), MT (3), NV (5), NH (4), NJ (15), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), ND (3), OH (20), OR (7), PA (21), RI (4), VT (3), VA (13), WA (11), WI (10))
Popular Vote prediction: Obama 53, McCain 46
Actual result: Obama did win the popular vote by approximately 53-46, so we got that pretty right.
However, the final split in the Electoral College was 365-173. I was wrong in my two upset picks, as both Montana (narrowly) and North Dakota (less so) stayed in the Republican column. Additionally, Indiana, which I said would go to McCain by 51-49, was won by the Democrat by 50-49. Finally, Obama looks to have won Nebraska's Second Congressional District (the result has not yet been certified by the state, but it looks to have happened), bagging himself a final electoral vote.
Grade. Everything else broke as we said they would, so we ended up correctly calling 47 out of 50 states right (excluding NE-02). Given the our popular vote prediction, I think we should get around an A- in our presidential predictions.
Senate
Prediction: Democrats would win 8 new seats (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia).
We also observed that Minnesota would be a total toss-up, Ronnie Musgrove would lose a tight race in Mississippi, Mitch McConnell would be re-elected, and Georgia would head to a runoff which Saxby Chambliss would win.
Actual result. As of now, Democrats did pick up all of those seats except Alaska and Minnesota. They are still counting ballots in Alaska, and it looks like the Democrats may pick it up after being down on election night. In Minnesota, the Democratic candidate, Al Franken, is down 206 votes out of around 2.9 million cast, with a statewide recount looming. It is totally unclear whether Franken can pull ahead.
In terms of the observations, Musgrove lost, but a wide 55-45 margin, while McConnell won 53-47. And Georgia is headed to a runoff which will be on December 2.
Grade. Until Georgia, Minnesota, and Alaska shape out, it is hard to give a fully complete grade for the Senate predictions, but I think this is also A- work given that most of the predictions came out right.
Prediction: Democrats would win 34 GOP-held seats:AL-02, AK-AL, AZ-01, CA-04, CO-04, FL-08, FL-21, FL-24, FL-25, IL-10, IL-11, IN-03, *LA-04 (general is in December), MI-07, MI-09, MN-03, MN-06, NV-03, NJ-03, NM-01, NM-02, NY-13, NY-25, NY-29, NC-08, OH-01, OH-15, OH-16, PA-03, TX-10, VA-02, VA-11, WA-08, WY-AL, while losing three: FL-16, PA-11, TX-22.
Actual result: No question we had some stinkers. I was wrong on: AK-AL, FL-21, FL-25, IL-10, IN-03, MN-03, MN-06, TX-10, WA-08, WY-AL, and PA-10. In the end, the GOP held every one of these except the last one, which Dems held. Additionally, Democrats lost two other seats in KS-02 and LA-06.
I really lament several of my bad picks here.
*First, my two big upsets -- IN-03 and TX-10 -- fizzled because the districts were simply too red to flip.
*The Democratic candidate in FL-21, Raul Martinez, had way too much baggage, and in the end the GOP was able to easily beat him.
*I still don't fully get how Dems lost FL-25 considering Obama's strength with Florida's Latinos and in the South. I guess that the 53-47 GOP win there shows that South Florida Cubans remain strongly in the GOP camp.
*In Wyoming, I should have gone with my head and not my heart: Gary Trauner could not win in a presidential year against an opponent who was well liked by Wyomingites. In Wyoming, if the Republican candidate is not awful (read Barbara Cubin, they will win just about every time). He had his chance in 2006, and lost because he didn't nail down Sweetwater County. My original sentiment from early 2007 holds true: Gary should never have run this year, and should have waited to run for governor in 2010.
*In Minnesota, I would still pick Dems to win the Third again given Obama's strength there, but I regret my pick in the Sixth. The Tom Reynolds Corrollary strikes again, as Michele Bachmann had just enough time to escape her late-election tv gaffe.
*I just could not call ID-01 for Dems, and while they won it, I would make that pick all over again tomorrow.
*In Alaska, people sent Don Young back despite him being down double digits in nearly all polls all year. Young is Alaskans' living, breathing middle finger to the Lower 48 states for the Stevens trial and verdict.
*I was right in only one-fourth of my GOP survivor picks (i.e. Republicans in swing districts who had always seemed to hang around): Steve Chabot did finally lose in OH-01, but Shays did too, and amazingly Mark Kirk and Dave Reichert survived yet again.
*I also regret not sticking to my original list of the five most endangered Democrats which included LA-06 and KS-02. The 2006 win in Kansas was a fluke that was corrected last week, and Don Cazayoux was killed by crybaby Michael Jackson, who bagged 12% (mostly black Baton Rogue voters) from Cazayoux's base.
*We are still waiting for results in CA-04, OH-15, and LA-04.
Grade. I am going to he harsh here and say I deserve a C+ for my House calls. Dems did well, but not nearly as well as I thought they would. I called a net 31 wins in the lower chamber, and they look they will end up at around +22 or so. It was kind of a disappointing night for House Democrats.
Overall grade. I think overall our body of work deserves a B+. That's open to interpretation, but if you disagree, I welcome your thoughts.
President
T2L Electoral College prediction: Obama would ultimately win 359 Electoral Votes
(29 states + DC: CA (55), CO (9), CT (7), DC (3), DE (3), FL (27), HI (4), IL (21), IA (7), ME (4), MD (10), MA (12), MI (17), MN (10), MT (3), NV (5), NH (4), NJ (15), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), ND (3), OH (20), OR (7), PA (21), RI (4), VT (3), VA (13), WA (11), WI (10))
Popular Vote prediction: Obama 53, McCain 46
Actual result: Obama did win the popular vote by approximately 53-46, so we got that pretty right.
However, the final split in the Electoral College was 365-173. I was wrong in my two upset picks, as both Montana (narrowly) and North Dakota (less so) stayed in the Republican column. Additionally, Indiana, which I said would go to McCain by 51-49, was won by the Democrat by 50-49. Finally, Obama looks to have won Nebraska's Second Congressional District (the result has not yet been certified by the state, but it looks to have happened), bagging himself a final electoral vote.
Grade. Everything else broke as we said they would, so we ended up correctly calling 47 out of 50 states right (excluding NE-02). Given the our popular vote prediction, I think we should get around an A- in our presidential predictions.
Senate
Prediction: Democrats would win 8 new seats (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia).
We also observed that Minnesota would be a total toss-up, Ronnie Musgrove would lose a tight race in Mississippi, Mitch McConnell would be re-elected, and Georgia would head to a runoff which Saxby Chambliss would win.
Actual result. As of now, Democrats did pick up all of those seats except Alaska and Minnesota. They are still counting ballots in Alaska, and it looks like the Democrats may pick it up after being down on election night. In Minnesota, the Democratic candidate, Al Franken, is down 206 votes out of around 2.9 million cast, with a statewide recount looming. It is totally unclear whether Franken can pull ahead.
In terms of the observations, Musgrove lost, but a wide 55-45 margin, while McConnell won 53-47. And Georgia is headed to a runoff which will be on December 2.
Grade. Until Georgia, Minnesota, and Alaska shape out, it is hard to give a fully complete grade for the Senate predictions, but I think this is also A- work given that most of the predictions came out right.
Prediction: Democrats would win 34 GOP-held seats:AL-02, AK-AL, AZ-01, CA-04, CO-04, FL-08, FL-21, FL-24, FL-25, IL-10, IL-11, IN-03, *LA-04 (general is in December), MI-07, MI-09, MN-03, MN-06, NV-03, NJ-03, NM-01, NM-02, NY-13, NY-25, NY-29, NC-08, OH-01, OH-15, OH-16, PA-03, TX-10, VA-02, VA-11, WA-08, WY-AL, while losing three: FL-16, PA-11, TX-22.
Actual result: No question we had some stinkers. I was wrong on: AK-AL, FL-21, FL-25, IL-10, IN-03, MN-03, MN-06, TX-10, WA-08, WY-AL, and PA-10. In the end, the GOP held every one of these except the last one, which Dems held. Additionally, Democrats lost two other seats in KS-02 and LA-06.
I really lament several of my bad picks here.
*First, my two big upsets -- IN-03 and TX-10 -- fizzled because the districts were simply too red to flip.
*The Democratic candidate in FL-21, Raul Martinez, had way too much baggage, and in the end the GOP was able to easily beat him.
*I still don't fully get how Dems lost FL-25 considering Obama's strength with Florida's Latinos and in the South. I guess that the 53-47 GOP win there shows that South Florida Cubans remain strongly in the GOP camp.
*In Wyoming, I should have gone with my head and not my heart: Gary Trauner could not win in a presidential year against an opponent who was well liked by Wyomingites. In Wyoming, if the Republican candidate is not awful (read Barbara Cubin, they will win just about every time). He had his chance in 2006, and lost because he didn't nail down Sweetwater County. My original sentiment from early 2007 holds true: Gary should never have run this year, and should have waited to run for governor in 2010.
*In Minnesota, I would still pick Dems to win the Third again given Obama's strength there, but I regret my pick in the Sixth. The Tom Reynolds Corrollary strikes again, as Michele Bachmann had just enough time to escape her late-election tv gaffe.
*I just could not call ID-01 for Dems, and while they won it, I would make that pick all over again tomorrow.
*In Alaska, people sent Don Young back despite him being down double digits in nearly all polls all year. Young is Alaskans' living, breathing middle finger to the Lower 48 states for the Stevens trial and verdict.
*I was right in only one-fourth of my GOP survivor picks (i.e. Republicans in swing districts who had always seemed to hang around): Steve Chabot did finally lose in OH-01, but Shays did too, and amazingly Mark Kirk and Dave Reichert survived yet again.
*I also regret not sticking to my original list of the five most endangered Democrats which included LA-06 and KS-02. The 2006 win in Kansas was a fluke that was corrected last week, and Don Cazayoux was killed by crybaby Michael Jackson, who bagged 12% (mostly black Baton Rogue voters) from Cazayoux's base.
*We are still waiting for results in CA-04, OH-15, and LA-04.
Grade. I am going to he harsh here and say I deserve a C+ for my House calls. Dems did well, but not nearly as well as I thought they would. I called a net 31 wins in the lower chamber, and they look they will end up at around +22 or so. It was kind of a disappointing night for House Democrats.
Overall grade. I think overall our body of work deserves a B+. That's open to interpretation, but if you disagree, I welcome your thoughts.
Breaking Down Swing State Exit Polls: Race
Continuing or series on looking at exit poll data in the swing states, we are going to look at the race numbers in this post. I think the break-downs in a lot of these states says a lot about Barack Obama's winning coalition.
National Exits
Whites
(2004, 77%) Bush 54, Kerry 41
(2008, 74%) McCain 55, Obama 43
Turnout: Down 3% from 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Blacks
(2004, 11%) Kerry 88, Bush 11
(2008, 13%) Obama 95, McCain 4
Turnout: Up 2% from 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 8%) Kerry 53, Bush 44
(2008, 9%) Obama 67, McCain 31
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +14% Obama over Kerry
Analysis. Obama had only slight growth over Kerry's numbers with whites overall. Check out his improvement with other groups. Black turnout rose 2%, and Obama's number was 95% overall (one underrated statistic from 2004 was that Bush got 11% of the black vote, a number that is impressive in retrospect). Perhaps more saliently, while Hispanic turnout only rose 1% relative to overall numbers, Obama's growth was huge: 14% over John Kerry's share of that vote. As we will show below, this meant a great deal in multiple crucial swing states.
Colorado (Statewide result: Obama 53.5, McCain 44.9)
Whites
(2004, 86%) Bush 57, Kerry 42
(2008, 81%) Obama 50, McCain 48
Turnout: Down 5% from 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +6% over national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 4%) Kerry 87, Bush 13
(2008, 4%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 8%) Kerry 68, Bush 30
(2008, 13%) Obama 61, McCain 38
Turnout: Up 5% from 2004
Change: -7% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -21% under national Dem gains with Hispanics
Analysis. While white turnout was down in the state, Obama made strong improvement with the populace. There was not a large enough sample of blacks in the exit poll to give us Obama's numbers or make a comparison with 2004. In terms of Hispanics, Obama surprisingly dropped 7% from Kerry's showing, and very well below the national trend numbers for the Democratic ticket. Looking towards 2012, if not sooner, Democrats should look to see why Hispanic turnout went up over 50%, but Obama's share of the vote dropped so drastically. I will try to look at this number a bit more closely later.
Florida (Statewide result: Obama 50.9, McCain 48.4)
Whites
(2004, 70%) Bush 57, Kerry 42
(2008, 71%) McCain 56, Obama 42
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +0 Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -2% under national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 12%) Kerry 86, Bush 13
(2008, 13%) Obama 96, McCain 4
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +10% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 15%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 14%) Obama 57, McCain 42
Turnout: Down 1% from 2004
Change: +13% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under national Dem gains with blacks
Analysis. Statistic #1: White turnout was basically identical, and Obama did the same with whites as did Kerry. Statistic #2: Black turnout was basically unchanged, but Obama improved 10% over Kerry. Statistic #3: Hispanic/Latino turnout was down a hair, but Obama's gains were even higher than they were with blacks, a whopping 13% for the state (but just below the level of national gains Obama posted). While #1 was a wash, #2 and #3 explain how Obama won the Sunshine State.
Indiana (Actual result: Obama 49.9, McCain 49)
Whites
(2004, 89%) Bush 65, Kerry 34
(2008, 88%) McCain 54, Obama 45
Turnout: Down 1% from 2004
Change: +11% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +9% over national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 7%) Kerry 92, Bush 8
(2008, 7%) Obama 90, McCain 10
Turnout: Same as 2004
Change: -2% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -9% under national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 3%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
(2008, 4%) Obama 77, McCain 23
Analysis. Obama improved with whites in Indiana. Drastically. Indiana may not be on its way to becoming a blue state, but by actually fighting in the state, Obama was able to peel off enough support in this mostly-white state to eke out a win. Paradoxically, his share of blacks dropped a little under Kerry, but not enough to cost him the state.
Nevada (Actual result: Obama 55.1, McCain 42.7)
Whites
(2004, 77%) Bush 55, Kerry 43
(2008, 69%) McCain 53, Obama 45
Turnout: Down 8% from 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: Gains equal to national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 7%) Kerry 86, Bush 13
(2008, 10%) Obama 94, McCain 5
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gain: +1% over national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 10%) Kerry 60, Bush 39
(2008, 15%) Obama 76, McCain 22
Turnout: +5% over 2004
Change: +16% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over national Dem gains with Hispancis
Analysis. White turnout dropped a good deal in Nevada, but Obama improved slightly with them. The drop in turnout probably had a great deal to with a jump in black turnout and a huge explosion in Hispanic turnout. Obama won over three out of every four Hispanic and Latino voters. That, combined with nearly all of the black voters made this one a rout instead of the close win people expected.
New Mexico (Actual result: Obama 57, McCain 42)
Whites
(2004, 57%) Bush 56, Kerry 43
(2008, 50%) McCain 56, Obama 42
Turnout: Down 7% from 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 2%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
(2008, 1%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
Turnout: Down 1% from 2004
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 32%) Kerry 56, Bush 44
(2008, 41%) Obama 69, McCain 30
Turnout: Up 9% from 2004
Change: +13% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under national Dem gains with Hispanics
Analysis. Given the drop in white turnout, the explosion in Hispanic turnout, and Obama's nearly 70% with the group gave him an easy win in the Land of Enchantment.
North Carolina (Actual result: Obama 49.9, McCain 49.5)
Whites
(2004, 71%) Bush 73, Kerry 27
(2008, 72%) McCain 64, Obama 35
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +6% over national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 26%) Kerry 85, Bush 14
(2008, 23%) Obama 95, McCain 5
Turnout: Down 3% from 2004
Change: +10% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 1%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
(2008, 3%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
Turnout: Up 2% from 2004
Analysis. Without looking at the numbers, it would easy to say that Obama won North Carolina because of black turnout. Not so. As you can see, black turnout dropped with 2004's levels, though Obama improved on Kerry by 10%. The reason Obama was able to win was that he did much better with whites, gains that were well above his national average gains. Very impressive. One other issue: while we don't know exactly how well Obama did with Hispanics, turnout rose three times from 2004 levels, a key factor that may have been a tipping point in a state determined by less than one percent overall.
Ohio (Actual result: Obama 51.2, McCain 47.2)
Whites
(2004, 86%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 83%) McCain 52, Obama 46
Turnout: Down 3% from 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference with national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 10%) Kerry 84, Bush 16
(2008, 11%) Obama 97, McCain 2
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +13% over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +6% over national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 3%) Kerry 65, Bush 35
(2008, 4%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
Turnout: +1% over 2004
Analysis. Obama made small gains with whites, whose turnout dropped, but huge improvement with blacks that was just under double his rate of improvement with blacks compared with 2004. Bush's 16% with blacks in Ohio four years ago cost Kerry the state, but not Obama.
Virginia (Actual result: Obama 52.3, McCain 46.8)
Whites
(2004, 72%) Bush 68, Kerry 32
(2008, 70%) McCain 60, Obama 49
Turnout: Down 2% from 2004
Change: +17% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +15% over national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 21%) Kerry 87, Bush 12
(2008, 20%) Obama 92, McCain 8
Turnout: Down 1% from 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -2% under national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 3%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
(2008, 5%) Obama 65, McCain 34
Turnout: Up 2% from 2004
Analysis. Obama's win in Virginia can be accounted for with three words: Improvement with whites. A 17% improvement over 2004 is one of the more amazing statistics you will see. This is Virginia we're talking about, and clearly this is a signal that the state has changed a lot in the last 5-10 years.
National Exits
Whites
(2004, 77%) Bush 54, Kerry 41
(2008, 74%) McCain 55, Obama 43
Turnout: Down 3% from 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Blacks
(2004, 11%) Kerry 88, Bush 11
(2008, 13%) Obama 95, McCain 4
Turnout: Up 2% from 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 8%) Kerry 53, Bush 44
(2008, 9%) Obama 67, McCain 31
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +14% Obama over Kerry
Analysis. Obama had only slight growth over Kerry's numbers with whites overall. Check out his improvement with other groups. Black turnout rose 2%, and Obama's number was 95% overall (one underrated statistic from 2004 was that Bush got 11% of the black vote, a number that is impressive in retrospect). Perhaps more saliently, while Hispanic turnout only rose 1% relative to overall numbers, Obama's growth was huge: 14% over John Kerry's share of that vote. As we will show below, this meant a great deal in multiple crucial swing states.
Colorado (Statewide result: Obama 53.5, McCain 44.9)
Whites
(2004, 86%) Bush 57, Kerry 42
(2008, 81%) Obama 50, McCain 48
Turnout: Down 5% from 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +6% over national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 4%) Kerry 87, Bush 13
(2008, 4%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 8%) Kerry 68, Bush 30
(2008, 13%) Obama 61, McCain 38
Turnout: Up 5% from 2004
Change: -7% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -21% under national Dem gains with Hispanics
Analysis. While white turnout was down in the state, Obama made strong improvement with the populace. There was not a large enough sample of blacks in the exit poll to give us Obama's numbers or make a comparison with 2004. In terms of Hispanics, Obama surprisingly dropped 7% from Kerry's showing, and very well below the national trend numbers for the Democratic ticket. Looking towards 2012, if not sooner, Democrats should look to see why Hispanic turnout went up over 50%, but Obama's share of the vote dropped so drastically. I will try to look at this number a bit more closely later.
Florida (Statewide result: Obama 50.9, McCain 48.4)
Whites
(2004, 70%) Bush 57, Kerry 42
(2008, 71%) McCain 56, Obama 42
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +0 Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -2% under national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 12%) Kerry 86, Bush 13
(2008, 13%) Obama 96, McCain 4
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +10% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 15%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 14%) Obama 57, McCain 42
Turnout: Down 1% from 2004
Change: +13% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under national Dem gains with blacks
Analysis. Statistic #1: White turnout was basically identical, and Obama did the same with whites as did Kerry. Statistic #2: Black turnout was basically unchanged, but Obama improved 10% over Kerry. Statistic #3: Hispanic/Latino turnout was down a hair, but Obama's gains were even higher than they were with blacks, a whopping 13% for the state (but just below the level of national gains Obama posted). While #1 was a wash, #2 and #3 explain how Obama won the Sunshine State.
Indiana (Actual result: Obama 49.9, McCain 49)
Whites
(2004, 89%) Bush 65, Kerry 34
(2008, 88%) McCain 54, Obama 45
Turnout: Down 1% from 2004
Change: +11% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +9% over national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 7%) Kerry 92, Bush 8
(2008, 7%) Obama 90, McCain 10
Turnout: Same as 2004
Change: -2% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -9% under national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 3%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
(2008, 4%) Obama 77, McCain 23
Analysis. Obama improved with whites in Indiana. Drastically. Indiana may not be on its way to becoming a blue state, but by actually fighting in the state, Obama was able to peel off enough support in this mostly-white state to eke out a win. Paradoxically, his share of blacks dropped a little under Kerry, but not enough to cost him the state.
Nevada (Actual result: Obama 55.1, McCain 42.7)
Whites
(2004, 77%) Bush 55, Kerry 43
(2008, 69%) McCain 53, Obama 45
Turnout: Down 8% from 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: Gains equal to national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 7%) Kerry 86, Bush 13
(2008, 10%) Obama 94, McCain 5
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gain: +1% over national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 10%) Kerry 60, Bush 39
(2008, 15%) Obama 76, McCain 22
Turnout: +5% over 2004
Change: +16% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over national Dem gains with Hispancis
Analysis. White turnout dropped a good deal in Nevada, but Obama improved slightly with them. The drop in turnout probably had a great deal to with a jump in black turnout and a huge explosion in Hispanic turnout. Obama won over three out of every four Hispanic and Latino voters. That, combined with nearly all of the black voters made this one a rout instead of the close win people expected.
New Mexico (Actual result: Obama 57, McCain 42)
Whites
(2004, 57%) Bush 56, Kerry 43
(2008, 50%) McCain 56, Obama 42
Turnout: Down 7% from 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 2%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
(2008, 1%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
Turnout: Down 1% from 2004
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 32%) Kerry 56, Bush 44
(2008, 41%) Obama 69, McCain 30
Turnout: Up 9% from 2004
Change: +13% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under national Dem gains with Hispanics
Analysis. Given the drop in white turnout, the explosion in Hispanic turnout, and Obama's nearly 70% with the group gave him an easy win in the Land of Enchantment.
North Carolina (Actual result: Obama 49.9, McCain 49.5)
Whites
(2004, 71%) Bush 73, Kerry 27
(2008, 72%) McCain 64, Obama 35
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +6% over national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 26%) Kerry 85, Bush 14
(2008, 23%) Obama 95, McCain 5
Turnout: Down 3% from 2004
Change: +10% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 1%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
(2008, 3%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
Turnout: Up 2% from 2004
Analysis. Without looking at the numbers, it would easy to say that Obama won North Carolina because of black turnout. Not so. As you can see, black turnout dropped with 2004's levels, though Obama improved on Kerry by 10%. The reason Obama was able to win was that he did much better with whites, gains that were well above his national average gains. Very impressive. One other issue: while we don't know exactly how well Obama did with Hispanics, turnout rose three times from 2004 levels, a key factor that may have been a tipping point in a state determined by less than one percent overall.
Ohio (Actual result: Obama 51.2, McCain 47.2)
Whites
(2004, 86%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 83%) McCain 52, Obama 46
Turnout: Down 3% from 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference with national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 10%) Kerry 84, Bush 16
(2008, 11%) Obama 97, McCain 2
Turnout: Up 1% from 2004
Change: +13% over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +6% over national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 3%) Kerry 65, Bush 35
(2008, 4%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
Turnout: +1% over 2004
Analysis. Obama made small gains with whites, whose turnout dropped, but huge improvement with blacks that was just under double his rate of improvement with blacks compared with 2004. Bush's 16% with blacks in Ohio four years ago cost Kerry the state, but not Obama.
Virginia (Actual result: Obama 52.3, McCain 46.8)
Whites
(2004, 72%) Bush 68, Kerry 32
(2008, 70%) McCain 60, Obama 49
Turnout: Down 2% from 2004
Change: +17% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +15% over national Dem gains with whites
Blacks
(2004, 21%) Kerry 87, Bush 12
(2008, 20%) Obama 92, McCain 8
Turnout: Down 1% from 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -2% under national Dem gains with blacks
Hispanics/Latinos
(2004, 3%) ? (Not a large enough sample)
(2008, 5%) Obama 65, McCain 34
Turnout: Up 2% from 2004
Analysis. Obama's win in Virginia can be accounted for with three words: Improvement with whites. A 17% improvement over 2004 is one of the more amazing statistics you will see. This is Virginia we're talking about, and clearly this is a signal that the state has changed a lot in the last 5-10 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
