It’s the turnout, stupid (Great analysis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you look at the county election map, its a sea of red. The cesspool cities dragged him across the finish line. PA solid red except for Philly.

Absolutely. Romney, and his team, made the assumption going in that the strong disapproval for Obama would get the base vote out, and their entire campaign was focused on getting the middle voters. Their turnout model failed completely. It is one thing to lose Ohio, which was ground zero, but to lose VA, FL, and a narrow NC win shows they were way off. Those states should have had a comfortable margin. We weren’t even close in some of the blue-leaning swing states like Iowa and Wisconsin. I thought we would at worst case see narrow margins in those states.

It’s not about being outnumbered. That was a given.

The fact is many Republicans screwed us all.

I don’t buy into the voter fraud conspiracy. They didn’t “lose” 2 million votes.

while Romney was not the first choice of anyone i know, EVERYONE i know voted for him enthusiastically since they knew that staying home or voting for Obama was going to bring horrible things down on our nation. everyone i knew was ENERGIZED for Romney by the last month of the campaign, because as people of faith, they knew that THIS WAS IT. and i live in freaking Northern Virginia, were we saw RECORD numbers of Romney signs and very few Obama signs where they had blanketed the area in 2008. so i truly don’t get it. i don’t know a single soul who stayed home in ANY state, of my friends, acquaintances and family, and they are in the swing states of FL, OH and VA. Heck i have friends and family in PA who were saying there was enthusiasm for Romney. so the result stunned me.

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

Amen. All you conservatives in battleground states who chose not to vote just condemned this country to a godless, socialist society.

Congratulations, you made your point, and you sold our country down the river.

and as far as who stayed home, my friends and family are in both the evangelical and Catholic camps, and they VOTED, they did not stay home. my SIL’s dad is a Baptist preacher who preached that Romney may certainly go to hell for his religious beliefs, he’s far less likely to take the country there in the next four years than Obama. SO again, i don’t get it. The Arlington diocese and priests in it were OUTSPOKEN about religious liberty, marriage and life being in the crosshairs. My Catholic family and evangelical family and friends all voted for Romney.

Yup. I cant tell you how many women i know who voted solely on abortion.

Disgusting and embarassing beyond words these idiots.

I mentioned to one moron yesterday that the response of the stock market to her vote alone cost her more in her IRA than the cost of “free” 4 years of birth control combined and she looked at me like “hhhuuuhhh??”

FNG ding bats

“You can’t say you are a contrast or opposite of your opponent if you keep agreeing with him. Romney is a nice man. In fact, he was much too nice for this deadly race.”

True. I greatly admire Romney as a man now that I’ve learn more about him. He obviously has some strong character traits. I just wish he had been more aggressive, especially in the last month.

“Yes, teaching the GOP “establishment” a lesson is definitely worth four more years of Barack Obama.”

No it’s not. We are now in a situation where Obamacare will be irreversible and many other things will change that will not be able to be easily reversed. Furthermore, if Scalia and Kennedy cannot hang on, the balance of the Supreme Court will shift, and years of liberal precedents will fundamentally change our constitutional principles.

“Teaching a lesson” is stupid, childish, arrogant, and selfish, when we are faced with such a dire situation.

Your experience may be true, but there are many freepers that supposedly espouse these values as well who say they stayed home.

Do you realize how many people would have to be complicit in a conspiracy of that magnitude? Too many for it to be carried out without detection.

BTW, we had Republican governors in Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Florida, so how exactly did the Rats cheat us under their noses?

We have to face the facts, the takers outnumber us, and Republicans and conservatives let us down.

BTW, Catholics let us down, too. As a Catholic myself, I am disgusted and ashamed of those who voted for Obama.

There’s no way in hell they can call themselves Catholics.

oh by no means am i saying that fraud is why he won. i am sure there was fraud but it wasn’t the deciding factor. i’m just saying that the result truly stunned me because i know NO ONE who stayed home.

I’m Catholic and i agree with you 100%. my biggest problem is with Catholics who claim to be devout and prolife, voting for him. it drives me insane.

My biggest problem is with Catholics who claim to be both devout and pro-choice. That is incomprehensible and unacceptable.

I was extremely stunned as well.

"Teaching a lesson” is stupid, childish, arrogant, and selfish, when we are faced with such a dire situation.

I agree!

All excellent questions - I just hope the powers-that-be in the Republican Party spend a lot of time investigating the deficiencies in our own turnout before chasing the redherrings being tossed out there by the ‘rats and the MSM - like that ‘pubs are “not inclusive” (which might surprise Senators Rubio and Cruz) and don’t give minorities a chance (ask Mia Love and Alan West, Black Republicans who were both defeated for election by ‘rats voting for white males).......

You’re right, as the numbers filled in it does seem Romney generally achieved more votes than McCain, although there still seems to be a Republican undervote compared to what had been expected before the election given factors like party prefrences and enthusiasm, which supposedly both favored the ‘pubs - I’m hoping the party spends a major effort on investigating “mechanical” issues, like how to get more of its own people to the polls in the future and your idea about old people dying off (although as we all live longer, it’s probably the case that the percentage of older folks is actually increasing) before running off to “adjust the message” or “reaching out more to minorities” or some of the other tangential curealls being tossed around.......

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.