Posted on 11/13/2013 5:52:03 AM PST by 1010RD
The dust has settled (mostly) from last week’s elections, so I thought it time to present a very different assessment of what happened in Virginia than the snapshot I’ve seen from others.
For example, Democracy Corps and Women’s Voices, Women Vote Action Fund distributed a wholly self-serving and unconvincing memo titled “Unmarried Women Cast Deciding Votes in Virginia Election.” It’s unconvincing, of course, because Republicans always lose unmarried women, regardless of an election’s outcome. Unmarried women are more liberal than most voters and are not part of any winning Republican coalition.
NBC’s Domenico Montanaro and The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart credited African-American turnout for Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s victory, as did Jamelle Bouie of The Daily Beast. Wrong as well, I’m afraid.
Others have noted, quite incorrectly, that the partisan makeup of the 2013 electorate wasn’t very different from the makeup of the 2012 electorate in Virginia, suggesting that Democrats have found some formula for turning out key voting groups in lower turnout elections that could help them offset what most expect to be a less Democratic-inclined electorate for the 2014 midterms.
While these assessments tell a part of the story and certainly should force Republican voters and strategists to take a clear-eyed look at the long-term prospects of the current GOP coalition, they don’t explain last week’s results in Virginia, nor do they offer meaningful insights into 2014.
While African-American voters made up one-fifth of the Virginia electorate in both 2012 and 2013 and Democrats held a partisan advantage in both contests (7 points in 2012 and 5 points in 2013), McAuliffe did not win because of the makeup of the electorate or the GOP’s weaknesses with black voters.
He won because Republican Ken Cuccinelli failed to get the same level of support from the normally Republican voting groups that Mitt Romney had a year earlier. And any complete comparison of the 2012 and 2013 electorates in the commonwealth suggests turnout problems for Democrats in next year’s midterms.
The 2013 Virginia electorate was older, wealthier, more married and, surprisingly, more male than the Virginia electorate during the presidential race just a year earlier. In other words, it was a measurably more Republican-looking electorate than the one that turned out in the commonwealth for President Barack Obama’s re-election, even with the impressive black turnout.
In 2012, the Virginia electorate, according to exit poll data on CNN’s website, was 53 percent female and 47 percent male. This year, the exit poll showed an electorate that was 51 percent female and 49 percent male.
Voters age 18-29 constituted a strong 19 percent of the electorate in 2012, but made up only 13 percent of this year’s electorate. On the other hand, voters 65 and older were 18 percent of this year’s Virginia electorate, 4 points more than the 14 percent they constituted in 2012.
This year’s electorate was also much wealthier. In 2012, 34 percent of voters made $100,000 a year or more, but this year 40 percent fell into that income category.
In 2012, only 62 percent of the electorate was married. This year, 67 percent said they were married.
So, in many important demographic categories, the 2013 electorate was much different than the one that showed up to the polls last year. And the differences should have favored the Republican ticket. That wasn’t true of race and partisanship, of course, but there is no reason to pull out only two categories for examination, especially given the richness of the exit poll data.
The survey data are pretty clear on why Cuccinelli lost. He lost because he was unable to match Romney’s percentages with key demographic groups that almost always vote Republican. Those voters showed up at the polls, but too many Romney voters crossed over to cast ballots for McAuliffe or Libertarian Robert Sarvis.
The Republican nominee for governor won a plurality of male voters (48 percent), but well below the 51 percent that Romney won in the state last year. Cuccinelli would have gained an additional 48,000 votes if he had matched Romney’s percentage, much of which would have come from McAuliffe, thereby completely erasing the Democrat’s 55,100 victory margin. (See Virginia’s total vote here.)
Add in white women (Romney won 59 percent of them in the state in 2012, while Cuccinelli won only 54 percent this year) or wealthy voters (Romney won 51 percent of voters earning at least $100,000 a year in Virginia in 2012, while Cuccinelli drew just 43 percent of them and lost the category to McAuliffe) and the Republican would have had a comfortable victory last week.
And if you don’t want to focus on gender, the marital status numbers tell the same story. Romney won 55 percent of married voters in Virginia last year, while Cuccinelli won only 50 percent of them this year. That’s about 75,400 fewer married voters than a Romney-like Republican gubernatorial nominee should have drawn.
Though you hear a lot about the changing face of the electorate, both nationally and in Virginia, that’s not why Cuccinelli lost last week.
The Virginia election in 2013 was one where the Republican nominee would have won merely by attracting the votes of the same people who voted for Mitt Romney. The party’s candidate for governor did not need to improve his showing among young voters, African-Americans, Hispanics or unmarried women. He just needed to get white guys and their wives.
That conclusion, which is based on an evaluation of all of the data, not on merely cherry-picking one or two variables, ought to be little comfort for Democratic strategists worrying about the makeup of the midterm electorate.
Correction Nov. 12, 12:49 p.m.
An earlier version of this post misstated one reference of the income range of wealthy Virginia voters who supported Mitt Romney in 2012. Romney won 51 percent of voters earning at least $100,000 a year in Virginia in 2012.
9 points is 9 points, per Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh.
But why did they dislike him? (Although that word is inaccurate when applied to the situation).
Cuccinelli is strongly against raising taxes. Some moderate Republicans saw Terry McAuliffe as the person they could "work" with, deal with, get a piece of the gravy train. I remember a FR thread from months ago which claimed McAuliffe bought off Republican businessmen in the Hampton Roads area. Sure enough, the Repub mayor of Virginia Beach appeared in a campaign ad for McAuliffe.
The Chamber of Commerce spent a million dollars McDonnell four years ago; they didn't give a dime to Cuccinelli.
Eric Cantor's former chief of staff actively assisted the McAuliffe campaign. And Bill Bolling, our SOB of a lieutenant governor, refused to support Cuccinelli....rumor was the he was helping McA.
So, as you see, it had nothing to do with Cuccinelli's fitness as a candidate. As Limbaugh said, Ken is a solid Reagan conservative. But his campaign was swamped by the old Republican boys' network, the lack of support from the RNC, and a whispering campaign started by the leadership of the GOP that he was a dangerous right-wing extremist.
>> Cuccinelli failed to get the same level of support from the normally Republican voting groups
Yet, Cooch got damn close despite the GOP’s lackluster support.
Vote out the RINOs in 2014!
>> That’s the bottom line. He was a badly flawed candidate. If you can’t beat an odious creep like McAuliffe
Nonsense. Cooch was heavily outspent, received tepid support from the GOP, and was knee-capped by the Dem plant, Sarvis. He was also falsely accused of avoiding Cruz by the MSM.
Cooch lost because the GOP wanted him to lose.
It is a testament to who they are that they would allow a creep like McAuliffe to be elected instead of a guy who exemplifies the ideas to which they have given lip service lo these many years.
Nine points of a segment is not nine points of the total.
Never mind.
They’re not going to support a guy who says, “I’m coming to destroy you.” At the same time where was the TEA Party money? I think Ken ran a poor campaign.
Too many FReepers want to see a bogey monster behind each set back. Instead it’s sometimes how we frame the issue, sometimes it’s the candidate, and we have to admit that and work with it.
An example of that was Ted Cruz on Jay Leno’s show. He knew he was in enemy territory, Cruz gave solid answers to a hostile questioner who’s normally as soft as the Pillsbury Dough Boy with his guest, and, I believe, Cruz came off looking pretty reasonable.
On the other hand, when Todd Akin stumbled with his “legitimate rape” statement he simply shot himself in the foot. Cuccinelli did the same thing. He was dodging around trying to “be” something. He, and every candidate, need to “do” something. He wasn’t ready for prime time.
TEA Party candidates have to be professional and have to run a campaign that is tight and focused. I believe they’ll do best in House Districts, not statewide or nationally. If you are thinking of running or know a potential candidate, then send ‘em to school: http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/
I don’t think so. Cuccinelli didn’t know what he wanted to “be”, bounced around, and eventually settled on Obamacare, after running from the government “shutdown”.
Take a look at how Ted Cruz has handled both. One speaks to sloppiness and the other fundamental ideals and professionalism.
If your campaign is broke, then your candidacy is flawed. If you are going to thumb your nose at the GOP-e/RNC (and I can understand why Cuccinelli would want to do that) then you have to motivate the Tea Party to step up and write the big checks necessary to counter McAuliffe and the DNC.
Take a look at the raw numbers:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
The election was too close to not blame Cuccinelli for the loss. Better fundraising, more thoughtful and diplomatic campaign, a candidate that didn’t fumble early and often, etc.
Compare his performance to Cruz’s. If Cuccinelli had hammered on Obamacare the entire time, he’d have pulled it off. If he hadn’t scared the GOPe, he’d have gotten more money. He looked sloppy and goofy from the start.
Fine for some items (remember Clinton and Sister Souljah?), but not for others. Cuccinelli won Independents, marrieds, whites, but still lost. Take a look at the numbers in the article and what do you see?
The campaign was broke, and it’s the filth in the RNC who are flawed (although I can think of more accurate, less polite terms).
No matter what excuses you try to make, there are none for a candidate’s own party abandoning him financially. With the huge influx of money from Bloomberg and other out-of-state Democrats, there is no way Cuccinelli could have begun to compete.
Cruz is the gold standard but much mayhem and evil helped terry mcawful.
Did Romney lose in Virginia?
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.