There are a lot of memes about the 2012 Presidential election. However, not all of them are accurate. Here are some of the facts.
One of the common memes is that this was a huge win for Obama. One reason for this meme is clearly the extent to which Obama beat expectations. However, by historical standards, Obama's win isn't all that big. It's about middling in terms of popular vote (note Roman numbers against the name indicates which term).
In terms of electoral votes the election too, Obama's performance was middling at best.
Some factoids:
In race distribution, share of white voters went down, however, not quite as dramatically as the news media suggests.
Also looking closely, the rise in African American voters equals the rise in Hispanic voters followed by Asian voters. In terms increase as a percentage of their population, the most massive shift was among Asians.
The first thing to note is that Obama's weakness with White voters isn't so much an Obama thing as a Democrat thing. This poll looked white support for Democrats and shows that while Obama significantly under performed Clinton and Kerry with White voters, Democrats have had a problem with White voters for over 40 years, at least.
The chart below parses the change in votes for Bush in 2004 and Romney in 2012 by race and gender.
Here's the strange thing. Romney actually did just as well among white men as Bush in 2004, and actually did better among white women than Bush in 2004.
In fact, more than 50% of the difference is due to demographics of voter turnout - i.e. the higher share of Hispanics, African Americans and Asians. Romney seems to have experienced a dramatic erosion in support among non white women.
As seen below, looking at race more closely we find that apart from the shift in voter mix to more non whites, the loss in support among Hispanics seems to be one of his biggest issues.
As an aside, I didn't have the age distribution cross tabulated against race and gender. However as a standalone, it appears that Romney really lost support among the under 45 voters relative to Bush. Older voters went for Romney. Also, the slightly younger skew in the electorate worked against Romney - but this effect was actually smaller than the loss of support among younger voters.
What's the bottom line?
Overall, erosion in support among younger voters and non whites particularly Hispanics appear to be major causes of Romney's loss.
David Brooks said on NPR that the introspection on the GOP loss takes three flavors: (a) those who feel that the GOP was not conservative enough, as stated here; (b) those who believe that the GOP needs to hold fast to their policies and give a little on immigration, e.g. Krauthammer; and (c) those who believe the GOP must restate their case, e.g. David Brooks himself. Kathleen Parker makes an exceptionally impassioned case for the third way which is best summed up by her line: "The truth is, Romney was better than the GOP deserved."
We'll see which explanation the GOP settles on.
Here's my hypothesis.
The Democrats' view is that Government's role is to help those who need help. The problem with this approach is that helping people invariably creates the free rider problem - i.e. when government starts handing out money to people, a lot of people are tempted to just take the money and mooch off the system. This is exactly the resentment that the GOP has been successful at tapping into - the resentment that hardworking people pay more taxes to fund free riders and moochers. However, the GOP's answer is that all largesse is bad. Their focus on tax cuts essentially argues that anyone who isn't a free rider clearly earns money and a tax cut is the best way of giving them back their money. Romney went one step further, essentially equating free riders with all recipients of government's largesse, which a largely incorrect juxtaposition but still taps into the same underlying sentiment.
I am not sure how well this story line jives with immigrants. Most immigrants make immense personal sacrifices to come to the US to seek a better life. Their work ethic and attitude does not involve free riders. Their social circle does not include many free riders. The GOP bogeyman of free riders therefore seems unreal. On the other hand, they are familiar with a lot of hard working people seeking the American Dream who are not successful. They cannot understand why the US should not be lending a helping hand to people who are so obviously trying to get ahead and need only the opportunity.
So, it isn't so much that immigrants trust government more, it is that their fear of free riders is much less as the attitude that drives the fear is somewhat alien to them.
If I am correct then, to win over the non white vote, the GOP needs to distinguish between genuine free riders and the hard working who are just down on their luck, i.e. my guess is that David Brooks and Kathleen Parker are more than likely right.
- Was Obama's victory "huge" by historical standards?
One of the common memes is that this was a huge win for Obama. One reason for this meme is clearly the extent to which Obama beat expectations. However, by historical standards, Obama's win isn't all that big. It's about middling in terms of popular vote (note Roman numbers against the name indicates which term).
In terms of electoral votes the election too, Obama's performance was middling at best.
Some factoids:
- As far as I can make out no President before Obama has ever won reelection with fewer absolute votes in the second term than in the first - he got ~6MM fewer votes
- Obama is only the second president (Andrew Jackson was the first) to win a second term with a reduced percentage of the popular vote
- Obama is only the third president (after Madison and Woodrow Wilson) to win a second term with a smaller percentage of the electoral vote.
- Obama is one of only four Presidents in the last 100 years to win 50%+ of the votes in all their terms (the others being FDR, Eisenhower and Reagan)
- This is only the second time in US history where there has been three consecutive two term Presidents. The last time this happened was between 1800-1824 (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe)
- Was there a huge shift in the composition of voters?
The age distribution did shift in strange ways. Most significantly, there was a reduction in the share of 60+ voters - did the Medicare attacks work?
In race distribution, share of white voters went down, however, not quite as dramatically as the news media suggests.
Also looking closely, the rise in African American voters equals the rise in Hispanic voters followed by Asian voters. In terms increase as a percentage of their population, the most massive shift was among Asians.
- What were the key changes between Bush's win in 2004 and Romney's loss in 2012?
The first thing to note is that Obama's weakness with White voters isn't so much an Obama thing as a Democrat thing. This poll looked white support for Democrats and shows that while Obama significantly under performed Clinton and Kerry with White voters, Democrats have had a problem with White voters for over 40 years, at least.
The chart below parses the change in votes for Bush in 2004 and Romney in 2012 by race and gender.
Here's the strange thing. Romney actually did just as well among white men as Bush in 2004, and actually did better among white women than Bush in 2004.
In fact, more than 50% of the difference is due to demographics of voter turnout - i.e. the higher share of Hispanics, African Americans and Asians. Romney seems to have experienced a dramatic erosion in support among non white women.
As seen below, looking at race more closely we find that apart from the shift in voter mix to more non whites, the loss in support among Hispanics seems to be one of his biggest issues.
As an aside, I didn't have the age distribution cross tabulated against race and gender. However as a standalone, it appears that Romney really lost support among the under 45 voters relative to Bush. Older voters went for Romney. Also, the slightly younger skew in the electorate worked against Romney - but this effect was actually smaller than the loss of support among younger voters.
What's the bottom line?
Overall, erosion in support among younger voters and non whites particularly Hispanics appear to be major causes of Romney's loss.
David Brooks said on NPR that the introspection on the GOP loss takes three flavors: (a) those who feel that the GOP was not conservative enough, as stated here; (b) those who believe that the GOP needs to hold fast to their policies and give a little on immigration, e.g. Krauthammer; and (c) those who believe the GOP must restate their case, e.g. David Brooks himself. Kathleen Parker makes an exceptionally impassioned case for the third way which is best summed up by her line: "The truth is, Romney was better than the GOP deserved."
We'll see which explanation the GOP settles on.
Here's my hypothesis.
The Democrats' view is that Government's role is to help those who need help. The problem with this approach is that helping people invariably creates the free rider problem - i.e. when government starts handing out money to people, a lot of people are tempted to just take the money and mooch off the system. This is exactly the resentment that the GOP has been successful at tapping into - the resentment that hardworking people pay more taxes to fund free riders and moochers. However, the GOP's answer is that all largesse is bad. Their focus on tax cuts essentially argues that anyone who isn't a free rider clearly earns money and a tax cut is the best way of giving them back their money. Romney went one step further, essentially equating free riders with all recipients of government's largesse, which a largely incorrect juxtaposition but still taps into the same underlying sentiment.
I am not sure how well this story line jives with immigrants. Most immigrants make immense personal sacrifices to come to the US to seek a better life. Their work ethic and attitude does not involve free riders. Their social circle does not include many free riders. The GOP bogeyman of free riders therefore seems unreal. On the other hand, they are familiar with a lot of hard working people seeking the American Dream who are not successful. They cannot understand why the US should not be lending a helping hand to people who are so obviously trying to get ahead and need only the opportunity.
So, it isn't so much that immigrants trust government more, it is that their fear of free riders is much less as the attitude that drives the fear is somewhat alien to them.
If I am correct then, to win over the non white vote, the GOP needs to distinguish between genuine free riders and the hard working who are just down on their luck, i.e. my guess is that David Brooks and Kathleen Parker are more than likely right.
No comments:
Post a Comment