The 2012 Election

Polling and Analyses

Frederick Weil, LSU

Guide to this page

Students in my "Political Sociology" class: As you read this material, watch for 4 important factors:

  1. Which candidate do the different social groups support (gender, religion, race, region, party loyalists, etc., etc.)? Plus how big is each group?
  2. What percentage of each group actually votes: what's their turnout? How good is each campaign's "ground game" of getting out the vote?
  3. How do the different issues play? Which issue helps which candidate, which social groups respond to which issues, and how do the campaigns maneuver to bring "their" issues to the forefront?
  4. Are the polls giving us accurate readings of voter preferences and turnout? There are various factors that may distort their accuracy.
  • Note: I'm building this page from my 2010 elections page. Some bits may simply repeat the 2010 material till I can update it with info for 2012. There could also be some broken links. I'll try to catch those, or let me know.
  • If the links on this page don't work because you have to sign in or subscribe ... or pay! ... they're mostly also on a Facebook page I made: Polit Soc. They let more links go through if they're from FB (could that be capitalism?). You can subscribe to it, and if you're in this class, or I know you, you can "friend" it, too.
 
     

 

     
 

back to top

Pre-Election Articles

  • Gallup, 1/23/12, Gingrich Erases Romney's National Lead. Newt Gingrich has all but erased Mitt Romney's 23-percentage-point lead of a week ago among Republican voters nationally, and the two candidates are now essentially tied, at 29% for Romney and 28% for Gingrich. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum have significantly lower levels of support, at 13% and 11%, respectively. Romney held a 23-point lead over Gingrich as recently as Jan. 11-15. Thus, in a matter of one week, Republicans who are registered to vote have shifted their support substantially -- with Romney dropping 8 points and Gingrich gaining 14 points.

  • NY Times, 1/16/12, David Carr, Hollywood Techniques at Play in Politics. A documentary-style film relentlessly attacking Mitt Romney has unnerved some in Hollywood with its attention to form. Hollywood came early to the 2012 presidential race in the unlikely form of "When Mitt Romney Came to Town," the 28-minute documentary-style attack film that opens with the word "capitalism" and comes to an end with chants of "Wall Street greed." … "From a technical perspective, they were very effective of taking the imagery of 'Morning in America' and gradually turning it into an episode of 'America's Most Wanted,' " Mr. Condon said. "In the film, Romney literally blocks out the sun and the weather seems to turn. You are always looking down at Romney, while they shoot the people who lost their jobs from below. And there is a literal money shot, where Romney is posing with money, that looks like it was captured from a surveillance video.
  • NY Times, 12/25/11, The Anti-Entitlement Strategy. Mitt Romney is pushing hard against "government dependency," "passivity" and "sloth." Will his argument set the terms for the 2012 campaign? ...This internal conflict on the part of voters – opposed to welfare but supportive of programs for the poor — demonstrates how important it is for each side to frame the debate in terms favorable to its own cause — just what Romney is trying to do with his use of the catch phrase "entitlement society." ...Romney's adoption of an anti-entitlement strategy comes at a time when he appears to be looking up from the primaries toward Election Day, which suggests that his hard-line stance will be central to his campaign against Obama and not just a temporary maneuver. We are headed toward an ideological confrontation over the next 11 months of an intensity rarely seen in American political history.
  • NY Times, 11/21/11, The White Party. Republicans triumphed in the mid-term election with help from a surge of white voters. Will doubling down on the same strategy work in 2012?
  • ca. 1/15/12, When Mitt Romney Came To Town. The (In)famous (anti-)Romney campaign video ... Mitt Romney. Was he a job creator or a corporate raider? That's the question this film answers. And it's not pretty. Mitt Romney was not a capitalist during ...
  • Gallup, 1/16/12, Romney Has 23-Point GOP Lead Nationally. Mitt Romney has climbed to a commanding 23-point lead over his nearest Republican competitor, with the support of 37% of Republicans nationwide. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich each have 14%, and Ron Paul has 12%.
  • Gallup, 1/16/12, Obama Faces Challenging Re-Election Climate. The U.S. political and economic environment at the start of 2012 is troublesome for an incumbent president seeking re-election. However, Gallup trends suggest it is still too soon to be confident about President Barack Obama's chances.
  • NY Times, 1/15/12, Evangelical Christians' Unease With Romney Is Theological. Basic differences about Scripture, the afterlife and the nature of God leads many, though not all, Christians to conclude that Mormons cannot be considered Christian.
  • Washington Post, 1/12/12, Mitt Romney's Mormon faith appears to be less of a factor in S.C. this year. Mitt Romney's Mormon faith does not appear to be a major factor this year in South Carolina, with its huge bloc of evangelical Protestants.
  • NY Times, 1/13/12, Obama and Romney Face a Tough Fight for Key Group. In an election climate largely defined by the anxieties of the middle class, working people are now more likely than not to face a choice in November between two candidates who sometimes seem to have trouble relating to them.
  • NY Times, 1/13/12, PACs' Aid Allows Mitt Romney's Rivals to Extend Race. "Super PACs" and changes in how delegates are awarded are helping keep the Republican field crowded.
  • NY Times, 11/03/11. What Are the Chances for Republicans? Nate Silver models the likelihood of each candidate winning the popular vote.
  • NY Times, 11/06/11. Is Obama Toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election. The killer calculus of the president's re-election chances.
  • NY Times, 11/18/11. Which Economic Indicators Best Predict Presidential Elections? Hint: it's not the unemployment rate.
  • NY Times, 9/30/11. Obama Sees a Path to '12 Victory Beyond the Rust Belt. With his support among blue-collar white voters far weaker than among white-collar independents, President Obama is pinning his hopes on changing demographics in formerly Republican states.
  • NY Times, 11/27/11. The Future of the Obama Coalition. If the Democrats concede a majority of the white working class vote, what have they got left?

National GOP Preferences to end of 2011
(above: screenshot from 12/30/2011;
below: active embedded from Pollster)

 

  • NYT December 17, 2011. A New Favorite in the Republican Field. Newt Gingrich is the latest candidate to surge in the national polls, and he is leading in influential states just weeks before their votes are cast. (From top to bottom: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul. labeling doesn't carry over; see original on web.)

back to top


General Sources of Polling & Analysis


  • FiveThirtyEight - Nate Silver started his meta-analysis site in 2008. The New York Times now presents it.

 

 

back to top


Basic Press Sites

back to top


Other Sites that Synthesize available polling
... and some of them try to predict the Electoral College Vote outcome

back to top


Background Polling & Analysis

  • Polling Report - a collection of recent surveys from all sources; updated daily (see the current horse races here.)

  • Gallup's Daily Trends - Three-day rolling averages on a variety of indicators of well-being: economic, health, mood, etc. These images give insight on what voters are experiencing now, and help explain voter dissatisfaction with the current administration.
    • The images here are from 10/26/2008 and don't auto-update. Thus, any statement about "voter dissatisfaction" is only valid through that date & could still change. ...Click on each image to go to the current data on the Gallup website.

Personal Finance

Economic Conditions

Economic Outlook

Consumer Confidence

Standard of Living

Well-Being


back to top


Problems & Debates about Polling Accuracy

  • Gallup, October 4, 2010, Understanding Gallup's Likely Voter Models. Since 1950, Gallup has used likely voter models to identify Americans who are most likely to vote in a coming election. These models involve asking poll respondents a series of questions about their interest in the coming election, their past voting behavior, and their current intention to vote in the election.
  • Pollster/Mark Blumenthal, 10-5-10, 'Likely' Voters: How Pollsters Define And Choose Them. We have seen the "likely voter" polling problem rear its head several times in recent weeks, but few examples have been as vivid as three national surveys released in the last 24 hours.
  • FiveThirtyEight - Nate Silver started his meta-analysis site in 2008. The New York Times now presents it.
    • October 14, 2010, Bypassed Cellphones: Biased Polls? On Wednesday, Pew Research issued a study suggesting that the failure to include cellphones in a survey sample — and most pollsters don’t include them — may bias the results against Democrats. Pew has addressed this subject a number of times before, and in their view, the problem seems to be worsening. Indeed, this is about what you might expect, since the fraction of voters who rely on cellphones is steadily increasing: about 25 percent of the adult population now has no landline phone installed at all. Clearly, this is a major problem in survey research — and one that, sooner or later, every polling firm is going to have to wrestle with. What isn’t as clear is how much of a problem it is right now. I have written about this in the past, and I encourage you to review those articles. But let me try and come at it from a couple of fresh directions.
    • October 4, 2010, The Uncanny Accuracy of Polling Averages*, Part IV: Are the Polls Getting Worse? There is another type of argument, however, that is potentially more troubling. It could be that, irrespective of the character of this political cycle, polling itself is in decline. This is a widely held view among political elites and many polling professionals — and quite a few of the readers of this blog, I might add.
    • October 3, 2010, The Uncanny Accuracy of Polling Averages*, Part III: This Time, It’s Different? In Part III, we take up one type of critique that I encounter frequently — that 2010 is an unusual political cycle, and that its idiosyncrasies may render the polling less accurate. While this is not an unreasonable hypothesis, we found it does not have any grounding in the evidence: the polls have done no worse in “unusual” political cycles like 1992, nor in “wave” years like 1994 and 2006, than in routine-seeming ones like 1996 and 1998.
    • September 30, 2010, The Uncanny Accuracy of Polling Averages*, Part II: What the Numbers Say. In Part II, I demonstrated, by contrast, that a simple average of polls has performed very well over the past six election cycles in determining the winner of the contest. For example, Senate and gubernatorial candidates who have trailed by 6 to 9 points in the polling average with a month to go until the election have won their races only about 10 percent of the time in recent years.
    • September 29, 2010, The Uncanny Accuracy of Polling Averages*, Part I: Why You Can’t Trust Your Gut. In Part I, I explored why our intuition may mislead us when it comes to forecasting the outcomes of elections — for a variety of reasons, we may tend to assume that there is more uncertainty in the forecast than there really is.

  • ABC/Gary Langer, The Numbers, A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer

    • ABC/Gary Langer, August 30, 2010, This I Believe. It’s quickly mushroomed into the summer’s hottest data point: A boatload of Americans believe Barack Obama’s a Muslim. Except that, maybe, they don’t. Consider this instead: They’re just willing to say it. This not-so-subtle difference is useful in understanding public opinion and its measurement. Yet the punditry and pronouncements that have followed the Obama/Muslim numbers mainly have missed the point, falling instead into the trap of literalism. They say, so they believe. Not necessarily so. People in fact may voice an attitude not as an affirmed belief – a statement of perceived factual reality – but rather as what my colleagues and I have taken to calling “expressed belief” – a statement intended to send a message, not claim a known fact.

  • See the big section in our 2008 election page, here, with topics like:

    • Some methodological statements from Gallup (their methods are typical of industry standards)

    • Debate on factors that may distort polling's accuracy

    • The "Bradley Effect" - do survey respondents lie about race?

back to top


The "Ground Game:" Turning out the Vote
Plus: Defense against Voter Fraud & Vote Suppression

  • NYT, August 25, 2010, Shaping Tea Party Passion Into Campaign Force, By KATE ZERNIKE. On a Saturday in August when most of the political class has escaped this city’s swelter, 50 Tea Party leaders have flown in from across the country to jam into a conference room in an office building on Pennsylvania Avenue, apparently unconcerned that the fancy address does not guarantee air-conditioning on weekends. They have come to learn how to take over the country, voter by voter. ...This is a three-day “boot camp” at FreedomWorks, the Washington advocacy group that has done more than any other organization to build the Tea Party movement. ...The goal is to turn local Tea Party groups into a standing get-out-the-vote operation in Congressional districts across the country.
  • WP 8/23/10. Primary turnout shows big GOP enthusiasm edge. By Aaron Blake.Three-quarters of the way through the 2010 primary season, the so-called "enthusiasm gap" appears to be playing out across the country with turnout in GOP contests exceeding previous highs and beating Democratic turnout by unprecedented margins in many targeted states.
Background on Karl Rove's successful "Ground Game"
that worked for George W. Bush ... until it didn't

    The Hamburger/Wallsten Explanation
    of the Rove/Bush Strategy

    • "One Party Country: The Republican Plan For Dominance in the 21st Century" at Amazon
    • A September 28, 2006 article in Harpers (here) tries to answer these questions:
      1. The G.O.P. still raises more money than the Democrats, but the Democrats are hardly short of cash. How significant is the G.O.P. advantage in terms of sheer dollars? Are they simply raising more money, or are they also doing a better job of spending it?
      2. How successful has the G.O.P. been in eating away at Democratic support among core constituencies like African Americans and Hispanics?
      3. You say that Republicans have surpassed the Democrats in mobilizing their voters on election day, in part by using databases such as Voter Vault, which allows party activists to track voters by personal hobbies, professional interests, and even by their favorite brand of soda. How does that bank of personal data translate into an advantage on election day? Are Democrats responding with similar programs of their own?
      4. Whatever structural advantages the Republicans have, hasn't the G.O.P. also sought to gain an electoral advantage by suppressing Democratic turnout? How significant are those efforts on the part of the G.O.P., and are we likely to see new and improved methods down the road?
      5. Republicans would no doubt argue that their policies and ideology are simply more popular with the public than Democratic policies. Do ideas still play a role in electoral success or is it all about money and organization?
    • Diane Rehm show, 27 July 2006, here
    • Fresh Air with Terry Gross, July 24, 2006, here
    • BuzzFlash, 08/28/2006, here
  • NYT, November 15, 2005. By Jim Rutenberg, Voter Profiles for Bloomberg Went Beyond Ethnic Labels. Throughout this year's mayoral campaign, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's spending records included something called "voter list development." It looked ominous to Democrats - especially as Mr. Bloomberg poured millions into it. Lists like this usually include voters' personal data - the magazines they buy, the cars they drive, their political affiliations. But as the cost of compiling Mr. Bloomberg's list inched up toward $10 million, not even aides to President Bush, who perfected this sort of voter identification last year, could figure out where the money was going.
  • Los Angeles Times July 24, 2005. By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, Parties Are Tracking Your Habits. Though both Democrats and Republicans collect personal information, the GOP's mastery of data is changing the very nature of campaigning. COLUMBUS, Ohio — At first glance, Felicia Hill seems to fit the profile of a loyal Democrat: She is African American, married to a General Motors union worker and voted for Dukakis, Clinton and Gore in past presidential elections. But in the weeks before election day 2004, the suburban mother of two was deluged with telephone calls, invitations and specially targeted mailings urging her to support President Bush. The intense Republican courtship of Hill, 39, was no coincidence. A deeper look at her lifestyle and politics reveals a voter who might be persuaded to switch sides. Among the clues: she is a church member uneasy about abortion; she lives in a growing suburb and she sent her children to a private school. ...For the first time, she sees the GOP as a place where black women can be comfortable. "I saw people I could relate to," she said, describing conversations she had with Republican professional women during telephone outreach calls and at party events. ...Hill and millions of other would-be Bush backers in closely contested states were identified by a GOP database that culled information ranging from the political basics, like party registration, to the personal, such as the cars they drive, the drinks they buy, even the features they order on their phone lines. The "micro-targeting" effort was so effective that the party credited it with helping to secure Bush's reelection.
  • NYT, December 6, 2004. By Katharine Q. Seelye, How to Sell a Candidate to a Porsche-Driving, Leno-Loving Nascar Fan. After the 2000 presidential campaign, strategists for President Bush came to a startling realization: Democrats watch more television than Republicans. So by buying millions of dollars' worth of television advertising time, Republicans were spending their money on audiences that tended to vote Democratic. What to do? With the luxury of four years until the next election, the Bush team examined voters' television-viewing habits and cross-referenced them with surveys of voters' political and lifestyle preferences. This led to an unusual step for a presidential campaign: it cut the proportion of money that it put into broadcast television and diverted more to niche cable channels and radio, where it could more precisely reach its target audience.
  • NYT, November 19, 2004. By Adam Nagourney, Bush Campaign Manager Views the Electoral Divide. After two years of polling, market testing and up-close demographic scrutiny of American voters, the manager of President Bush's re-election campaign, Ken Mehlman, offered another way Thursday to view the divide between the American electorate. "If you drive a Volvo and you do yoga, you are pretty much a Democrat," Mr. Mehlman told an assembly of the nation's Republican governors here. "If you drive a Lincoln or a BMW and you own a gun, you're voting for George Bush." ...Rather than dispatching troops to knock on doors in neighborhoods known to be heavily Republican, Mr. Mehlman said, the Bush campaign studied consumer habits in trying to predict whom people would vote for in a presidential election. "We did what Visa did," Mr. Mehlman said. "We acquired a lot of consumer data. What magazine do you subscribe to? Do you own a gun? How often do the folks go to church? Where do you send your kids to school? Are you married? "Based on that, we were able to develop an exact kind of consumer model that corporate America does every day to predict how people vote - not based on where they live but how they live," he said. "That was critically important to our success."
  • Washington Post, November 7, 2004. By Dan Balz and Mike Allen, Four More Years Attributed to Rove's Strategy. Despite Moments of Doubt, Adviser's Planning Paid Off. Admired, disparaged, respected and feared, [Karl] Rove joins an elite cadre of political strategists who can claim two presidential victories. Bush's adviser can now look toward the goal he has pursued since he was an obscure direct-mail specialist in Texas: the creation of a durable Republican majority in Washington and across the country.
  • Washington Post, November 4, 2004. By John F. Harris, Victory Bears Out Emphasis on Values. GOP Tactics Aimed At Cultural Divide. ...The results appeared to validate several of the pet theories of [GOP campaign director Karl] Rove, including his belief that politics is as much science as art. Presidential stops in swing states, and the route of campaign bus trips, rarely included the largest cities. That was because Rove chose them scientifically, using three criteria that he explained to reporters in the waning days of the campaign. Rove said his targets were areas where Bush had underperformed in 2000, whether Republican or Democratic, and where the campaign's target for votes was higher than the number that showed up. Second were fast-growing exurban areas or Republican places where there were a large number of people who ought to register to vote and do not -- what Rove calls "a large gap between participation and potential." Third, he said, he paid attention to areas "that have a significant number of swing voters, and swing wildly from election to election."
  • NYT, November 4, 2004. By Elisabeth Bumiller, Turnout Effort and Kerry, Too, Were G.O.P.'s Keys to Victory. In the closing hours of President Bush's campaign for re-election, Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, was obsessed with turning out Republican votes. Late on Monday night, Mr. Rove stood in the cold at a rally in Albuquerque and pulled scraps of paper from his pocket covered with numbers that reassured him that his ground army was in full assault.
  • NYT, July 18, 2004. By Jim Rutenberg, Campaigns Use TV Preferences to Find Voters. When deciding where to run his television advertisements, President Bush is much more partial than Senator John Kerry to crime shows like "Cops," "Law & Order" and "JAG." Mr. Kerry leans more to lighter fare, like "Judge Judy," "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" and "Late Show with David Letterman." Those choices do not reflect either man's taste in television, but critical differences in the advertising strategies of their campaigns, which are spending more money for commercials than any other campaigns in presidential history. Crime shows appeal to the Bush campaign because of its interest in reaching out to Republican men who are attracted to such programming. By contrast, the Kerry campaign is more interested in concentrating on single women, who tend to be drawn to shows with softer themes.
  • NYT, April 7, 2004. By Joyce Purnick, Data Churners Try to Pinpoint Voters' Politics. There's this great story making the Washington political rounds about the Conservative Party in Britain. It is that fund-raisers in London found a strong correlation between Conservative Party donors and people who buy garden bulbs by mail. Far-fetched? Maybe not, because people who plant spring bulbs tend to be more suburban and rural than urban, more wealthy than poor and, with time to garden, older. Hence, a likely Conservative, right?
  • NYT, April 6, 2004. By Joyce Purnick, Foraging For Votes: One-Doorbell-One-Vote Tactic Re-emerges in Bush-Kerry Race. They call it the ground war. And as anticipated, it is back after a long hiatus, subtly changing politics as we know it. Or trying to. After decades of playing poor relation to television advertising, grass-roots politics has become a campaign star this year, as many political pros predicted it would be in the aftermath of the Bush-Gore face-off of 2000. And today it ranges from old-fashioned shoe leather to Web technology that can make a precinct captain of anyone with a computer.
  • Washington Post, November 10, 2002. In GOP Win, a Lesson in Money, Muscle, Planning. [Karl] Rove, [Rep. Tom] DeLay and others concluded that Republicans had lost the turnout battle in recent elections by focusing too much on paid advertising and too little on the ground war that Democratic allies such as the AFL-CIO do so well: getting potential voters to the polls. Beginning in early 2001, the party registered thousands of new Republican voters, particularly in fast-growing states. It invested heavily in a program, dubbed the "72-hour project," that would later help spur record turnout in key regions. The Republican National Committee spent millions of dollars honing a system to identify voters, down to specific households, and contact them repeatedly with phone calls, mail and visits from party activists.

 

back to top


Analyses of Turnout

  • United States Elections Project - Michael P. McDonald at George Mason University: includes information and analysis of turnout.
    • Voter turnout rates presented here show that the much-lamented decline in voter participation is an artifact of poor measurement. Previously, turnout rates were calculated by dividing the number of votes by what is called the "voting-age population" which consists of everyone age 18 and older residing in the United States (the yellow line to the right). This includes persons ineligible to vote, mainly non-citizens and ineligible felons, and excludes overseas eligible voters. When turnout rates are calculated for those eligible to vote, a new picture of turnout emerges, which exhibits no decline since 1972 (the green line to the right).

  • NYT, 11/6/08 (scan from print edition), turnout chart from Michael P. McDonald at George Mason University



back to top

 

 
     

 

     
 


 

Final 2010 Exit Polls and Election Maps







NY Times - Portrait of the Electorate - Table

NY Times - Portrait of the Electorate - Table

New York Times, November 6, 2010, ELECTION 2010, Rightward, March: The Midterm Exit Polls

How bad was it for Democrats last week? By nearly every demographic measure, the party lost ground, significantly in some cases.

The result was the largest reshuffling of the House of Representatives in 50 years.

For the first time since 1982, when exit polls began measuring support for Congressional candidates, Republicans received a majority of women’s votes. Two years ago, House Democratic candidates won women by 14 points.

Catholics, independents and voters age 60 and older also sided with Republicans by margins not seen since 1982.

Independent voters, a key to President Obama’s election two years ago, turned sharply to the G.O.P. Republicans also won more support than usual from reliably Democratic constituencies: less affluent and less educated voters, urbanites and voters from the nation’s East and West. A notable exception was black voters, who continued to support Democrats in strong numbers.

The generational divide exposed in the 2008 election was more pronounced. Voters under 30 were the only age group to support Democrats but made up just 11 percent of the electorate, typical for a midterm election. By contrast, voters aged 60 and older represented 34 percent of voters, their highest proportion in exit polls since 1982.

Experts said that about 42 percent of voters had cast ballots, which is typical for a midterm election. — Marjorie Connelly

  • Interactive Maps at the NY Times:
  • Some NY Times graphics by the great Amanda Cox & others:

 

back to top

 

 
     

 

 

Post-Election Analyses

  • NY Times, November 5, 2010, Latinos Reached Milestones in Midterm Races. PHOENIX — There was plenty of grim news for Latinos in Tuesday’s election results: three Latino congressmen were voted out, the odds of an immigration overhaul appeared to diminish and — here in the state that gave rise to the strictest immigration measure of all — hardliners were re-elected amid vows to continue cracking down on illegal immigrants. But 2010 also signifies a milestone of sorts for Latinos, the country’s largest minority: their overwhelming support for Democrats in the midterm elections is credited with helping to keep the Senate Democratic. And Latinos won an unprecedented voice in the Republican Party with the election of more Latino Republicans than ever before — sometimes without the support of Latino voters, who tend to put issues before ethnicity. ...A poll by the Pew Hispanic Center showed Latinos demoralized in the weeks before the election, and turnout numbers are still being compiled to gauge how many cast ballots nationwide. But it is clear that Latinos in some Western states provided decisive votes.
  • Center for American Progress, Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin, November 4, 2010, Election Results Fueled by Jobs Crisis and Voter Apathy Among Progressives. Experts and pundits will float many interpretations of the 2010 midterms over the next few weeks, each of which progressives should consider carefully. But the most parsimonious explanation of how 2010 unfolded in terms of lessons for progressives going forward lies in a few fundamental factors: the poor state of the economy; the abnormally conservative composition of the midterm electorate; and the large number of vulnerable seats in conservative-leaning areas. These trends cost the Democrats their House majority but were not strong enough to sweep them out in the Senate. Independent voters, white working-class voters, seniors, and men broke heavily against the Democrats due to the economy. Turnout levels were also unusually low among young and minority voters and unusually high among seniors, whites, and conservatives, thus contributing to a massively skewed midterm electorate. The Democrats therefore faced a predictable, and arguably unavoidable, convergence of forces. Incumbent Democrats suffered a genuine backlash of voter discontent due to a weak economy with considerable concerns about job creation, deep skepticism among independents, poor turnout among key base groups, and strong enthusiasm among energized conservatives.
  • The New Republic, William Galston, November 4, 2010, It's the Ideology, Stupid. The ideological composition of the electorate shifted dramatically. In 2006, those who voted were 32 percent conservative, 47 percent moderate, and 20 percent liberal. In 2010, by contrast, conservatives had risen to 41 percent of the total and moderates declined to 39 percent, while liberals remained constant at 20 percent. And because, in today’s polarized politics, liberals vote almost exclusively for Democrats and conservatives for Republicans, the ideological shift matters a lot. ...Over the past two decades, moderates have trended down as share of the total electorate while conservatives have gone up. In 1992, moderates were 43 percent of the total; in 2006, 38 percent; today, only 35 percent. For conservatives, the comparable numbers are 36 percent, 37 percent, and 42 percent, respectively. So the 2010 electorate does not represent a disproportional mobilization of conservatives: If the 2010 electorate had perfectly reflected the voting-age population, it would actually have been a bit more conservative and less moderate than was the population that showed up at the polls. Unless the long-term decline of moderates and rise of conservatives is reversed during the next two years, the ideological balance of the electorate in 2012 could look a lot like it did this year.
  • NY Times, November 4, 2010, Democrats Outrun by a 2-Year G.O.P. Comeback Plan. The balance of power shifted in a campaign marked by Republican plotting, Democratic miscalculations and a new political dynamic out of both parties’ control.
    • Comment on this in the New Republic, November 4, 2010, The Logic Of Republican Total Opposition. It's probably always been true that the fundamental role of the minority is to oppose the majority and pave the way to winning reelection. America's long history of ideologically amorphous parties...created a tradition of cross-party cooperation. Those social norms persist, and both Washington elites and many Americans expect the two parties to work together as if they aren't engaged in zero-sum political conflict. But the truth is that, when the minority party cooperates with the majority party president, it generally makes the president and his policies more popular. The difference is that the Republican Party of 2009-10 is probably the first opposition party to fully recognize the dynamic and make this the core of its legislative strategy from the very outset. Here is how Mitch McConnell explained the dynamic in March: “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,” Mr. McConnell said about the health legislation in an interview, suggesting that even minimal Republican support could sway the public. “It’s either bipartisan or it isn’t.” In the media you're seeing a lot of familiar claims that the two parties need to work together. There is no incentive for the Republicans to do so. Even on issues where they can get a pure win, handing a win to Obama reduces their ability to gain the presidency in 2012. So why would they pursue an ancillary part of their agenda and reduce the chance to achieve the core elements of that agenda?
  • NY Times, November 4, 2010, Deep Rifts Divide Obama and Republicans. A day after Democrats got what the president called a “shellacking,” both parties explored the reshaped political terrain.
  • NY Times, November 4, 2010, G.O.P. Expands a Base From South to Midwest. A string of Republican victories left the Democrats with lonely bastions on the coasts and with reason to fear redistricting based on the 2010 census.
  • NY Times, November 4, 2010, Decisive Gains at State Level Could Give Republicans a Boost for Years. Republicans won a majority of the nation’s governorships and legislative chambers, giving them the upper hand next year as states begin the once-a-decade process of drawing Congressional districts.
  • NY Times, November 4, 2010, Palin’s Endorsements Lay Base for a 2012 Run. Sarah Palin’s work for successful candidates suggests that she will have many well-placed allies if she runs for president.
  • NY Times, November 4, 2010, In Republican Victories, Tide Turns Starkly. The apostle of change became its target, engulfed by the same discontent that vaulted him to the White House.. Obama Is Expected to Urge Cooperation on Economy and an End to Vitriol
  • NY Times, November 4, 2010, Tea Party Comes to Power on an Unclear Mandate. The movement has a stated distaste for the compromises of legislating and a wary relationship with G.O.P. leaders.
  • NY Times, November 4, 2010, Independents Fueled G.O.P Gains. Democratic candidates have lost significant support among independent voters since 2008, according to exit polls.
  • Washington Post, November 3, 2010, By E.J. Dionne Jr., And now for the next battle. President Obama allowed Republicans to define the terms of the nation's political argument for the past two years and permitted them to draw battle lines the way they wanted. Neither he nor his party can let that happen again.
  • WS Journal, November 3, 2010, Unaligned Voters Tilt Rightward En Masse. Election Day turned out to be Independents Day for Republicans. A massive swing by independent voters propelled the Republican Party to a series of key victories, bringing the GOP back from a near-death experience just two years ago, and delivering a rebuke to the president who rode the same independent wave into the White House.
  • NY Times, November 3, 2010, In Republican Victories, Tide Turns Starkly. Somewhere along the way, the apostle of change became its target, engulfed by the same currents that swept him to the White House two years ago. Now, President Obama must find a way to recalibrate with nothing less than his presidency on the line. The verdict delivered by voters on Tuesday effectively put an end to his transformational ambitions and left him searching for a way forward with a more circumscribed horizon of possibilities. Facing a hostile House with subpoena power and a diminished majority in the Senate, he will have to figure out the right blend of conciliation and confrontation to reassert authority and avoid defeat in 2012.
  • CBS, November 3, 2010, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio Results: Why Midwest Swing States Flipped to the GOP. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin are key swing states in the presidential election. In 2008, President Obama won all three of these critical Midwest battlegrounds over John McCain. In 2010, however, these states swung to the Republican column in their Senate races which could portend problems for President Obama in 2012. What happened in the two years that caused these states to turn from blue to red? The key change has been in the independent vote. In 2008, President Obama won the independent vote in all three states. However, this year the Democratic candidate for Senator lost the independent vote by 36 points in Ohio, 8 points in Pennsylvania, and 12 points in Wisconsin, according to preliminary CBS News exit poll results.
  • Real Clear Politics, November 3, 2010, Exit Polls: Unprecedented White Flight from Democrats. Democrats performed worse with whites on Tuesday than in any other congressional election since the Second World War. Democrats' white problems stretch back nearly a half-century. Political white flight changed course with the implosion of George W. Bush's presidency, the Republican Party and the economy in September 2008.
  • Pollster, November 3, 2010, Michael P. McDonald, Post-Election Turnout Rate Estimates. Prior to the election, I forecasted a national turnout rate among those eligible to vote of 41.3%. Now with actual election results available, I estimate the national turnout rate is 41.4%.
  • Pollster, November 3, 2010, Mark Blumenthal, How Did The Polls Do? How did the polls do this year? And who was the most accurate pollster? While crowning a polling "winner" can be a dubious proposition on the day after the election, some immediate lessons are apparent: On average, the final statewide pre-election polls once again provided a largely unbiased measurement of the outcomes of most races, Congressional District polling had a slight Democratic skew, national polls that sampled both landline and cell phones measured national Congressional vote preference more accurately than those that sampled only landline phones and the venerable Gallup Poll took one on the chin.
  • Pollster, November 3, 2010, Brendan Nyhan, A First Take on Election 2010. There's no question that the GOP outperformed expectations for the House last night by picking up more than sixty seats. The Douglas Hibbs model, which doesn't include contemporaneous political factors, predicted a 45-seat pickup (PDF); the median pre-Labor Day forecast among political scientists compiled by John Sides was 43 seats; and the median pre-Election Day forecast among 538, Stochastic Democracy, and Sam Wang was 54 seats. Personally, I expected substantial Democratic losses but not a 1994-style wave in the fall 2009-spring 2010 period before revising my expectations downward in April and again in September. Senate forecasts are more difficult due to the small sample sizes, but going into last night the GOP was predicted to gain approximately seven seats; they appear likely to pick up six. To put the historic nature of the House seat change in perspective, here are post-WWII seat losses by the president's party in midterm elections (I'm using the 538 estimate of a 65-seat loss when all the votes are counted):

    The number of seat losses is a record in the postwar era.

back to top

 

 

The Big New York Times Exit Poll Chart for 2010

back to top

 

2008 Exit Polls

 

The Big New York Times Exit Poll Chart for 2008

back to top

Back to home page