Showing posts with label 2008 presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 presidential election. Show all posts

The Anomalous 2008 Election

The 2008 presidential election was the strangest such election in the last 40 odd years. It simply did not follow any historical trends which made it very hard to predict. It is only from the results of previous elections that we can predict future ones and when the results do not follow previous results then the analyst will usually get it wrong like we did. For one thing, we did not think that the American people were ready for a black President before we elected a female one. After all, females are 51.4% of the voting age population while black Americans are only 11.4% of that population. We are glad to say we were wrong about that assumption because it did show that race relations have improved tremendously since the era of the Jim Crow laws.

Still based on previous elections John McCain should have won handily in terms of electoral votes. Presidential elections are won in the so-called battleground states as illustrated in Presidential Elections in a Nutshell. Once a Republican has the usual red states, all he needs are the Republican leaning purple states of North Carolina, Missouri, Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Ohio to achieve a tie in electoral votes. To win the Republican must pick off one of the Democrat leaning purple states of Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin or New Mexico. George Bush won in 2004 by picking off Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico. He won in 2000 by picking off Nevada and New Hampshire.

Obviously that is not what happened in 2008. Barack Obama won by holding all of Democrat and leaning Democrat states and picking off Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina plus the red state of Indiana. So what happened in these six states that they switched sides? One theory is that the Obama campaign managed to greatly increase the turnout of minority voters and voters under 30 years old. Perhaps they did manage that in some states but all we care about is what happened in the battleground states since the results in red and blue states would still have been the same. We have prepared a table of the battleground states plus Indiana using voter turnout figures from the census bureau for the 2004 and 2008 elections by various demographic groups.

Battleground States Demographics

2008 in 1000's
2004 in 1000's
STATE BLACK HISP 18-24 25-44 BLACK HISP 18-24 25-44
Indiana 219 36 222 955 198 41 232 868
North Carolina 919 77 362 1,566 784 27 310 1,327
Missouri 336 20 304 912 324 35 269 965
Virginia 686 74 311 1,262 477 70 215 1,091
Florida 985 1227 693 2,246 919 824 581 2,173
Colorado 81 195 231 808 56 165 212 758
Ohio 630 74 581 1,757 586 90 599 1,861
Nevada 105 119 85 357 56 72 83 291
Iowa 42 20 147 470 23 12 183 474
New Hampshire 4 8 72 230 1 5 54 241
Wisconsin 145 66 267 901 133 67 301 1,059
New Mexico 20 289 69 239 23 276 74 284
TOTALS 4,172 2,205 3,344 11,703 3,580 1,684 3,113 11,392

While the numbers of these various groups did change as a whole in these 12 states, they were not evenly distributed. Still overall, the number of Blacks voting increased by about 592,000, the number of Hispanics doing that increased about 521,000. Unfortunately, the Census Bureau does not break out turnout by age by very small groupings so we were forced to use 18 to 24 and 25 to 44 groups. In the former the numbers voting increased about 231,000 and the latter about 311,000. The question now is whether these groups changed any of these states from the way they usually vote all by themselves or even in combination. We have another table below comparing the change in voter turnout to the margin by which Obama carried that particular state.

Changes Between 2004 and 2008
State ~ Black ~ Hisp ~ 18-24 ~ 25-44 ~ Totals Margin Differs
Indiana 21,000 -5,000 -10,000 87,000 93,000 26,163 +66,800
North Carolina 135,000 50,000 52,000 239,000 476,000 13,692 +462,300
Missouri 12,000 -15,000 35,000 -53,000 -21,000 -3,632 -17,400
Virginia 209,000 4,000 96,000 171,000 480,000 232,317 +247,700
Florida 66,000 403,000 112,000 73,000 654,000 204,577 +449,400
Colorado 25,000 30,000 19,000 50,000 124,000 196,658 -72,700
Ohio 44,000 -16,000 -18,000 -104,000 -94,000 206,830 -268,800
Nevada 49,000 47,000 2,000 66,000 164,000 119,896 +44,100
Iowa 19,000 8,000 -36,000 -4,000 -13,000 140,732 -173,700
New Hampshire 3,000 3,000 18,000 -11,000 13,000 67,654 -54,700
Wisconsin 12,000 -1,000 -34,000 -158,000 -181,000 412,293 -593,300
New Mexico -3,000 13,000 -5,000 -45,000 -66,000 120,638 -186,600

When the figure in the differs column is plus, these demographic groups did explain the result in that particular state. In particular, the increase in the black vote almost by itself explains why Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia flipped to the Democrats. The big increase in the Hispanic voters explains what happened in Florida although Hispanics in the Miami area do tend to vote Republican if the are from Cuban families. It is interesting to note that these groups actually decreased in Missouri which allowed McCain to hang on to that purple state. What is puzzling is that these groups also decreased in turnout in Ohio and yet Obama won handily.

All of these groups together explain why McCain did not carry Nevada.
Nevada has been tending more Democrat as the minority population has increased significantly and as liberal voters flee the high taxes in California for the no state income tax in Nevada but still take their voting habits with them even though those habits are what caused the high taxes in California. It would appear that Iowa, Wisconsin and New Mexico may have simply gotten out of reach for Republicans.

The 2010 Census will likely add 6 more electoral votes to red states at the expense of blue states so this could help offset negative demographics for the Republicans in the purple states. The Republicans cannot win the Presidency if they lose any of the purple states that tend Republican with the possible exception of Colorado. They would need to carry New Hampshire or Nevada to make up for losing Colorado.

What happened in Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio in 2008? New Hampshire voted for Obama because its voters were enamored of the idea of having a black President. We suspect that factor also contributed to what happened in Indiana, Colorado and Ohio as well but only time will tell if that is a correct hypothesis. If it is incorrect and these states are simply becoming more Democrat then the Republicans could be in a world of hurt in Presidential elections from this point on.

Continue...

2008 and 2009 Elections Compared

It seems appropriate to take a look at what happened one year ago. Based on all previous trends in elections, McCain should have won in a landslide 310 to 228 electoral votes. Obviously, that is not happened and the question is why? From a distance of one year after the fact, the answer is now clear. Historically minorities and the under 30 age groups have a very poor record of turning out to vote assuming they are even registered to vote in the first place. It was clear that black voters were going to turn out in record numbers to vote for a black candidate. There was no reason to assume that Hispanics would do that or that young people would bother to vote. However they did do just that and that made a crucial difference in the battleground states. Thus the Democrat turnout (always heavily supported by minorities) reached record proportions.

Still that might have not made the difference in states like North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana if it were not for the Republicans turning out lower than normal. Likewise, many Republicans actually voted for Obama in the interests of proving that America's abysmal racial record was a thing of the past. In this they were disappointed because the matter of race is now more of an issue than it has been since the days of Martin Luther King. Finally a lot of Republicans stayed home because McCain was too liberal or too conservative depending upon the state the voter resided in.

At this point, this is all ancient history so why care? The question is whether the 2008 election was a total upheaval or merely a one time anomaly. The elections on Tuesday provide us with an answer to this crucial question. It was a one time anomaly since the partisan turnout on Tuesday returned to historical norms. The minorities and the young folks went back to not caring much any more about who wins elections. The result was not only Virginia voted Republican but even New Jersey did which it seldom does. This was caused by the independents switching from going 2 to 1 for Obama to going 2 to 1 for Republicans.

What does this mean for 2010? In Virginia, the Republicans carried 9 out of 11 congressional districts on Tuesday. Right now there are six Democrat congressman from Virginia and only five Republicans. Unless things change, there will be 9 Republican congressman and only 2 Democrats from Virginia after the 2010 election. It seems safe to predict that the Democrats will lose virtually all of the seats they gained in the 2006 and 2008 elections. If that happens, the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representatives.
See Charles Krauthammer's article, Myth of '08, Demolished, coming to the same conclusion.

Continue...

The little engine that lied

Cross posted at the Partisan Report


The Obama juggernaut was built off of millions of little pistons, right? So many Americans (and foreigners but we won’t go there for now; read below) believed in Obama and his new form of politics. Millions of small donors, the meager, humble, hopefuls generated support and fueled his candidacy into the history books $20, $50, $100 bucks at a time. Well, it turns out it was a big fat fabrication. And one of many that has recently surfaced about Obama’s fundraising. What is even more interesting and may come at a shock to the left; Obama received roughly the same amount of small donors as President Bush did in 2004.

Barack Obama’s Fundraising and the Small Donor Myth — U.S. News

Barack Obama got his campaign money through tapping a huge small-donor network, right? Mmm, maybe not.

The Campaign Finance Institute released a new study that tallied “small donors,” whose repeated contributions made them medium- or large-size donors. And the study—partially—punctures the myth of the small Obama donor. And it leaves a couple of questions unanswered.

The study found that 49 percent of the contributions Obama received were for under $200; this is the number underlying the claim that Obama had a revolutionary number of small donors. (The like figure was 32 percent for John McCain, 37 percent for John Kerry, and 31 percent for George W. Bush in 2004.) But the study also shows that the percentage of donors giving a total of less than $200 was not dramatically different from that of McCain, Bush, or Kerry.

To wit: 26 percent of Obama donors gave a total of less than $200, which is only a hair more than the 25 percent who gave that amount to George W. Bush in 2004. (McCain: 21 percent, Kerry: 20 percent—I wonder if going further back, one would find a correlation between “winning” in this category and winning the popular presidential vote.)


Report says Obama’s small-donor base claim is off — USA Today

WASHINGTON — Despite attracting millions of new contributors to his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama received about the same percentage of his total political funds from small donors as President Bush did in 2004, according to a study released today by the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute.
The analysis undercuts Obama’s claim that his supporters “changed the way campaigns are funded” by reducing the influence of special-interest givers.

“The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama’s finances,” said Michael Malbin, the institute’s executive director. “The reality of Obama’s fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.”


My only question to all of this is, of course, where was the media and these ‘reports’ when they were needed most? The national media (are we still calling them that?) was so consumed with Obama and the historical implications of his victory that they refused to look into his number of donors and where they came from, even in light of the fact that he reversed his earlier position on public financing.

Now that several polls are out showing suspicion that Americans have with the media, they are now out in full force attempting to cover their tracks, when in fact the real news was out there.

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign — News Max

More Bogus Obama Donors Surface — CBS News

When we live in a state of journalism that is more interested in Governor Palin’s reading habits and not on actual meaningful, balanced, coverage, then we find ourselves no longer living in a free society. When free information ceases to be available; disinformation and propaganda becomes the source. Free press and objective journalism is something that is free and guaranteed in our constitution. It is past time we hold them to that.

Continue...