First, I am not going to blame Mitt Romney or his campaign. All in all, I thought he was a great candidate because he would have been a great President. I do not believe that any other candidate in the Republican primary field would have done any better. No one would have been able to raise the amount of money that Mitt did. No one would have been able to go through the entire campaign with only one major gaffe (the 47%). No one would have been classier.
It is always easy to be a Monday (Wednesday?) morning quarterback. It is even easier when you have 20/20 hindsight. I have the benefit of both right now. It is easy to be smart after the fact. I have the utmost respect for Mitt Romney and his team. They got in the ring when others did not. They worked their tails off in a tough primary and a tougher election. They deserve thanks for putting it all on the line for America.
So,why did Mitt lose? The simple answer is that Romney was not able to convince enough Obama voters from 2008 to switch to him in 2012 and the Democrats got more of their people to turnout for the election.
I wrote in the days before the election that for Romney to win he needed Turnover + Turnout. He needed to turn 2008 Obama voters into 2012 Romney voters for turnover. He also needed to turnout more Republicans leaning voters compared to what McCain did in 2008 when the Democrats had a +7% margin at the polls. I created a chart to make this point graphically.
My basic premise leading into this campaign was that there were millions of Obama voters who had buyer's remorse. I did not believe that there was one major demographic group that could not be counted to provide more support for Romney in 2012 than they did for McCain in 2008. Exit polls bear this out in almost every group. Romney took a higher percentage of the vote from men (+4%), women (+2%) (both married and single), 18-29 year olds (+5%) , blacks (+2%), Catholics (+3%), Jews (+9%), liberals (+1%), moderates (+2%), conservatives (+4%) etc. The only two demographics that he did poorer with were Hispanics (-4%) and Asians (-9%).
There wasn't any question in the exit polls this year that asked the voters who they voted for in 2008. This was a question that was asked in the Obama/McCain race. 17% of Obama voters in 2008 had voted for Bush in 2004. On the other hand, 9% of McCain voters had voted for Kerry in 2004. That was a net turnover of 9% to Obama. A poll a couple weeks before the 2012 election had about 11% turning against Obama and 5% turning toward him for a net 6% turnover to Romney. I think the final turnover number was probably in the 4%-5% range.
Let's assume that it was 4%, looking at the chart above showed that Romney would have to improve Republican turnout by at least 5 percentage points compared to 2008. In other words, take the 7% disadvantage and make it only a 2% disadvantage. The exit polls tell us that the Romney campaign was only able to shrink the disadvantage by 1%-from the 7% Democrat margin in 2008 to 6% in 2012.
Plug 4% turnover and 1% turnout into the chart above and look at the result. Romney loses by 2.3% according to my projection. What was the actual result? Obama beat Romney by 2.4%.
It is simple to now look at the numbers and state that Romney lost because he could not turnover and turnout enough voters. The more difficult question is why???
A number of commentators are flooding the airwaves with opinions that the Republican Party must fundamentally overhaul their positions on the issues to be successful in the future. They argue that there has been a fundamental seismic shift in the voting demographics that is younger, less White and more liberal. There is no question that was true in the 2012 election. However, where was that voting demographic in the 2010 election? Where was it in the Wisconsin recall election earlier this year? The demographics of the country have not changed that dramatically in the last two years.
When I look at the data I see a country that has been center-left in the 2008 and 2012 elections but center-right in 2012 and the Walker recall. How could this be? I think it involves voter engagement.
Minorities and the young were very engaged in the 2008 and 2012 elections. They seemed to have turned out principally because of Barack Obama. His success seems to be driven more by symbolism than substance. These groups turned out to vote for him in 2008 because his message was inspirational and aspirational to them. They turned out to vote for him in 2012 because they did not want to admit that they might have been wrong in 2012. They turned out to defend him and defend their own judgment. The symbolism trumped the substance of the last four years.
If you think I am wrong look at the polling. When asked who is more to blame for the current economic problems, 53% of all voters blamed Bush. Only 38% placed more of the blame on Obama. Of those that blamed Bush, 85% voted for Obama. The Obama campaign effectively used this narrative for the last four years and it was successful for Obama. Of those that held Obama accountable, 94% voted for Romney!
However, those same voters who turned out to support Obama in 2008 and 2012 did not show up to support the substance of his policies in the 2010 mid-term elections where Obamacare was the focus. They also made no difference in the Wisconsin recall vote earlier this year where public sector unions were the issue. In both cases, the Republicans won in landslides.
Let's look at a comparison of the demographics of the voters in 2008, 2010 and 2012 by race.
Minority voters as a percent of the electorate declined from 26% when Obama was on the ticket to 22% when Obamacare was on the ticket to 28% when Obama was on the ticket again. This shows a lot of enthusiasm for Obama the symbol. Not so much for the substance behind Obama.
These percentage changes amount to millions of voters. Overall, minority voters increased by 82% between 2010 and 2012. However, it was essentially unchanged from 2008 to 2012. On the other hand, white voters only increased by 27% from 2010 to 2012. There were also 9% fewer white voters in overall numbers compared to 2008.
It is even more interesting looking at the total number of young voters (ages 18-29) compared to older voters (age 60+) for the last three elections. 30 million older voters showed up consistently at the polls in each of those three elections. However, 24 million young voters came out in 2008 to help elect Obama, only 10 million showed up in 2010, and 23 million reappeared in 2012 to save Obama.
There clearly was a solid group of voters who would vote for Barack Obama. That was proven in 2008 and 2012. It is just not clear to me that this voting bloc is sustainable or repeatable. Obama is not going to be on the ballot again. The symbol will be gone and all that will be left is the substance of the Democrat positions that are not exactly wildly popular. Republicans should take heart and not be too quick to alter their core positions. This comes through in the exit polling for 2012 even considering the demographic advantage that the Democrats had in voters this year.
Look at these polls questions and responses.
What should happen to the 2010 health care law?
Repeal some of it or all of it. 49%
Expand it or leave it as is. 44%
Should Government do more or less to solve problems?
Do less 51%
Do more 43%
Should taxes be raised to help cut the deficit?
Yes 33%
No 63%
Is the country on the right track?
Yes 46%
No 54%
This certainly should put to rest the argument that the Republicans need to change most of their message. In the exit polls the only real issues that Republicans have that were really troublesome with voters were abortion and immigration. 59% of 2012 voters thought that abortion should be legal if it was framed as a yes or no answer. In fact, only 13% thought it should be illegal in all cases. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock undoubtedly helped skew that number to the left with their total inability to articulate a sensible defense of their position.
On immigration, asked to choose between offering illegal immigrants a chance to apply for legal status versus being deported, by 65% to 28%, voters said let them have a chance to stay.
I believe the Republicans are going to lose these issues every time if they allow it to be phrased as a yes/no question. People like simple answers even when the questions are complex. Both abortion and illegal immigration are incredibly complex issues on two sides. It is also human nature to choose who you know versus who you don't know. A woman is known. An unborn baby is unknown. An illegal immigrant in the United States is known. A person waiting in Guatemala to come to the United States legally is unknown.
For example, 99.99% of people would say it was murder to kill a new born baby. Why is it not murder the day before the child is born? Where do you draw the line? When do an unborn child's rights supersede the mother's rights? At what point on the timeline between conception and birth does that occur? The Roe vs. Wade decision essentially came down for the mother's rights in the first trimester and the child's rights in the third trimester and left the second trimester up for grabs. Is this still correct? We know a lot more medically today than we did 40 years ago. Women generally have a much greater ability to know they are pregnant earlier. Should this factor into the thinking about a "woman's right to choose" and "an innocent child's right to live"? Republicans need to expand the discussion beyond yes or no and challenge people to think more critically about what is a complex issue.
The same goes for immigration. On a yes/no question it is hard to say you want to deport an immigrant who is here illegally. They have established homes. They have children. After all, they are here and many of us see these people working hard every day around us. However, what about the other person in India or Poland or Venezuela that is waiting patiently in line and obeying our laws who can't get here. The person we don't see. Who is looking out for that person? Is it fair to favor someone who broke the laws to come here over someone who is honoring our borders? Whose rights should be favored in this situation?
How come Democrats have come to be able to take the high road on these issues when if it was put in yes or no terms they are the ones who would be the ones to allow the abortion to take place the day before birth and they would provide amnesty to someone here illegally. How come Republicans are on the wrong side of that yes/no issue when they are defending the rights of those that really don't have a voice. I thought that is what Democrats say they do.
All of this just goes to show that trying to deal with complex issues in political terms is incredibly difficult, if not possible. That brings me to the final point on why I believe that Mitt Romney lost.
From the data above we clearly can see that Romney did not get the turnout he needed. A large part of this is directly related to Barack Obama and his specific appeal to young and minority voters. I believe that Mitt Romney would not have lost the turnout battle with a Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Al Gore if they had the same record as Obama over four years.
However, why wasn't Mitt Romney able to turnout and turnover more white voters who voted for Obama in 2012? When the final numbers are in Obama will have probably gotten 7 million fewer votes than he tallied in 2008. Mitt Romney will probably fall short of McCain's total vote by some 2 million. That totals about 9 million voters who voted in 2008 who did not vote in 2012. Why didn't they vote?
My guess is that there were a lot of voters who were uncertain about Obama and were in play for Romney even near the end. Most voted for Obama the last time. They did have buyer's remorse. A large portion of the people who stayed home simply appear to me to have decided they could no longer support Obama but also decided that Romney was not any better. As they would say it, "I didn't want to vote for the lesser of two evils." Many others who did vote seemed to be of the same mindset. 9% of all voters said they made their decision in the last few days. That was about 11 million voters. By 55%-45% they broke for Obama at the end.
When people are uncertain, they almost always go with the status quo. Why wasn't Mitt Romney able to make the sale in the end? I don't think he asked voters the right question at the end of the campaign when he needed to close the sale.
My view of elections is that most are decided by asking the voters to answer just one simple question. As I discussed above, most people are not able to answer complex questions. They want simple questions that are easy to answer. Think about other successful campaigns and the basic question they asked of voters.
1980 Ronald Reagan "Are you better off now than you were four years ago"?
1992 Bill Clinton "Who can feel your pain better"?
2004 George Bush "Has George Bush kept you safe since September 11, 2001?"
2008 Barack Obama "Are you tired of George Bush?"
2010 Mid-Term "Do you want to repeal Obamacare?"
There were a number of issues in each of those campaigns but a lot of voters made their decision by answering that one question. In each case the question was effective because it related to what people felt in their gut more than their brain.
So what was Mitt Romney's question? He talked a lot about jobs, the economy and much more but he never seemed to simplify it to that one simple question. I think the question he should have asked was this...
Do you want a President or a Politician?
If he would have kept repeating this theme I think he would have closed the deal. Romney could have made it even more effective by plainly stating that he was not the politician that Barack Obama was. He was not as articulate or cool. However, when it came to hard work, focus and putting the country before politics, he had it over Barack Obama every day of the week.
I think this would have gone to the gut of those persuadable voters that were up for grabs. Establish the narrative by consistently drawing the contrast between what a Politician does compared to a President.
Obama's results never came close to matching his rhetoric.
There was more golf than job council meetings.
There were more fundraisers than national security briefings.
There were more appearances on The View and David Letterman than press conferences.
When the attack occurred in Benghazi he was off the next morning to Las Vegas to campaign rather trying to learn what happened.
If he had established this overarching theme throughout the campaign President Obama's hurricane response would also not have provided the benefit it appeared to at the end. It would have looked like one more political move. Instead, 15% of the people who voted for Obama cited this as the most important reason they supported him.
By contrast, everything that the Obama campaign did seemed to focus on this question.
Do you trust a rich, white guy like Mitt Romney to look out for you?
The Obama campaign made their campaign about that simple question. The Romney campaign never got it down to a simple question. We know the end result. The politician won. The rich guy lost. America lost even more.
No comments:
Post a Comment