What the 2012 Election Results Mean

First off, I want to say I was wrong about the election. I thought it would be closer than it actually was. By mid afternoon on election I knew it looked dim for Republicans. I miscalculated the impact of the last four years on voters. Having said that, the 2012 election does provide some very interesting into future elections.

With a poor economy, record, and skyrocketing deficits under President Obama the last four years, Republicans had an excellent formula to pick up the Senate and the White House. They got neither. The 2012 results may well indicate the United States received a political realignment in 2008.

     Political Scientists like to categorize elections into four categories.

     1) Maintaining election. Partisan ideology and loyalty remains the same and rewards the “in-party” or stronger political party. This is the most common election and it maintains the status quo.

     2) Deviating Election. This is a temporary shift where political ideology and loyalty generally remains the same, however some people defect to punish a bad performance/appeal to the weaker party. Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton are examples of a temporary deviation. There has never been a three-term deviation in American history.

     3) Realigning election. The stronger party takes back control from the deviation. Political ideology, partisanship, and loyalty return to the norm. John F. Kennedy in 1960 and George W. Bush in 2000 are examples of a reinstatement.

     

     4) Realigning election. Partisan loyalty and ideology changes, they long lasting impact, and happen about once a generation, usually triggered around a national crisis. The two main realignments are FDR’s “Progressive Era” in 1932 and Reagan’s “Conservative Era” in 1980.

     2008 appears to have been a realignment election, perhaps triggered the economic crisis. According to Walter Burnham, realignments are almost predictable. They tend to occur at 38-year intervals. 1818, 1856, 1894, 1932 were all realignments with 1970 being another one (but hurt because of a plurality of issues in the early 70s, not fully integrated until Reagan in 1980). 38 years after 1970, is 2008.

     There are also 5 characteristics indicating a realignment election.  

1) Change in Regional Base of Party Support.

     Whigs were in both in the North and South before the civil war. After the war, the GOP was nonexistent in south. In the New Deal Era, the GOP lost a ton of support in North. Under the Reagan Era, Democrats lost the South.

2)  Change in Social Groups Base Support.

     People will go opposite directions. Pro Slavery Whigs became democrats/Anti-secession Democrats became Republican. Under Reagan, conservative Democrats became Republican.

3)  Mobilization of New Voters.

4) New Issues Divide Electorate.

     The economy generally is the reason for this one.

5) Voters Change Patterns and Thoughts About Parties.

     Party ID change is an example.

     In 2008/2012 we do appear to see a regional change in support. Once conservative states such as Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, (and to a lesser extent: Indiana) are now considered toss-ups. The toss-up states such as Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, have easily gone blue in the last two elections. The once “hopeful” turn red states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, appear to not even be in play at least at the Presidential level. The once dominant conservative states of Arizona and Texas will be in play for Democrats around 2020 (more on that year later). Texas voter ID is nearly tied between Republicans and Democrats.

     We also appear to see a change in the social groups. Hispanics generally have always gone liberal, but Bush nearly earned half of their support in 2004. Now they have gone heavily to the Democrats. Even Cuban-Americans in Florida, known to go about 70/30 Republican, went to Obama on election night in 2012. African Americans, single women, and young Americans all heavily went blue as well.

     Speaking of mobilization of new voters. Obama captured the young Americans solidly in 2008 and 2012. According to V.O. Key, who is one of the most respected political science experts, claimed if you get voters to vote the same way in consecutive elections, you will most likely have them for life. 2016 will indicate several things, including if Republicans lost a whole generation of voters. 

     New issue dividing the electorate: Even the least politically involved people could name a few today that vastly divide this country.

     The fifth part, Obama may not have yet, especially because of 2010, but it does appear he has the other four.

     So based on this evidence, 2008 was either a deviation or a realigning election. No deviation has ever gone three terms, so 2016 will determine 2008’s fate. The other reason why 2008 was a realigning election is because of the 2012 Senate elections. If Republicans cannot win in Montana, North Dakota, (lesser extent: Missouri and Indiana), they are in trouble. The political conditions and seats up for election should have given both houses to the Republicans.

     In 2012, Republicans did weaker in some categories despite the last terrible four years. More Mormons went to Bush in 2004 than Romney in 2012. Mitt barely squeaked by the popular vote of John McCain, yet both came nowhere close to Bush’s number in 2004, which still would have lost to Obama in both elections. In Colorado, more Democrats voted on election night than Republicans, an accomplishment that didn’t even occur in 2008.

     The saving grace to the GOP may have been 2010. If not were the massive victories across the country, they may have lost the House of Representatives in 2012. With redistricting, the House of Representatives is mainly secure until the 2020 Census. Republicans now have eight years to get their act in order before they truly become the “weaker” party in realignment. The party, however, is in disarray. ORCA was a massive failure, Speaker John Boehner cannot even keep his own party in-line, and he is kicking prominent people, such as Representatives Tim Huelskamp (Kansas-1), Justin Amash (Michigan-3), Walter Jones (North Carolina-3) and David Schweikert (Arizona-5 but the district will be relabeled the 6^th in 2013) off of key committee assignments. Amash claims leadership did not even contact him before the news became public about him losing his committee position. Some Republican lawmakers even faced establishment favored candidates in the 2012 primary.

     

     In terms of the Fiscal Cliff, Republicans cannot win and will blink first. If they make no deal, they will get the blame. If there is a compromise and taxes do go up (even by a small percentage), they will lose the base. If they let Obama get everything he wants and it fails or by some miracle works, they will get the blame if it goes bad and certainly will not get the credit if the situation improves. If not careful, the GOP could go the way of the Whigs, but that may be a stretch at this point.

     The 2016 field looks promising for Republicans such as Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Remember though, the GOP establishment vehemently opposed these candidates in the primary of 2010. With maybe the exceptions of Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, which GOP “establishment” candidate looks promising for the election? The bench is made up of non-established candidates. Which may be good for the GOP because the establishment choice has been 1-5 since 1976.  The only year they won was in 1988, which was probably because of the Reagan Realignment. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2016, I do not see how Republicans can win.

     If 2008 was a realigning election, 2016 will go to the Democrats. If it was a deviation, the GOP will win the White House. Republicans need to get their act together and move quickly to attract new voters, but stay on principle. If the GOP cannot, they will be weak after 2020. They will not have the chance to be as strong as they were on the national level in the 1980s, mid 1990s thru early 2000s, until 2046.

2012 Electoral Map Prediction: Who will win?

Since two weeks ago, there have been slight changes, most helping Mitt Romney, but is it enough to make him the 45th President of the United States?

There are three states that I cannot comfortably project. Flipping a coin in determining these states is probably just as good of a way to determine them. One of them by itself will determine the election, so the other two do not really matter. New Hampshire went from "lean Romney" to toss up although there probably is a slight Romney edge. Same for Obama in Iowa, although this has become toss up because of the four major newspaper endorsements in the state all went to Romney.

Ohio: Almost everything indicates a slight Obama advantage, although there has been significant progress by the GOP to counter the Early Voting/Absentee Ballot advantage Democrats had back in 2008. The "260,000" vote margin Obama won by back in '08 has now gone down to within 3,000 vote swing either way. Republicans generally cast more votes on Election Day than Democrats so this would indicate an Romney advantage. Obama's ground game is better though (as we witnessed its juggernaut status in 2008) so this could still allow him to squeak out a victory. Ohio will be the closest it has been compared to the last three elections. It will be tight and whoever wins Ohio wins the White House.

The other advantage that has helped Romney is some blue states. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota are all within two points based on some polling. Give the slight advantage to Obama in these four states because of the historical advantage Democrats have. It is possible that Romney could win one to four of these states (and Ohio wouldn't matter, although that would probably go to Romney then as well). Ideology in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania has changed since the last presidential election and the GOP have an excellent ground game in Wisconsin as scene in 2012 Recall Election of Governor Scott Walker et al.

North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are most likely going to Romney. I have them as pink because they are considered toss-up, but it is relatively safe to place them in the Romney camp. Nevada is the same for Obama.

In Colorado, more Republicans voted early and the state now has more registered Republicans than Democrats. Both were the opposite back in 2008. While Colorado is considered a toss-up, this data strongly suggests a Romney victory in three of the four corner states.

Essentially what I am concluding is after spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours analyzing this election, the only prediction I can make is that it will not be an Obama landslide. Do not be surprised if Romney has a landslide tomorrow and do not be surprised if Obama or Romney squeak by. Obama either barely holds on or Romney is the 45th President of the United States.

-Christian N.

State of the Presidential Election, Two weeks to go.

Before the first debate, President Obama had enough Electoral Votes to win the Presidency, even if he lost all the toss up states. Since the first debate, the Mitt Romney portrayed by the media has not been scene and voters now see him in a new light. Mitt Romney now has stronger favorability ratings than President Obama. Countless polls show people stating Mitt Romney can handle the economy better than President Obama. People watching the debates saw caring individual, who was looking presidential, and on top of his game. Not some rich guy out of touch with Americans looking to help his buddies save money by shipping jobs overseas.

If the election were held today, Obama would narrowly win:

The "Toss Up" states of Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida will go Mitt Romney on election night. New Hampshire and Colorado are seeing movement toward Mitt Romney and I would place these states on his side as well.

Iowa and Nevada are showing strong early voting/absentee ballots toward Obama and while there is time for Mitt Romney to make up ground (Rasmussen has Iowa at 48-48) President Obama has the advantage in these two states.

President Obama now has one firewall left in order to win a second term, Ohio. Almost all polls now have this state within the margin of error, so it's hard to say which way it will go, but as of right now, President Obama has a razor thin advantage only because he was leading there for awhile.

While no Republican has ever won the Presidency without Ohio, ironically Romney doesn't need it (but it would be his easiest way to win). 

This firewall can be breeched three ways.

1) Win in Iowa and Nevada. As I've stated earlier here, this appears to be a slight uphill battle.

2) Win Ohio. Self-explanitory.

3) Steal Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Michigan.

In terms of option 3, Mitt Romney is the best candidate for Republicans to win Pennsylvania since 1988. Pennsylvanians like a big government, moderate republican. Tom Ridge, Tom Corbett, and Arlen Specter are the type of people that can win in a state where 50% of the people are registered Democrats.

Pennsylvania now also has other factors making it in play. Many blue-collar families from Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the Northeast (Scranton region) are registered democrats, but are furious at this administration. One factor is because of the new resource of natural gas being drilled from the Marcellus Shale. Some polls show Mitt Romney winning in Pennsylvania and another moderate, Tom Smith (maybe Pennsylvania's like politicians named Tom) could be an upset choice for the GOP to win a Senate seat (over Senator Bob Casey, Jr.).

What determines this state is whether the counties surrounding Philadelphia (Chester, Bucks, Delaware,  and Montgomery), Pittsburgh , and in the Northeast show up to vote. If they do, this counters the the urban vote, and will be a victory for Romney. If they stay home (which would be a half vote for Romney compared to 2008) Obama still wins the state.

Wisconsin. Since Governor Scott Walker survived the recall and Paul Ryan is the Vice Presidential nominee, this state is in play. It hasn't gone to the GOP since 1984 so Obama still has the advantage here, but it will be close.

Minnesota and Michigan. They are the least likely to go to Romney, but if this is a landslide statement election, they will. I have scene internal polling where Obama is leading in Minnesota by two points, with still enough undecided voters to sway it to Romney.

Even the liberal states of Connecticut and Oregon (which will go to Obama) don't even have a double digit lead for the President.

So if the election were held on October 23, President Obama would barely win. There are still two weeks to go and the momentum is clearly with Governor Romney. This will be a tight election.

So tight as a matter of fact, a region in Maine or Omaha could decide this. Nebraska and Maine do not award all of their Electoral Votes to the statewide winner. They award them via congressional district winners with two votes going to the statewide winner. [Note: Electoral votes are given to states via amount of Congressional Districts + the two Senators they have]. 

Before 2008 in Nebraska and Maine, the statewide winner won all congressional districts. In 2008, Barack Obama won Nebraska's 2nd congressional district (Omaha) awarding him one electoral vote from the state. Since 2010, the district has been gerrymandered so it's unlikely Obama carries the district again. 

Maine's 2nd congressional district (mostly the northern region of the state) is very tight. In fact, Romney may win it. So if it is a 269-269 type scenario (where Ohio and NH go to Obama and Iowa and Nevada go to Romney or the map shown in my previous post), BUT Obama takes Omaha or Romney wins part of Maine, this election could be determined by one congressional district.

-Christian N.