Why America's Baby Bust Threatens Our Position As World Leader

For years the birth rate has been declining across much of the industrialized world. In many Western European countries, Russia, and Japan birth rates have already fallen below replacement levels. The United States was an exception to the rule, but now birth rates here have fallen precipitously as well. Just how much depends on what part of the country that you look at, however.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the number of US births in 2017 was the lowest since 1987 at 3.85 million. The birth rate was 1,765 births per 1,000 women (1.765), which is well below the 2,100 births, an average of 2.1 children per woman, that represent a replacement level, the number of births needed to maintain the current population. In short, the native-born population of the US is declining.

Interestingly, the decline in birth rates was not consistent across the entire US. The Southeast and the Midwest had higher birthrates than the Northeast and West Coast, but only two states, South Dakota and Utah, had birth rates greater than the replacement level. The area with the lowest birth rate, the District of Columbia (1,421 births), had a rate that was 64 percent that of South Dakota, the state with the highest birth rate at 2,227 births.

Demographics also make a difference when it comes to fertility. Hispanic women had the highest fertility rate of any ethnicity in the study. In 29 states, Hispanic women surpassed the replacement rate. Black women reached the replacement rate in 19 states, but white women fell below replacement level in every state.

Women in rural areas had higher birth rates than urban women while women with higher educations often delayed having children or did not have children at all. The researchers also said that cultural, religious and economic differences affected birth rates for different regions of the country. They speculated that South Dakota’s high birth rate could be due to the economic boom there created by the oil industry.

While declining birth rates may excite people who believe that humans are destroying the planet and worry about overpopulation, the prospect of fewer Americans poses serious problems. One of the most obvious aspects is the effect that fewer workers will have on entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. These programs are funded by payroll taxes, but the big three entitlements are getting more and more expensive due to large numbers of retiring Baby Boomers. The shrinking workforce means fewer paychecks to withhold from and complicates the problem of funding the entitlement programs. A smaller workforce will contribute to a growing deficit unless the programs are reformed.

A smaller workforce also hurts in other ways. Fewer workers means that the national economy will likely produce less. This is especially true in industries where automation is not efficient or possible. Fewer people also means fewer entrepreneurs to start new businesses. Taking the law of supply and demand into consideration, if fewer workers are available then wages will probably increase, making goods more expensive.

One way to solve the labor shortage problem is to allow more workers to immigrate. This is the strategy that Western Europe has used. That has led to new problems since Europe’s closest sources of unskilled migrants are North Africa and the Middle East. These predominantly Muslim immigrants are not as easily assimilated as Latinos are in the US. Still, increased immigration to the US would further stoke tensions among the many Americans who are concerned about immigration and its effect on American culture.

But, like or not, American culture is changing either way. Much like the climate, our culture has been constantly changing throughout our history. We started as English colonies but our culture has been altered radically by large waves of immigration from Ireland, Eastern Europe, slaves from Africa, and now Central America. There were also smaller waves from Asia and the Middle East. Even though the United States started with Englishmen, the largest ethnic group today is Americans of German descent. Each immigrant went into the melting pot and changed American culture subtly but permanently.

Even without increases to immigration to fill the shortages in the workforce, American culture will change. The birth rate data shows that white women are having fewer babies than minority women. There is also a sharp increase in the share of multiracial and multiethnic babies born in the United States. Any way you slice it, America is becoming less white and that will change the national culture.

A final possible effect of the declining birth rate is that America may ultimately lose its position as the world’s superpower. The ability to direct world events depends both on the manpower to commit troops in far-flung parts of the world as well as the financial wherewithal to support them. A declining birth rate affects both. Along with a smaller workforce, a smaller population means a smaller pool of potential military recruits. A shrinking economy would mean that the military would probably shrink as well, otherwise it would become increasingly burdensome on America’s shrinking tax base.

If there is any consolation in America’s birth rate problem, it’s that we aren’t alone. Our competitors on the world stage are having the same problem and face the same difficulties. Russia’s birth rate hit a 10-year low at 1.75 and the country’s population shrank last year even after accounting for immigration. In China, the birth rate is even worse at 1.62. Both countries are frantically trying to encourage their citizens to have more babies and China has even reversed its infamous one-child policy. The United States may need to find ways to change our culture to encourage more children as well. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Marco Rubio: The most conservative candidate who can win

MarcoRubio.com

I entered the 2016 election season without a favorite candidate. I kept an open mind and examined all the potential nominees, but as the first round of primaries draws near, the best nominee for the Republican Party has become clear.

I like many of the Republicans running this year. In fact, that has been a big problem. There are too many. One of my initial favorites, Scott Walker, never caught on. In part this was due to the overcrowded field. In part, the Wisconsin governor just wasn’t ready for the national stage and foreign policy questions.

Even though candidates like Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are appealing, I am leery of untested candidates in such an important election. Running for president is immensely challenging and candidates who have never run a campaign (or, in Ms. Fiorina’s case, won a campaign) would be at a large disadvantage against the Clinton political machine. Two candidates that I liked from previous elections, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, simply did not catch on this cycle.

The man who defunded Obamacare

In the end, one of my early favorites became a strong contender and is one of the top three candidates as the primaries begin. I believe that Marco Rubio is the candidate that, as William F. Buckley put it, is the most conservative candidate who can win.

Many conservatives and Tea Party members have objections to Rubio. He has been charged with being a RINO and a squish. These charges are not supported by fact. The Heritage Foundation scorecard rates Rubio at 94 percent, well above the Republican average of 60 percent. The American Conservative Union rates Rubio at 96 percent. Investor’s Business Daily notes that this is identical to Rand Paul’s score and only four points behind Ted Cruz. Other scorecards compiled by various interest groups show Rubio to be strong conservative on fiscal, social and national security issues.

Even though he has only been in the Senate for six years, Rubio has an impressive list of accomplishments. He has become a strong voice for freedom and human rights. He coauthored a tax reform plan with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) that would lower tax rates and simplify taxes by replacing the current system with only two tax brackets.

Rubio’s most important accomplishment was pushing through the legislation that may ultimately kill Obamacare. In December 2015, Rubio was successful in including a measure to defund Obamacare’s risk corridors, i.e. insurance company bailouts, in the omnibus spending bill. The measure passed and the results can be seen as insurance companies withdraw from Obamacare amid huge losses.

In moving this measure forward, Rubio showed an understanding of how to accomplish a conservative agenda in a divided government. Grandstanding, ultimatums and brinksmanship are counterproductive. Reaching across the aisle to build a coalition to get a majority of votes can yield large victories.

Further, Rubio has already been the subject of millions of dollars of attack ads by PACs supporting Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. Rubio has absorbed the attacks and emerged as a strong contender in spite of the onslaught.

Rubio’s imperfections

This is not to say that Rubio is perfect. Most conservative criticisms of Rubio center around two issues. First, Rubio was part of the “Gang of Eight” senators who attempted to create a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2013. For his participation, Rubio has been labeled as a supporter of amnesty. This charge also does not stand up to scrutiny.

To make this charge, opponents of the bill must literally redefine the word “amnesty” to mean any immigration reform that does not deport all illegal aliens. In reality, Merriam-Webster defines “amnesty” as “a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free” or “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Amnesty is a pardon, which is “an act of officially saying that someone who was judged to be guilty of a crime will be allowed to go free and will not be punished” or “forgiveness for something.”

The Gang of Eight bill did punish illegals, therefore, by definition, it cannot be amnesty. A Washington Post article explained that the Gang of Eight bill required illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 fine and back taxes in order to become legal. This was predicated on triggers for the border security portions of the bill. Since the bill contained punishment for illegals, it cannot be an amnesty.

Second and more troubling is Senator Rubio’s support for the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA). This is a bipartisan bill that addresses sexual violence on campus. CASA has been criticized by many conservatives as eliminating due process for people accused of rape on college campuses. My examination of the bill doesn’t turn up any evidence that it eliminates due process. It would be unconstitutional if it did. Nevertheless, it doesn’t solve the very real problem of presumption of guilt on many college campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education provides a summary of the bill. CASA has not been passed nor should it be in its current form. Nevertheless, nothing in it should be disqualifying for Rubio.

A unity candidate

On the plus side of the ledger, Rubio is the candidate most likely to unite both the Republican Party and the country. A recent poll by the Washington Post and ABC News found that Rubio had higher acceptability among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents than either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Rubio also had the smallest number of Republicans who viewed him as unacceptable.

Polling has also shown Rubio as the only Republican candidate who consistently beats Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, but, as I pointed out a few weeks ago, national polling is meaningless in a presidential election. Presidential elections are a series of 50 state elections and one election in the Electoral College. To win, any Republican must win four states that President Obama won twice. These states are Florida, Ohio and Virginia plus another state such as Colorado or Iowa. In addition, the Republicans must hold on to North Carolina, which was won by Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Of the three leading Republican candidates, Rubio is most likely to shift these swing states to the GOP.

His advantage in Florida is most obvious. Rubio would have a home field advantage in this swing state, but his position on immigration also gives him an important advantage over both Cruz and Trump. Rubio’s experience as majority leader and speaker of the Florida House of Representatives gives him a connection to Florida voters and experience in leadership and government that the other candidates lack.

Demographics and immigration

Pew Research points out that Hispanic voters will likely make up a historically large percentage of the electorate in 2016. In Florida, more than 18 percent of voters will be Hispanic. In Colorado, the number is more than 14 percent. This matters because Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have alienated themselves to many Hispanic and minority voters with their hard line on immigration.

In Virginia, more than 10 percent of the population is made up of immigrants according to The Commonwealth Institute. In Ohio, four percent of the population is foreign born and about half of these are naturalized citizens who are eligible to vote according to The American Immigration Council. Trump and Cruz’s rhetoric on immigration and anchor babies will hurt them in these must-win states where vote margins will be razor thin.

Last August, Gallup found that Donald Trump had a net disapproval rating of 51 percent among Hispanics. This means that the difference between the disapproval and approval was 51 points. Ted Cruz scored better, but still had a net disapproval of seven points. Neither candidate has moderated their view on immigration in the heated primary so both are likely to be even less popular among Hispanic voters now than they were five months ago.

The candidate who scored best was Jeb Bush with an 11 point approval margin. Marco Rubio was second with five points. For reference, Hillary Clinton had a net approval of 40 points.

Some conservatives say that Republicans cannot win Hispanics. This has also been proven false. In his 2013 reelection campaign, Chris Christie won 51 percent of Hispanics according to Pew’s exit polls. Even in a national election, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics in 2004 according to CNN exit polling. A Republican doesn’t have to win Hispanics outright, but they have to do better than John McCain’s 31 percent or Mitt Romney’s 27 percent.

In 2012, the Hispanics made up 10 percent of voters. In 2016, that number is likely to increase. Republicans cannot afford to nominate candidates who are alienating 10 percent of voters. This is especially true since black voters, 13 percent of the electorate in 2012, already flock to the Democrats almost unanimously.

Leaving demographics aside, Trump and Cruz would still have problems in the swing states because their harsh stance against legalization for illegal immigrants is at odds with public opinion. In August 2015, Gallup found that 66 percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship while only 14 percent want all illegals deported. Fifty percent of Republicans support a path citizenship as do 77 percent of Hispanics. These numbers are consistent with other polls and long-term trends.

Opposition to deportation is likely to be significant in swing states, making it even more difficult for Republican candidates like Trump and Cruz to win there. Supporting deportation might win the Republican nomination, but it will lose the general election and possibly poison the well with Hispanics for decades to come.

The flawed frontrunners

Finally, Trump and Cruz have other negatives that Rubio does not. The two frontrunners share several similar traits. They both tend to make enemies rather than build coalitions, which will make victory in the general election difficult. Both have a strategy of dividing the Republican Party and hoping to lead the larger faction. Both demagogue other members of their party for their own benefit. Both have squared off against immigration reform and put themselves against the clear majority of voters in doing so. Finally, both Cruz and Trump are essentially showmen. They engage in political theater for the benefit of their supporters, but have little in the way of actual accomplishments.

Trump, in particular, is problematic for conservatives. He has a long record of supporting liberal causes and candidates and has admitted to using his money and influence to gain favorable treatment from politicians of both parties. While Trump claims to have converted to a conservative mindset, there is little evidence other than his own words that he has done so. Like Obama in 2008, Trump is a blank slate on most issues. He allows supporters to project on him their belief of what he is for while rarely taking a firm stand on any issue.

Gallup polling shows that people are familiar with Trump, but that they do not like him. He is not only the most disliked Republican, he is less favored that Hillary Clinton by more than 20 points. Such an approval deficit would be very difficult to overcome.

With Cruz, the case is more difficult. He is also not well liked by most voters outside the GOP, but has more room for improvement. I have trouble supporting Cruz for several reasons in addition to his support for deportation and his unpopularity with general election voters.

First, Cruz has reputation as being a principled conservative, but, in reality, has a long record of flip-flopping on important issues. Cruz has changed his mind on several areas of immigration including legalization, legal immigration visas, and deportation of nonviolent illegals. On all these issues, he has moved in the wrong direction for the general election. Cruz has also moved from nonintervention in Syria to supporting “carpet bombing” of ISIS (although it isn’t clear that he understood what the term meant), supporting other anti-Jihadist factions and possibly using ground troops. Cruz reversed himself on both Trade Promotion Authority (fast track negotiating authority) and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Cruz has also been inconsistent on national security issues such as NSA surveillance.

Second, Cruz’s time in the Senate has been replete with strategic errors and shows little actual accomplishment. He is most known for his spectacular failure with the government shutdown in 2013 in which his strategy caused approval of the Republican Party to plummet to a record low, but his antics also allowed lame duck majority leader Senator Harry Reid to approve a number of filibustered Obama judicial appointees in December 2014. His 2013 filibuster was all for show. He had arranged the speech with Harry Reid in advance and surrendered the floor so that the vote went along as scheduled. Cruz has returned to his shutdown strategy time and again while trying to prevent an increase to the debt ceiling or to prevent passage of the omnibus spending bill in 2015. Cruz seems not to realize or care that Republicans do not have the votes to force their will on President Obama and the Democrats.

Cruz’s problems have made him one of the most unpopular Republicans in the caucus. At this point, Ted Cruz does not have a single endorsement from a sitting senator, the people he works with every day. It seems that the people who know his work best do not think that he is presidential material. The lack of endorsements from Washington politicians is deemed a good thing by some, but in reality it says a lot about Cruz’s inability to build coalitions and turn his platform into law. Either Cruz is wrong or every other Republican senator is wrong.

Contrast Cruz’s endorsements with Rubio’s. Marco Rubio is endorsed by a long list of conservative elected officials. This includes four sitting senators as well as Joni Ernst, the freshman senator from Iowa, who stumped for Rubio without making an official endorsement. Rubio is also endorsed by such stalwart conservative congressmen as Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Darrell Issa (R-CA).

The conservative solution

Emerging from a crowded field, Marco Rubio is the most qualified candidate who can unite the Republican Party in the primary and then win the general election by a large enough margin to create an unquestionable conservative mandate. In 2016, as Republicans attempt to undo the damage of eight years of Obama, eking out a victory by a slim margin is not enough. Democrat liberalism must be thoroughly and soundly rejected.

After eight years of Barack Obama, Republicans have one chance to get it right. If we nominate a conservative candidate who can win then we will have an opportunity to roll back Obama’s policies and begin to repair the damage of the last decade. If we nominate a candidate who cannot win, not only will Obama’s legacy be locked in by a Democratic president but we may lose congressional majorities and the ability to block the next Democratic agenda that may well include nominating Barack Obama to the Supreme Court.

Choose wisely, America.

Americans believe in Jesus, but don’t know Bible

New polling released on Good Friday shed new light on Americans’ religious attitudes. The polls showed that Americans are still believers, but may not put their beliefs into practice.

A Rasmussen poll of 800 Americans found that two-thirds believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and was resurrected from the dead. Rasmussen also found that 39 percent consider Easter to be one of our nation’s most important holidays.

Nevertheless, according to Gallup, even though 56 percent of Americans say that religion is very important in their life, nearly half seldom or never attend church services. The percentage of Americans saying that they never attend church has more than doubled since 1994. The number attending church regularly has fallen as well.

The decline in church attendance may be related to shifting opinions on religious issues. Rasmussen also reported last week that 53 percent of Americans oppose religious freedom laws like the controversial Indiana law enacted this week. Opposition is based on the fear that the laws might lead to discrimination against gays and lesbians, even though 51 percent think that the media makes the laws sound more problematic than they really are.

Nevertheless, the same survey showed that 70 percent believe that a Christian wedding photographer should have the right to refuse a job for a gay wedding. This number has declined from 85 percent in 2013.

Support for gay marriage has exploded at the same time that church attendance has declined. From 27 percent in favor of same-sex marriage in 1996, Gallup now finds support for gay marriage at 55 percent.

In other areas, the declining influence of Christianity can be seen as well. Single-parent households have more than tripled as a share of American households since 1960 according to the Atlantic. Almost half of American first births, 48 percent according to CBS News, are out of wedlock.

The increase in unwed mothers and single parents destabilizes American society. Single-parent families are much more likely to live in poverty and require government financial assistance than traditional families. Children of single-parent families are much more likely to be abused and more likely to become involved in violent crime, drug abuse, and premarital sex according to the National Fatherhood Initiative.

The evidence shows that even as a majority of Americans claim to believe in Jesus Christ, few are living out his commands and the guidelines of the Bible. The disconnect may be due to rising Biblical illiteracy connected with declining church attendance. Fewer than six in 10 Americans can name even half of the 10 Commandments according to Barna Research Group.

George Gallup found the root of the problem: “Americans revere the Bible--but, by and large, they don't read it.”

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

How to solve the GOP problem with minorities and millennnials

Barack Obama’s two presidential election victories were built on the backs of three groups in which he received landslide victories. Obama won with margins on the order of two-to-one with black, Hispanic and young voters both times he ran. These lopsided numbers provided him with the slim margin that he needed to eke out a victory over Mitt Romney in spite of a strong showing by Romney among white voters. If any Republican hopes to win a national election in the future, it is axiomatic that he must slice deeply into the Democratic advantage with minority and millennial voters.

 The Democratic plan has been one of targeting their message to individual demographic groups in a divide-and-conquer strategy. Black voters are told that Republicans are racist and want to suppress them at the polls and repeal the Voting Rights Act. Hispanics are told that Republicans are racist and want to deport them. Millennials are swayed by Obama’s “cool” factor. The razor thin rationales targeting the various demographic groups should be permeable to Republican attacks.

President Obama’s unpopularity and the failure of his agenda present a unique opportunity for Republicans. Voters who were firmly in the Obama camp may now be willing to listen to alternative viewpoints. Charles Ellison recently wrote in The Root that dissatisfaction with the president and high black unemployment are resulting in tempered black support for Democratic candidates. Likewise, high unemployment among millennials may hurt their support for Democrats as well. With respect to Hispanics, Democrats have promised immigration reform for six years and failed to deliver.

The necessary first step for Republicans is to remove the stumbling blocks that prevent minorities from voting for Republican candidates. Republican candidates should put themselves in the shoes of minority voters and acknowledge that black and Hispanic Americans do have a different experience than white Americans. Republicans should take this into account and consider how certain messages will sound to minority voters.

Guilt by association is real. Conservatives should temper their enthusiasm for the defense of people like George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson. Springing to the defense of alleged murderers, especially before all the facts are known, is just as wrong as calling for their heads. Conservatives should also distance themselves from racists such as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. These people have the freedom to spout racist nonsense, but they don’t have the freedom to duck the consequences.

Conservatives should also refrain from pointing out that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the other race baiters are the real racists. It’s obvious, but also irrelevant, that there is a double standard.
The biggest stumbling block for Hispanics is immigration. The Tea Party fringe that insists on deportation and no “amnesty,” by which they mean any immigration reform, seems bent on driving Latinos permanently into the Democratic camp. These opponents of “amnesty” claim not to the see the problems in the current system in which businesses and farms depend on immigrant labor, but under which legal immigration can take decades.

The next step for Republicans is to show up. Republican candidates should make frequent visits to ethnic neighborhoods and listen to the voters there. This should not merely be an election year exercise. They should forge long-term relationships with community leaders. It is harder to paint a Republican as an evil racist if the people already know and trust him. Minority voters won’t vote for Republicans if Republican candidates don’t show up to ask for their votes.

Finally, Republicans should find out where a majority Americans agree with them and oppose the Democrats. An October 2014 Gallup poll found that the top three issues for voters were the economy (17 percent), dissatisfaction with government (16 percent) and unemployment/jobs (10 percent). These were the only issues to rank in double-digits and, coincidentally, a separate Gallup poll found that voters favor Republicans on these issues. These are the issues that Republicans should be talking about.

While Republicans should not mimic the Democratic ploy of making separate promises to different demographic groups, they should target campaign messages to different groups. While it is true that a rising tide lifts all boats and that conservative principles would benefit the nation as a whole, Republicans can no longer simply spin out a generic message and wait for minority voters to flock to their banner.

The best strategy may be to take the advice of economist Arthur Brooks, who wrote in the Wall St. Journal that conservatives must make their policies personal to voters instead of railing against abstract ideas and things. By connecting with voters on a personal level and explaining how conservative ideas can help the poor, Brooks says, “Conservative leaders will be able to stand before Americans who are struggling and feel marginalized and say, ‘We will fight for you and your family, whether you vote for us or not’—and truly mean it.”

This means that conservatives should spend less time talking about abstract ideas and social issues. Republicans must deemphasize issues like abortion, marriage and even the repeal of ObamaCare. They should completely stop talking about things like amnesty, impeachment, and birth certificates. At best these issues are divisive. At worst, they alienate voters.

What Republicans should spend more time talking about how is Democratic policies hurt real people and their families, playing to their advantage on the economy and jobs. Republican candidates should stand with the unemployed who have been unable to find jobs in the Obama economy, the family breadwinner struggling to support a family on less than he made in 2008, the college graduate with no employment prospects and the cancer patient whose health insurance policy was canceled due to the Affordable Care Act. Republicans should make an emotional connection with voters by putting names and faces to real effects of the Obama agenda.

When the Republicans win control of the Senate, passing immigration reform unilaterally should be a top priority. If President Obama chooses to veto Republican immigration reform, the Democrats might well incur the wrath of Hispanic voters, while the Republicans could, for once, be the party of “si’.” Democrats promised immigration reform for six years, but didn’t deliver. This leaves the GOP with an opportunity. One need look back no further than 2004, or even more recently to Chris Christie in New Jersey and Rick Perry in Texas, to see that a conservative can win Hispanic votes.

With respect to millennials, emphasizing jobs and playing down social issues may help the GOP since younger voters tend to be more liberal on social issues, but may lean conservative on size and role of government. Removing Obama from the ballot may help as well. Potential Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren lack the president’s hipness and youth appeal. In the pre-Obama elections, young voters were more closely divided. George W. Bush even tied the demographic with Al Gore in 2000.

Republicans don’t have to change their principles or write off entire demographics to the Democrats, but neither will these groups simply fall into the GOP camp by default. To win these voters, Republicans must show up, listen to their concerns, and convince them that conservative ideas will make their lives better. Read the rest on Examiner.com

Election exit polls hold silver lining for GOP

The 2012 presidential election was definitely a disappointment for Republicans. In spite of a poor economy and questions about his leadership, Barack Obama won a narrow victory in the popular vote by a margin of 51 to 48 percent over Mitt Romney. The electoral vote margin was 332-206 in favor of Obama. A comparison of 2012 and 2008 exit polls by CNN shows that there are some silver linings for the Republicans.

In 2008, John McCain lost virtually every demographic except for white men and women. Mitt Romney improved on McCain’s performance among white voters by winning 59 percent to McCain’s 55 percent. From 2008 to 2012 the percentage of the electorate represented by white voters declined from 74 to 72 percent, which meant that Romney’s improved performance counted for less.

A major problem for Romney was that Obama retained the lock on black voters and Romney actually lost ground among Hispanics and Asians. Obama won 95 percent of black voters in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012. The percentage of Hispanics voting for the GOP candidate declined from 31 to 27 percent and the percentage of Asians voting for Romney was 26 percent to McCain’s 35 percent.

When gender and race are considered, black and Hispanic men supported Obama with much less enthusiasm than did minority women. Only 87 percent of black men voted for Obama versus 96 percent of black women. Sixty-five percent of Hispanic men and 76 percent of Hispanic women supported the president. White women favored Romney, but Obama’s support was greater among white women (42 percent) than among white men (35 percent).

By gender, Mitt Romney won 52 percent of the male vote to Barack Obama’s 45 percent. The female vote remained almost the same in the two elections. Obama won 56 percent in 2008 and 55 percent in 2012. John McCain lost the male vote by one point.

In 2008, John McCain won only voters who were older than 65. In 2012, Mitt Romney won voters age 40 and above. Both Republicans also won married voters, McCain by 52 percent and Romney by 56 percent. Obama won unmarried voters in both years by more than 60 percent.

With respect to ideology, in 2008 22 percent of voters identified as liberal, 34 percent conservative and 44 percent moderate. In 2012, there were 25 percent liberal, 35 percent conservative, and 41 percent moderate. In 2008, 60 percent of moderates voted for Obama. In 2012, the president again won the moderate vote, this time by 56 percent.

Party affiliation in 2008 was 39 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican, and 29 percent independent. This was almost exactly the same as 2012. All three candidates won approximately 90 percent of their party in both elections. In 2008, Barack Obama won the independent vote by 52-44 percent. However in 2012 Mitt Romney won independents by 50-45 percent.

Romney also won the middle class and upper income voters handily. Romney won the middle class by a margin of 52-46 percent. Voters who earn more than $100,000 voted for Romney by 54-44 percent. In 2008, John McCain tied Barack Obama in these two groups at 49 percent each. In both years, Obama won lower income voters (less than $50,000) by 60 percent.

The problem for Romney was that there weren’t as many middle class voters in 2012 as there were in 2008. Voters earning from $50-100,000 declined from 36 to 31 percent of the electorate. The percentage of voters earning less than $50,000 increased from 38 to 41 percent.

Seventy-four percent said that the economy or the deficit was the most important issue facing the country. Romney scored higher on both those issues as well as on taxes. Obama scored higher on housing and unemployment. The two candidates tied on who would better handle rising prices.

Eighteen percent said that healthcare was the most important issue facing the country. Of those voters, 75 percent chose Obama. Voters favored repeal of all or part of Obamacare by a margin of 49-44 percent.

A majority of voters did believe that taxes should be increased. Forty-seven percent said that taxes should be increased on Americans who earn more than $250,000 while 13 percent said that they should be increased on everyone. At the same time, 63 percent said taxes should not be raised to cut the deficit.

Seventy-seven percent of voters agreed that the economy was poor. Thirty-nine percent believed it was improving. Romney won a majority of the 59 percent who said the economy was getting worse or staying the same. Voters rejected the idea that government should do more by 43-51 percent.

Abortion was not the disastrous issue for the GOP that some have presented it to be. While most voters (59 percent) said it should be all or mostly legal, 40 percent of the 30 percent who said that it should be mostly legal voted for Romney. Abortion did not rank as one of the most important issues.

The issue that seemed to hurt Republicans most was immigration. With most other issues were tied or nearly so, the Republican position on immigration was rejected in a landslide. By more than a two-to-one margin (65-28 percent), voters believed that illegal immigrants working in the U.S. should be offered legal status. The hard line on immigration taken by many Republican candidates obviously cost the party many votes in the Hispanic and Asian communities.

Several other factors helped to save the day for Obama. The first was that although more than three quarters of voters thought that the economy was poor, only 38 percent blamed Obama. Fifty-three percent still blame George W. Bush.

More voters had a favorable view of Obama than Romney. Obama’s favorable rating was 53 percent while Romney’s was 47 percent. Ironically, the president’s approval rating was stronger in exit polls than both Rasmussen and Gallup polling showed at the time (50 and 49 percent respectively). This may suggest that some voters who did not approve of Obama stayed away from the polls.

Negative ads may have influenced some Romney voters to stay home. Obama outspent Romney on political ads according to the Wesleyan Media Project and a larger percentage of Obama’s ads were negative according to Politico. In 2008, Obama ran a largely positive campaign in contrast to 2012 when he began attacking Mitt Romney long before the Republican nomination was decided.

The final factor was Hurricane Sandy. Sixty-four percent of voters said that the president’s response to the hurricane was a factor in their vote and 62 percent of these voters chose Obama. Both Rasmussen and Gallup polling showed an uptick in Obama’s approval in the days after Hurricane Sandy struck New York.

There were bright spots for Republicans. Voters sent a decidedly mixed message on Election Day. They oppose the growth of government and still dislike Obamacare. The middle class and the wealthy solidly supported Romney, as did independent voters. Most voters do not trust Obama to handle the economy. The election was not a wholesale rejection of Republican principles with the exception of one issue: immigration.

The worst news for the country was the decline in voter turnout as a whole. In 2012, there were 121 million voters. This was down from 125 million voters in 2008. President Obama won the election, but with more than 4 million fewer votes than in his first election. These numbers reflect a very divided country and a loss of faith in government.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/postmortem-of-the-2012-election-with-some-good-news-for-republicans?cid=db_articles

The Obama convention bounce is a myth

The supposed post-convention bounce in the polls that President Obama enjoyed briefly seems to have evaporated. Of the three most recent polls, all of likely voters, two show the race as a statistical dead heat. The outlier poll shows Obama with a six point lead.

Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll now shows Obama leading Romney 46-45 percent. Five percent are still undecided while four percent prefer another candidate. Rasmussen notes that when “leaners” are included, Romney leads 48-47. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found similar results. President Obama led Mitt Romney 49-48 among likely voters in that poll. The outlier was the CNN/ORC poll in which 52 percent preferred Obama to Romney’s 46 percent.

In all cases the polls do not reflect the disturbing events of the past few days. On September 11, rioters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, an event which first prompted the Obama Administration to condemn “those who abuse the universal right of free speech” according to Politico. Yesterday, the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Domestically, the September jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was disappointing even though the unemployment rate edged down slightly to 8.1 percent as many people stopped looking for work. The 96,000 jobs added in August were below the average for the year and below the number needed to account for population growth. The BLS also revised downward the job estimates for July.

The president may also be potentially embarrassed the teacher strike in Chicago, part of which he represented in the Illinois state senate. Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff, is now the mayor of Chicago. The strike returns the issue of public employee unions to the forefront. The Chicago teachers are demanding pay raises even though Chicago Public Schools are currently operating at a $665 million deficit. If the raises are granted, the school system deficit would rise to $1 billion according to the Chicago Sun Times. Pay raises would likely mean that tax increases in a city that already has some of the highest taxes in the nation.

It was also revealed last week that the Department of Justice is suing Gallup, a prominent polling organization. According to the DOJ, the suit relates to whistleblower claims that Gallup overcharged the government for federal contracts. Critics point out that the federal government joined the suit after Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod criticized Gallup’s polling methodology in the wake of a poll unfavorable to Obama. Emails published by the Daily Caller suggest that Axelrod pressured Gallup to change its methodology.

The biggest problem for President Obama in the polls may be one that is totally unseen. In an article on The Hill, Dick Morris points out that pollsters are using a flawed sample. According to Morris, all pollsters are using models based on 2008 turnout. The problem is that the electorate has changed dramatically in the past four years.

For example, in Gallup’s party affiliation poll, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in November 2008 by a margin of 51-40 percent when leaners were included. Since then, however, Democratic Party identification has dropped precipitously. The most current poll shows the two parties almost tied at 49-46 percent favoring the Democrats. This is almost identical to the numbers in November 2010 (44-47 percent favoring Democrats) when the GOP won a landslide congressional victory.

Similarly, the demographic groups that propelled President Obama to power in 2008 do not support him nearly as strongly now. A Gallup poll from 2008 showed that 99 percent of black voters favored Obama. According to Examiner, it is likely that his support among blacks is now far lower due to high unemployment among blacks and the president’s “evolution” on same-sex marriage. Likewise, other polling data suggests that the president’s support among Latinos and young voters may be much lower than it was in 2008. While these groups still support the president, it is by smaller margins and with less enthusiasm than 2008.

In his Hill article, Morris also points out that voters favor the Republican idea that government should “leave me alone” over the Democratic idea that it should “lend me a hand” by a margin of 54 to 35 percent. Most also believe that the country is worse off today than in 2008. Together with President Obama’s low job approval rating, which was recently as low as 29 percent among independents according to Rasmussen, these factors indicate trouble for the president that is not accurately reflected in the polls.