What 2018 Exit Polls Tell Us About Republican Voters

The exit polls are in for this week’s midterm elections. If you’re a politics junkie, it can be fascinating to compare the breakdown of this year’s voters with previous years. Even if you aren’t a fan of statistics, it can be useful to look at who voted for who to help determine why the election turned out the way it did.

In this case, we can look back at previous exit polls to compare how well Republicans and Democrats did with various demographic groups. Since midterm elections have a different electorate from presidential elections, I looked at CNN’s exit polls from 2014 as well as 2016 to compare them with the new results from the 2018 midterms.

The most basic breakdown is between genders. In 2018, Republicans won 51 percent of male voters but lost female voters by a 19-point margin (40-59 percent). This was six points worse than the 2016’s 13-point gender gap and 15 points worse than 2014.

Democrats typically win younger voters and 2018 was no exception. The difference this year was that the Republican-leaning age groups were even older than normal. In 2014 and 2016, Republicans won majorities of age groups above 40-years-old while Democrats won all age groups younger than 40. In 2018, Democrats won all age groups younger than 50.

Margins were worse for Republicans in all age groups as well. Even though the GOP won all age groups older than 50 in 2018, the margin was only 1-2 points, a virtual tie.

When it comes to race, there was more bad news for Republicans. The GOP won just over half of white voters, 54 percent, and lost all other racial demographics by convincing margins. The share of white voters won by Republicans has declined from 60 percent in 2014 and 57 percent in 2016.

In the exit polls, minority voters are broken into three categories, black, Latino, and Asian. Again, the Republican share of these demographic groups has declined as well. The percentage of each group that voted Republican is listed below by year:

2014:

Black – 10 percent

Latino – 36 percent

Asian – 50 percent

2016:

Black – 8 percent

Latino – 28 percent

Asian – 27 percent

2018:

Black – 9 percent

Latino – 29 percent

Asian – 23 percent

Between 2014 and 2018, Republican support among blacks remained relatively constant at just less than 10 percent. Support among Latinos declined initially and then stabilized at slightly less than 30 percent. Support among Asians has been more than halved over four years.

In 2004, when President George W. Bush ran on immigration reform, the numbers for Latinos and Asians were considerably better than they are today. Although President Bush only garnered 11 percent of the black vote, he won 44 percent of the Latino vote and 44 percent of the Asian vote.

Interestingly, while the percentage of black and Asian voters in the electorate has remained relatively constant, the share of Latino voters has increased. From eight percent in both 2004 and 2014, Latinos increased to 11 percent in 2016 and 2018. Over the same time period, white voters decreased from 77 percent of the electorate to 71 percent.

Voting patterns have also changed with respect to education. In 2014, Democrats won voters without high school diplomas and voters with postgraduate degrees. Republicans won high school graduates and four-year college graduates. By 2016, most college graduates were voting Democrat. In the 2018 elections, voters who had not graduated high school and voters with associate degrees were the only categories won by Republicans.

By ideology, conservatives usually vote Republican and liberals usually vote Democrat. The share of conservative, liberal, and moderate voters has remained relatively constant over the past four years, but moderate voters have voted Democrat at an increasing rate. In 2014, moderates went Democrat by eight points. By 2016, the margin was 12 points and, this year, moderates selected Democrats by a whopping 26 points.

Low-income voters typically vote Democrat, but Republicans won voters who earned above $50,000 annually by double-digit margins in 2014. In 2016, Republicans eked out a victory in the $50-100,000 range by only three points. Voters who earned more split almost equally between the two parties. This year, Democrats won the $50-100,000 category while Republicans won voters who earned more than $100,000.

Republicans enlarged their Senate majority in 2018, but the party has lost support in every demographic group. Even white males, the GOP’s core demographic, has declined from 64 percent support in 2014 to 60 percent in 2018.

Much has been made of the Republican gender gap with 2018 being called the “year of the angry female college graduate.” This prediction turned out to be true with Republicans losing women by almost 20 points. Unfortunately, the Republican problem is not limited to women. The GOP also has an age gap, a race gap, an education gap, and an income gap. So far, all of these gaps are getting worse under President Trump.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Midterm Lessons For Both Parties

The midterm elections ended pretty much as predicted. Democrats won the House and Republicans enlarged their hold on the Senate. If there was a surprise, it was the extent of the Republican gains in the Senate where all of the very close races (that have been called) seem to have gone red. Nevertheless, both sides can claim victory in the split decision. There are also lessons that both sides should learn.

For the Democrats, the most obvious lesson to take from the midterms is that radicalism does not pay. Even though Democrats won the House, they underperformed in many races. This may be due in large part to the fact that the party nominated radical candidates. For example, in the Florida gubernatorial race, the Democrats nominated a democratic socialist who was the subject of an FBI ethics investigation. Socialism may play in deep blue districts of the Northeast or West Coast, but not in purple states. And the experience of Hillary in 2016 should have taught Democrats to steer clear of candidates mired in FBI investigations.

Likewise, gun control is death for Democratic candidates in red states. In the Georgia gubernatorial race, which is still too close to call, Stacey Abrams trails by less than two points. In a red state like Georgia, even hinting at the possibility of gun confiscations is a red flag for voters. Abrams’ anti-gun platform may have been the deciding factor for many voters. And no, calling it “common sense gun laws” doesn’t make it better.

Perhaps the biggest lesson for Democrats is that they should steer clear of the politics of personal destruction, especially when there is no evidence to support the accusations. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings seem to have been the catalyst that angered Republicans voters and inspired them to get to the polls. Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, Bill Nelson, and Claire McCaskill should serve as warnings to Democrats from red and purple states. Joe Manchin, the sole Democrat who voted to confirm Kavanaugh, cruised to re-election in deep red West Virginia.

For Republicans, the most important takeaway from the election is that the gains in the Senate are due to geography rather than the party’s popularity. The Republican pickups in the Senate were, with the exception of Florida, all in red states. These Democrat incumbents would have been in trouble in an election year and the timing of Senate elections meant that few Republican seats were vulnerable. The opposite is true over the next two election cycles.

Republicans should also be alarmed about exit poll data. Even though many Republicans are claiming victory by virtue of avoiding disaster, voter data shows that the GOP is becoming white, old, and male.

2018 was purported to be the year of the angry college-educated woman and exit polls confirm the truth of those forecasts. Democrats won women by 19 points and college graduates by 20 points. Additionally, Democrats won black, Hispanic, and Asian voters by 90, 69, and 77 percent respectively. Democrats won every age group under 50, most by double-digit margins.

The Republican problem with women and minorities goes a long way towards explaining the close races in traditionally red states like Georgia and Texas. In Georgia, black voters make up 30 percent of the electorate. In Texas, 39 percent of the population is Hispanic. If the GOP can’t do better with minorities, both of these states could become blue or purple in the near future.

The Republican problem is already apparent in suburban districts around the country. Democrats knocked off well-known Republicans such as Dave Brat (R-Va.) in districts that typically lean red. Others, such as Mia Love in Utah, will probably be added to the list of losses in coming days. Many of these losses can be attributed to the GOP’s gender gap. Karen Handel’s suburban Atlanta district has gone from double-digit Republican to blue in two years.

If the election was a referendum on Donald Trump, the collective decision of the nation was “meh.” In total, most voters disapproved of Trump by a 54-45 margin. This is similar to Barack Obama’s approval in 2010.

Both parties have reason to celebrate the election result, but both also have reason to be cautious. Democrat gains were hurt by the party’s crazy antics in the months ahead of the election. Republican rhetoric on immigration may have contributed to the GOP’s gains in the Senate, but it may also poison the well with minorities and deepen the racial divide in American politics.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Elections Should Be Wake Up Call For GOP

Despite the trope that “all politics is local,” it is difficult to see last night’s election results as anything but a rebuke to President Trump and the Republican Party. Exit polls indicated that resistance to President Trump was a large factor in the Democrat landslide.

Politico reports that half of Virginia voters said that their vote was about Trump. Thirty-four percent of Virginia voters said they were voting to oppose Trump while 17 percent were voting to support the president.

Forty-seven percent of Virginia voters strongly disapproved of President Trump and Democrat Ralph Northam won 95 percent of those voters. Starting with a disadvantage of almost half of the electorate meant that Republican Ed Gillespie needed almost unanimous support among other groups. He did not find it, however, losing 53-45 percent.

In New Jersey, where the outgoing governor is the unpopular Republican Chris Christie, 28 percent of voters said that their vote was against the president, whose approval rating in the state is at 36 percent. Only 11 percent were voting in support of Donald Trump. Democrat Phil Murphy carried the governor’s race over Republican Kim Guadagno by 55-42 percent.

Politico notes that Gillespie and Guadagno both won the segment of the electorate that said that President Trump was not a factor. However, the margins (15 points for Gillespie and six points for Guadagno) were not enough to overcome the strong anti-Trump bloc.

To cap off the Democrat victory in the Virginia gubernatorial race, the party also picked up at least 13 seats in Virginia’s House of Delegates. The landslide is the largest in more than 100 years and includes a trans woman (i.e. a man) and a former newscaster whose girlfriend was murdered on live television in 2015.

New Jersey is deep blue and Virginia is bluish purple these days, so Republicans may try to write off these losses to traditional voting patterns. That does not explain the loss of two seats in Georgia’s state House of Representatives, however. The two seats were in districts near Athens and have historically been solidly Republican.

The biggest takeaway from the elections is that President Trump has no coattails. Trump won because of Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity and lacks a mandate for his agenda. After starting with a popular vote defeat, Trump’s behavior while in office has caused support for his presidency and the Republican Party to erode.

Republican candidates in 2018 are between a rock and a hard place. Trump’s strong support in the GOP makes it difficult to distance themselves from the unpopular president. On the other hand, if they don’t move away from Trump, they face the possibility of losses in the general election.

Originally published on the Resurgent 

(Michael Vadon/Wikimedia)

One surprising aspect of Donald Trump’s road to the Republican nomination is the role of evangelical Christian voters as core his supporters. In spite of Trump’s secular lifestyle and unfamiliarity with Christianity and even basic conservative issues,  a substantial percentage of Christian voters put Trump on top of experienced conservatives like Jeb Bush and former Tea Party favorites like Ted Cruz. An obvious question is whether Christian conservatives have abandoned their principles, both of conservatism and religious righteousness, for Trump and moral relativism.

The case against Donald Trump is well known. Beyond his abrasive personality, there are serious questions about his character and political beliefs. The “savior” of the conservative cause is a three-times married man, a serial liar and a flip-flopper who has openly claimed to have bought the influence of elected officials, notably Hillary Clinton.

Alan Noble compiled a list of Trump’s immoral behavior at Vox: “Trump has boasted of infidelities, profited off gambling, mocked the handicapped, cheered and offered financial assistance for his supporters who fight protestors, supported abortion (until his fortuitous change of heart before the election), called for war crimes against innocent people, demonized minorities and immigrants, knowingly played upon racist fears, promoted open racists through social media, promoted conspiracy theories, and crudely treated women. And the list grows every single day.” Much of Trump’s behavior, both during the campaign and before, would be denounced by Christian conservatives in a normal political cycle.

This is not a normal year.

Trump supporters can be divided into two broad categories. There are the “true believers,” also called “Trumpkins,” who supported Trump from the early days of the primary. Alternatively, there are the “anyone but Hillary” voters, who don’t necessarily like Trump, but who believe that, with all his flaws, he is better than Hillary Clinton.

To issue-oriented conservatives, the second position is understandable. The first is not. That’s why it is surprising to find that many of Trump’s earliest supporters were Christians and conservatives who would normally have rejected someone like Trump as impure both morally and politically. In truth, it was these voters who provided the core of support that enabled Trump to defeat many more reliable conservative politicians.

One of my coworkers, Jay, is among the group of true believers. When Trump emerged as a candidate last year, Jay, a conservative Christian, was enthralled. When we were on business trips together, Jay watched Trump press conferences on a daily basis and chortled at Trump’s witticisms. Like most Republicans, Jay didn’t seem to think that Trump could win, but he enjoyed the show.

At some point between last summer and the winter and spring primaries, it became acceptable for Christians not only to be amused by Trump, but to vote for him. An analysis of exit polls by Christian Post found that an average of 36 percent of evangelical Christians voted for Trump. This was a large enough segment of the Christian vote to give Trump victories in many of the early states, such as South Carolina, where Trump came in first among evangelicals.

The story of how Trump made the transition from pariah to messiah among a third of conservative Christians begins with and endorsement by Jerry Falwell, Jr., son of the Moral Majority and Liberty University founder just before the Iowa caucuses last January.

In Rolling Stone, Falwell defended his endorsement, saying many evangelicals see how “personable” Trump is “and how generous he's been to a lot of people in his personal life. I think that's what makes somebody a good Christian.” This in spite of the fact that Trump seemed not to understand basic tenets of Christianity such as forgiveness and repentance.

Indeed, forgiveness was lacking when Mark DeMoss, a longtime chief of staff to Jerry Falwell, Sr., spoke out against the junior Falwell’s Trump endorsement. DeMoss was allegedly forced to resign his position at Liberty University. “As I consider the matter,” DeMoss said in Charisma News, “I wonder why it is acceptable to the Liberty board for Jerry Falwell to endorse a candidate as an individual not speaking for the university, but it is not fine for a board member to express an opinion as an individual not speaking for the university.”

Moral relativism, the belief that ethics depend on situations rather than objective truth, seems to have been at play in much of the Christian support for Donald Trump as well as in Liberty’s dismissal of DeMoss. Hillary is admonished for her lies, but Trump’s numerous falsehoods are glossed over. Hillary’s corruption is denounced, but Trump’s corruption is excused. Hillary is a liberal, but so are many of Trump’s stated positions on the issues. Trump is excused for these and other sins because he is “not Hillary.”

In his defense of his endorsement of Trump, Falwell said Trump is “ethical and honest” in spite of numerous charges of shady business dealings. At the same time, he said that the country needed “experienced and capable leaders,” yet Trump was the only Republican candidate with no legislative experience whatsoever.

Falwell also noted that Ronald Reagan, although divorced, “saved this nation when it was in nearly the same condition as it is today.” Falwell failed to note that Reagan’s divorce occurred in 1948 after an affair by his wife, Jane Wyman. To Falwell, this is morally equivalent to Trump’s divorces and his own extramarital affairs, conquests that Trump has bragged openly about. Nevermind the details, it is a similar enough situation to justify the endorsement in Falwell’s mind.

Penny Young Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, attended a meeting between Trump and evangelical leaders in June. She wrote in Christian Post that not a single Christian leader present questioned Trump about his alleged conversion from pro-choice to pro-life. This in spite the fact that Trump was the only Republican candidate to favor continued funding for Planned Parenthood, saying that the abortion provider “has done very good work” only three months earlier. Trump’s pro-choice history was ignored by Christian leaders, even as they criticize Hillary’s pro-choice platform.

How does Jay reconcile his Christian beliefs with his support for Donald Trump? He gave me an article by James Patrick Riley which likened Trump opponents to the Biblical Pharisees. Jesus denounced the “holier-than-thou” Pharisees for being hypocrites. Riley accuses Never Trump Christians being “dismissive” and “self-righteous” people who “have imbibed legalism as doctrine.” He also argues that Trump is “more righteous than you think” because he wants to enact a conservative agenda. Moral relativism rears its head once again. Trump is acceptable because he says the right things.

In the end, the exit polls suggest that those Christians who supported Trump early on were Christians who did not place a great emphasis on having a candidate who shared their religious beliefs. What kind of Christian would not prefer a Christian president? Perhaps those whose faith has been driven underground by the secular culture and divorced from practical day-to-day living, Christians who believe they are “rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” but do not know that they “are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:14-22).

In any case, regardless of the outcome of the election, “lukewarm” Christians will share a large part of the blame. Without their support for an obvious charlatan, Trump would never have been nominated. Without the nomination of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton would not have stood a chance.

The irony is that Trump supporters, both Christian and secular, may be enabling that which they fear most. No matter who wins in November, the country is likely to be stuck with a lawless leftist who will be destructive for America.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

New poll shows Trump might lose Mississippi to Clinton

(Youtube.com)

Amid questions about Donald Trump’s electability in the general election, a new poll may undermine Trump’s claims that he is the best candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton. At this stage of the campaign, most head-to-head matchups are national polls. Since the actual election hinges on state elections for the Electoral College, national head-to-head polls are of questionable value. One recent poll showed a state matchup between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton that should worry The Donald’s supporters.

Mississippi is a red state that has voted Republican in every election since its electors cast their ballots for Jimmy Carter in 1976. In most recent elections, it hasn’t even been close. For the past four presidential elections, Mississippi went for the Republican candidate by double-digit margins. This has been true even when the national popular vote was close, as it was in 2012.

This week, however, a new poll sent out a shockwave when it showed that Mississippi might be in play in a potential matchup between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The Mason-Dixon poll of 625 registered voters found that Trump and Clinton were in a statistical tie at 46-43 percent.

The poll showed Clinton with an Obama-like majority of black voters at 93 percent and a convincing lead among women voters at 47-40 percent. Clinton also was favored by 11 percent of Republican voters.

The poll also asked who voters would support if an unnamed third party candidate was in the race. In this scenario, Trump and Hillary tied at 39 percent and the unknown candidate received 13 percent.

Both Ted Cruz and John Kasich performed better against Hillary than Trump did. Cruz beat Clinton by a 51-40 percent margin. Kasich did even better at 52-37 percent.

The problem is not that Trump is unknown. Ninety-nine percent of Mississippi voters are familiar with Trump. His approval rating is a net -11 points with 44 percent disapproving and only 33 percent viewing him favorably. This is still a higher approval rating than Trump has nationally.

Much of Trump’s problem is the scorched earth nature of his primary campaign. CNN exit polls from Wisconsin found that only 62 percent of Republicans would vote for Trump if he is the party’s nominee. Ten percent planned to vote for Clinton while 17 percent would back a third party candidate. Eight percent plan to sit out the election.

The Mississippi poll is the first hard evidence of the electoral disaster that awaits Republicans if they nominate Donald Trump. Electoral math would require Republicans to win at least four key battleground states that were won twice by President Obama. If a Trump candidacy endangers the Republican hold on Mississippi, chances of winning swing states would be nil. So would his chances of winning the White House.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line or Freedom Daily

Minority voters put GOP over the top

Exit polls reveal the surprising statistic that shows the source of the Republican surge.

The Republican sweep of the battleground Senate seats left conservatives both elated and shocked. No one had predicted the enormity of the Democratic rout that left pundits and politicians scrambling for explanations. An analysis of exit polls from around the country reveals the answer.

Practical Politicking compared CNN exit polls from 2014 to three previous elections, the 2008 and 2012 presidential races as well as the 2010 midterm elections in which the Tea Party revolution reached its zenith as the GOP captured the House, but fell short of taking control of the Senate. The result shows why the Republican Party performed so well this year when compared to previous elections and also provides clues about the upcoming presidential election of 2016.

“Older, whiter and richer” is true… as far as it goes

It has been said that the 2014 electorate was “older, whiter and richer” than the 2012 electorate that returned President Obama to the White House for a second term. This explanation, often made by liberal pundits such as those at Think Progress, ignores the fact that President Obama almost split the vote of people who earned more than $100,000 with Mitt Romney (44-54 percent). In 2008, Obama tied this segment 49-49 with John McCain. Democrats have done well with the wealthy in the recent past. This year the Democrats lost this group by 16 points, which was less than their 18 point deficit from 2010.

Voting statistics show that the old stereotype about young people trending liberal and becoming more conservative as they grow older is true. Nevertheless, President Obama did well among older voters, losing the demographic by only eight points in both 2008 and 2012. The Republicans did better among older voters in 2010 when they won seniors by 21 points as opposed to this year’s 16 points.

Likewise, Obama lost white voters by 12 points in 2008 and 20 points in 2012. This year’s margin (22 points) was not markedly different from 2012 and was almost identical to 2010 (23 points). It is also interesting to note that the share of white voters actually declined this year from 2010 by two points.

The “older, whiter and richer” explanation is true as far as it goes. While it underscores the well-established fact that the electorate in a midterm election is almost totally different from the voters who come out to vote for a president in the highest profile election, it falls short of convincingly explaining this year’s Democratic debacle. Nevertheless, this myth, like that of 2012’s “missing Republicans” seems destined to live as a salve to soothe liberal disappointment and channel anger toward whites and rich people, two common Democratic bogeymen.

No gender bender

There was also no appreciable shift in gender voting patterns. Women traditionally favor the Democrats and that was true this year as well. Democrats won 51 percent of the female vote, less than the 55 percent of 2012, but more than 2010 when Republicans won women by one point. The peak was in 2008 when 56 percent of women voted for Barack Obama.

Obama won men in 2008 by one point, but the Democrats lost the male vote in the other three elections. Fifty-five percent of men voted Republican in 2010 and 52 percent in 2012. The male vote peaked this year with a whopping 57 percent of men voting GOP and only 41 percent voting Democrat. While men seemed to be responding to a Democratic “war on men,” the bottom line is very similar to 2010 and is not enough to explain this year’s landslide.

“Look to the cookie.”

The key to understanding the shift in the electorate from 2010 to 2014 is with the racial demographics of voters. It is true that the electorate was whiter than 2012, but that is only part of the story. As Jerry Seinfeld said, we must “look to the cookie” of race relations for the true answer.

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group voting Republican:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	55	4	31	35
2010	60	9	38	40
2012	59	6	27	26
2014	60	10	36	50

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group as a percentage of the electorate:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	74	13	9	2
2010	77	11	8	2
2012	72	13	10	3
2014	75	12	8	3

The nearby charts show the percentage of each ethnic group voting Republican in each election along with each group's share of the electorate. When all the information is examined, we find that the “white” part of the “old, white and rich” explanation is not true in several important ways. There were more white voters than in 2012, but, as noted earlier, the share of white voters declined from 2010 to 2014. The share of black voters increased one point between the midterm elections, but was one point lower than in 2012 and 2008. Black voters didn’t stay home, but came out as a greater share of the electorate than in the previous midterm election.

The liberal pundits totally fail to take into account that this year saw Republicans do much better among minority voters than in any election of the Obama era. Republican candidates faired marginally better this year than four years ago in the last midterm and dramatically better than the pathetic performances of both John McCain and Mitt Romney. It was this improved performance with nonwhite voters that put the GOP contenders over the top.

What does this mean for 2016?

The lesson for 2016 is that the coalition of minorities, women, and young people that elected Obama both times won’t necessarily turn out to elect other Democrats. While these groups all voted Democrat this year, the margins were far narrower than in 2008 when Obama was seen as a hip, new, “post-partisan” politician and hope was in the air. Six years later, many minorities and young people are still jobless and the “war on women” has worn thin.

This year also saw the election of several new minority Republicans. Tim Scott is the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction. Mia Love is the first ever black Republican woman in the House. As more and more minorities “come out” as conservatives, it will be easier for others to do so in the future.

Likely Democratic contenders for 2016 such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren lack Barack Obama’s minority connections as well as his hipness and charisma. If Republican solutions resonate with voters over the next two years, the next wave of candidates may find that even more minority members are willing to pull the lever for a Republican.

Originally published on Examiner.com

The myth of 2012’s missing Republicans

Since the 2012 election, many have believed that Mitt Romney lost the election because many Republicans, turned off by Romney’s status as a “Republican in name only,” stayed home and didn’t vote. As the theory goes, the Republicans could have won the election if only they had nominated a candidate who was more conservative and who would have motivated the Republican base to turn out. Who are these conservative Republicans who did not vote in 2012? The answer to the missing Republicans of 2012 can be found in exit polls and vote tallies.

The first thing to note is that Mitt Romney got more votes than John McCain did in 2008. The Federal Election Commission’s official tallies for 2008 show that McCain received 59,948,323 votes. The official 2012 results from the FEC show that Mitt Romney received 60,933,500 votes. Romney received almost a million votes more than McCain.

President Obama received 69,498,516 votes in 2008 and 65,915,796 votes in 2012. Obama’s vote total in 2012 was 3.5 million votes less than he had received in 2008, but this was still enough to secure a victory against Romney. Obama’s percentage of the vote declined from 52.93 percent in 2008 to 51.06 percent in 2012. On the surface it would appear that if Republicans stayed home for anyone it was John McCain.

Exit polls from CNN seem to confirm the notion that a boycott by conservatives was not Mitt Romney’s problem. The 2008 exit polls show that the electorate that year was comprised of 39 percent Democrats, 32 percent Republicans and 29 percent independents. CNN’s 2012 exit polls showed almost exactly the same the breakdown: 32 percent Republican, 29 percent independent and 38 percent Democrat, one point less than 2008.

In both years, the candidates won approximately 90 percent of the votes of their own party members. Obama won 89 percent Democrats in 2008 and 92 percent in 2012. McCain and Romney won 90 and 93 percent of Republicans respectively.

The big difference came from independent voters. Obama won 52 percent of independents in 2008, but in 2012 he only received 45 percent of the independent vote. The Republican share went from 44 percent in 2008 to 50 percent in 2012.

Looking at individual battleground states shows much the same. In Ohio, the 2008 electorate was 39 percent Democrat and 31 percent each for Republicans and independents. In 2012, the breakdown was exactly the same. The big difference was that independents swung from 52 percent for Obama in 2008 to 53 percent for Romney.

In Virginia, the electoral breakdown was 39 percent Democrat and 33 percent Republican in 2008. In 2012, the Democrats had the same percentage while Republicans declined to 32 percent. Independents, a demographic that increased by two percentage points, shifted from 49 percent for Obama (48 percent McCain and three percent other) to 54 percent Romney.

In Florida, both parties declined from 2008 to 2012, the Democrats from 37 to 35 percent and the Republicans from 34 to 33 percent. Independents increased from 29 to 33 percent and Obama won the demographic both years. In 2008, he won 52 percent of independents and 50 percent in 2012.

North Carolina, a state that swung from blue to red is a bit different. In 2008, the electorate was 42 percent Democrat, 31 percent Republican and 27 percent independent. In 2012, Democrats lost three points while Republicans gained two for a total five point swing in party identification. McCain and Romney both won independents, a group that grew by two percentage points, by 60 and 57 percent respectively.

In almost every case, the Republican candidate won more than 90 percent of the Republican vote. The exception was John McCain who only received 87 percent of the Republican vote in Florida in 2008. In each of these states, Mitt Romney received a greater percentage of the Republican vote than McCain.

The exit poll figures closely mirror Gallup party identification poll results. In early November 2008, Gallup found 26 percent Republicans and 39 percent Democrats with 35 percent identifying as independents. When “leaners” were taken into account, Democrats led Republicans by a 51-40 percent margin.

Four years later, in November 2012, the Democrats still held the advantage. Thirty-five percent identified as Democrats and 30 percent as Republicans. Thirty-three percent considered themselves independent. Counting “leaners,” Democrats led 50-42.

The poll results exploding the myth that Republicans stayed home rather than vote for Mitt Romney. Republicans voted for Romney in even greater numbers than they voted for John McCain.

The fundamental problem for Republicans is that they did not grow the party between 2008 and 2012. North Carolina, the only state to shift from blue to red, was the only state examined in which Republicans increased as a percentage of the electorate. The five point shift was enough for Romney to claim the state.

A secondary and related problem is that the percentage of independents increased in many states. While Mitt Romney took a greater share of the independent vote than McCain, it was not enough to overcome the advantage of the larger Democratic base.

These numbers indicate that a Republican strategy that focuses on increasing the turnout of Republican voters is not likely to succeed in future elections. Since Republicans comprise a smaller percentage of voters than Democrats, the key to a Republican victory is to win independents by a large margin. In future elections this will be even more critical since the percentage of independents has grown dramatically since 2012. Gallup reports that almost half of all voters consider themselves independent.

The 2012 election proved that attacking Obamacare was not enough to secure a Republican victory. A strategy that may help sway independents and grow the Republican base is to present a more positive vision of the Republican agenda rather than simply criticizing the records of Democrats and focusing on the repeal of Obamacare. As economist Arthur Brooks argues, Republicans should spend less time fighting against abstract things and more time fighting for the people that they want to vote for them.

Read the full article on Elections Examiner

Marco Rubio proposes new GOP immigration policy

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) is proposing an immigration reform package reports this week’s Weekend Interview in the Wall St. Journal. Rubio, whose name was floated as a potential vice presidential nominee for Mitt Romney, wants to take the immigration issue away from the Democrats. According to Examiner’s analysis of exit polls of the 2012 presidential election, immigration was one of the most damaging issues for the Republicans.
The first prong of Rubio’s plan is to modernize America’s immigration system. He would issue more immigration visas to immigrants with technical skills needed by U.S. companies. Rubio notes that only 6.5 percent of immigrants come to the U.S. based on their labor and skills, but that American colleges don’t produce enough science, technology, engineering and math graduates to fill open positions. In fact, many foreign students who come to the U.S. to study cannot get visas to stay in the country and work.

Rubio believes that it is necessary to secure the border, but also supports workplace enforcement initiatives such as requiring employers to check the immigration status of workers. Rubio believes that these initiatives will remove the incentive for immigrants to enter the country illegally.

There is a real need for immigrant labor. In spite of high unemployment rates, Georgia is among the states where strict immigration laws have resulted in large crop losses for farmers. After Georgia’s immigration law took effect in 2011, Georgia Public Broadcasting reported that the Georgia Agribusiness Council estimated that the state’s farmers would lose as much as $1 billion because there were not enough workers to harvest their crops before they spoiled.

Rubio would solve this problem by increasing the number of permanent and seasonal work visas for farm workers. Farmers need immigrant labor to harvest their crops and immigrants need jobs to support their families. Issuing work visas would be beneficial to both groups in addition to bringing immigrants into the legal workforce to prevent them from being exploited. An added benefit would be the tax revenue that from the salaries of these legal migrant workers.

The problem of illegal aliens would be solved by bringing them into the open. Rubio proposes that they come forward to undergo background and fingerprint checks. If they had committed a serious crime, they would be deported. Those who had been in the U.S. for an extended period and who had lived within the law otherwise would be subjected to a fine, be required to pay back taxes, and possibly do community service. After they had paid their debt to society, they would be given legal status and could apply for permanent resident status. After a waiting period of several years, they might be allowed to apply for citizenship.

Sen. Rubio’s plan, which he would pass in several smaller bills as opposed to one omnibus bill, fills a void within the Republican platform as a way to appeal to minorities who now make up 28 percent of the electorate according to exit polls and vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Rubio doesn’t believe it should be this way. He says that immigration is a “gateway” issue for Hispanics. Republican outreach on this issue might well help Hispanics realize that they have much in common with Republicans on other issues.

The proposal will likely face opposition from members of Rubio’s own party who oppose any path to legality for illegal aliens.  Because of the rising share of minority voters and the ease with which Democrats demonize hard-line positions on immigration, the future of the Republican Party may hinge on the success of Rubio and his allies.

Nevertheless, Rubio believes that the issue is ripe for Republicans because President Obama and the Democrats have "not done a thing" for immigration according to the Journal article. It is likely that the Democrats will fight Republican efforts at reform in order to keep Hispanics in the Democratic fold for future elections.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/marco-rubio-proposes-immigration-reform-plan?cid=db_articles


CORRECTION:  An earlier version of this article stated that Sen. Rubio's position was did not include securing the border as a precursor to immigration reform.  Sen. Rubio's press secretary has informed the author that this is not the case.  Sen. Rubio does believe that border security is necessary before any reform package can move forward.