Main image
7th December
2012
written by Sean Noble

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no single reason why Republicans, and in particular, Mitt Romney, lost in 2012.  It was a perfect storm of a lackluster presidential campaign, an iconic incumbent, slightly improving economic indicators, and a super storm.

 

In my previous post, I pointed out Romney’s image problems, his problem with minority women, the unprecedented way that late deciders broke for the incumbent president, and faulty data by Republican pollsters.

 

Dick Morris points out that part of the reason Obama increased his share of votes among Hispanics and Asians is that white voters were a smaller percentage of the overall electorate – and that they stayed home.

 

Here are a few other important points in that vein:

 

 

  • Minority voting increased as a share of the electorate.  Even as turnout fell, Hispanic/Latino and Asian vote shares grew relative to the non-Hispanic white turnout.  Latinos were 10% of voters in 2012 compared with 9% in 2008.  Asians also increased to 3% from 2%.  African-Americans maintained at 13% of turnout.  Non-Hispanic white voters fell from 74% to 72% of turnout.

 

  • Obama won larger majorities of Latino and Asian voters than in 2012He won slightly fewer African-Americans. Obama increased his lead by 8 points among Latinos (71-27 in 2012 vs. 67-31 in 2008) and by 20 points among Asians (73-26 in 2012 vs. 62-35 in 2008).  Romney won 6% of African-Americans, while McCain won 4% in 2008.  Romney won non-Hispanic whites by 9 points more than McCain (59-39 in 2012 vs. 55-43 in 2008).

 

  • Younger voters showed up at the polls again and in bigger numbers.  Voters aged 18-29 made up a larger share of the electorate in 2012 (19%) than in 2008 (18%).  Obama won 60% of this group in 2012 (up from 56% in 2008).

 

 

One stunning statistic: people making less than $50,000 made up 41% of the electorate (+3 from 2008) and voted 60% for Obama and 38% for Romney.

 

Those making $50,000-$100,000 shrunk as a percentage of the electorate from 36% in 2008 to 31% this year.  They narrowly supported Romney.

 

Three percent slipped into the lower income bracket and two percent went to the $100,000+ bracket (which supported Romney 54% over 44% for Obama).  So as a result of Obama’s failed economic policies that have driven incomes down, he grew his voter pool. Talk about the perverse incentives of Obama’s agenda.

 

In the next installment, we’ll discuss consumer confidence as an indicator and whether voter fraud had an impact on this election.

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Comments

  1. Bruce Lichlyter
    08/12/2012

    I was devastated by the results as were most on our side. I think the biased media payed a HUGE role in what message got out. No matter how good or bad FOX is, the major media still controls 90% of the communication to the public. Another mistake that hurt the republics BADLY were the republican primaries. Why did the candidates agree to 25 debates, instituted by the biased media in order to self destruct all of the candidates? It was mass suicide dragging everyone of them through the media mud and tarnished not only the candidates, but the party in the eyes of the voters. I would limit it to 5 debates tops. It only hurt us. The last thing is the polls showed that up to 7 days before the election 5-8 % still had not made up their mind. I would have had a National blitz the last 7 days and not just ads. I would have had Romney on all major networks, doing a Lincoln, Washington, Reagon speech with Video inserts for effect for 45-60 minutes in the last 2 nights before the election. It would be bold, blunt, point out who the real enemy is and finish with the strongest, positive plan to touch all voters. GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY! I’m not sure we are ever going to recover from what the last 4 or the next 4 years of this administration are going to do to this country, including the Supreme Court.

  2. Rory
    08/12/2012

    Romney explained it well, he lost because of the moral failings of the voters. Must be nice when you win, it is because of how great you are but when you lose it is because the voters are immoral and lazy.

    “So as a result of Obama’s failed economic policies that have driven incomes down, he grew his voter pool. Talk about the perverse incentives of Obama’s agenda.”

    Is that what passes for analysis? Noble thinking, indeed. Maybe you can help Karl Rove squander hundreds of millions next time around. Or you could be one of Romney’s crack data crunchers telling your man how he had it won and in the bag!

    What a joke.

  3. Jamie D
    12/12/2012

    The Republican Party needs to look at creating a new coalition. I have no doubt a few small things and we could have won this election, but next time, we’re not going to have an 8% unemployment rate to run against.

    The biggest problem I see is with Social Conservative wing of the Party. The nation is simply more secular, and we can’t have a political party where only religious people feel comfortable. 30 years ago, this wing of the Party helped the GOP because America by in large had widespread agreement on many of these issues. That America though is long gone, yet Republicans are still trying to run the same Reagan playbook from 1980.

    I’d like to see the GOP move in a more “agnostic” position on these social issues, especially since politicians really can’t make a difference. How many abortions did Akin really prevent over his career?

    The abortion plank needs to be dropped, at the very least, the “Akin” position needs to be run out on a rail. Abortion is settled law, it’s never going to be made illegal. We basically cede half the country to Democrats on this issue that’s abstract anyway. You could probably cut the gender gap in half immediately if you dropped it.

    Right now, to most voters, the GOP is the “Ned Flander’s Party” and that shuts us out from millions of Americans who might otherwise be open to a smaller-government message.

Leave a Reply