PLANK JUNE 13, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
As I mentioned yesterday, Obama is doing worse among likely voters than registered voters. This isn’t totally shocking: Historically, Republicans perform two percentage points better in polls of likely voters, but it varies from election to election and the gap could increase if Democrats become even more dependent on low-turnout demographic groups, like young and Latino voters. Currently, Obama’s four percentage point gap (in an admittedly small sample) indicates that low turnout might be an usually significant challenge for Obama’s reelection effort, but its too early to say.
Why is Obama doing worse among likely voters?
The difference between likely and registered voter polls is largely attributable to changes in the racial/ethnic composition of the electorate, with young and non-white voters constituting a smaller share of likely voters than registered voters. Gallup’s tracking poll shows that 81 percent of white voters say they will “definitely vote,” compared with just 71 percent of non-white voters. Similarly, Gallup finds that 88 percent of Republicans say they will definitely vote, more than the 82 percent of Democrats who respond similarly. Just 58 percent of 18- to 29-year-old voters say they will definitely vote
Normal
0
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
—a number unchanged since April, when 59 percent said they would definitely vote. Armed with data from two Monmouth University polls, Harry Enten has similar findings.
While these numbers might be sobering for Democrats, the heart of the campaign season is still months away and likely voter polls in June might not provide a good indication of the eventual electorate. Even over the last month, Gallup’s weekly tracking poll has shown Hispanic voters becoming more energized, with 66 percent of Hispanics saying they will “definitely” vote, up from 58 percent in April. No other demographic group has shown similar movement.
Hispanics still trail whites (81 percent say they will definitely vote) and African Americans (76 percent), but that was probably true in 2008. The point is that changes between April and June suggest that it would be unwise to assume that current likely voter polls approximate the eventual electorate in November.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of non-white turnout to Obama’s chances. Obama’s 2008 victory was built on historic showings from traditionally low-turnout groups, including young voters and African Americans, and most polls suggest that Obama is holding strong among non-white voters. If non-white voters turn out and support Obama to the same extent that they did in 2008 (26 percent of the electorate, 80 percent for Obama), then Obama’s 38.8 percent share of the white vote would give Obama more than 49 percent of the national popular vote, even without winning any additional undecided voters.
Of course, the likely voter models suggest that the Obama campaign can’t count on repeating their historic performance with non-white voters. In this context, the Obama campaign’s decision to invest enormous sums in a sophisticated ground operation is unsurprising. In addition to potentially prodding Obama supporters who currently seem unlikely to vote, a strong ground operation can help take advantage of demographic changes by adding newly registered voters who can help compensate for diminished enthusiasm and lower turnout rates among Obama ’08 supporters. While it’s hard to say whether Obama’s vaunted ground operation will replicate ’08 turnout among young and non-white voters, there’s no question that the Obama campaign is willing to invest the money necessary to find out.
9 comments
BHO has a turout problem because of the relatively few he has turned on. Better than the other guy who is a true whack job is hardly a winning campaign theme. Aside from tnr and BHO campaing publications, there are darn few sites that see lots of posts from BHO acolytes. Most moderate Progressives I know that worked for/gave to BHO in 2007-2008 won't give to or vote for Mittens, but they won't be doing much more than at best voting for BHO.
- drofnats1
June 13, 2012 at 2:06pm
"Most moderate Progressives I know that worked for/gave to BHO in 2007-2008 won't give to or vote for Mittens, but they won't be doing much more than at best voting for BHO." We have met the enemy...
- Fishpeddler
June 13, 2012 at 2:36pm
... and he is Dems who kept saying "yup,yup, yup OK by me" to bills for inadequate stimulus, health care, financial regulation, tax rates... etc. that have gone a long way to help Repubs produce the political muck and debris in today current economic swamp. Pogo, Walt Kelly (and Fishpeddler??) get it right.
- drofnats1
June 13, 2012 at 4:24pm
And so, drof, we should put the devil into the White House and maybe elect a few more of his minions to Congress and what about the statehouses? Oh brother.
- Sophia
June 13, 2012 at 11:59pm
Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012: drofnats 1: "In hindsight, we may have resorted to cannibalism a bit early."
- Fishpeddler
June 14, 2012 at 11:24am
Awesome, Fish!
The more I read drofsats1, the more I realize that the people who need to be taught their lessons aren't the bluedogs and moderates, it's the liberals who mirror the conservatives with their zealotry for ideological purity and their "our way or no way" mentality.
- GSpinks
June 14, 2012 at 1:30pm
Aw, guys, you should give drof a break. He's wrong, but wrong for the right reasons. If Republican conservatives' example is at all instructive--and I think it is--then there is reason to believe that drofnats' unforgiving attitude is exactly the right one to take. If of the two parties one, the GOP, grows ever more ideologically rigid and extreme while the Democrats continue to be this flaccid, do-whatever-it-takes-to-appeal-to-the-most party with no solid ideological core, then the whole system will necessarily drift to the right. Drofnats is not wrong in his desire to shift that momentum. The only reason I'm not on the barricades with drofnats is this one thing: the Supreme Court. As long as the Court is divided 5/4 it is absolutely critical a Republican not be allowed into the White House. I'd vote for and donate money to a ham sandwich if I thought it could win and that it wouldn't replace Kennedy or, god forbid, Ginsberg, with another 55-year-old movement conservative like Alito. And by the way, turnout is THE problem for the Obama campaign. Really it's the only problem. And one does wonder whether if throughout the past 3 years Obama had spent less time courting business and the white moderate voters who supposedly would appreciate such Republicanish moves and more time like the liberal, activist Democrat many thought him to be whether he'd have such a hard time energizing the young, non-white, infrequent voters who came out for him in such large numbers in 2008. The PPP pole that shows only 80% support for Obama among NC blacks has to be wrong. I spent 8 years working with black (and white) people in North Carolina, and I don't believe for a second that 20% of them would consider voting for Romney. But would they not bother to go to the poles in November now that the dew is off the first black president in history? Absolutely. And I can imagine, though I have no way to know, that "What has he really done for us?" is a question that is asked of Obama in many black households.
- AaronW
June 14, 2012 at 3:00pm
My problem, AaronW, is that letting Republicans have the White House is going to soften their zealotry. They got a taste of 12 years of Republican rule from 1980-92 and now they're addicted. When Clinton won, they immediately went bonkers; bombing abortion clinics and government buildings, etc. When Bush was handed the presidency from the SCOTUS (I agree with you there), everything settled down almost over night. I still remember vividly the story of the guy from PA who killed three police officers with an assault rifle, who was eventually apprehended, convicted and incarcerated...he didn't care because Obama was going to absolutely ruin America and he figured he'd have it better with three hots and a cot in jail. They are junkies, and there is no substitute; they have to be cut off, cold turkey, until the addiction is broken. If they get another hit, they'll just settle down into their usual routines because all will be right with the world again. Remember, they are true believers, and they accept their lot in life if it means upholding their faith.
- GSpinks
June 14, 2012 at 4:28pm
Aaron. You are correct re reasons. As for SCOTUS, I think it's wishful thinking that BHO will prevent a yet-more-rightward drift if re-elected. If re elected he probably will not have a majority in the Senate -- and certainly not a majority that would bring cloture to a filibuster. The chances of BHO making another court appointment in the next 4.5 years is small--- and near nonexistant probability that the appointment would be as moderate as Kagan or Montemeyor. GSpinks et al. What exactly is BHO going to accomplish if re-elected, especially if the economy tanks after 10/12, instead of within the next 3 months? (In which case, get used to saying "Prez Mitt").
- drofnats1
June 14, 2012 at 6:45pm