ELECTIONATE NOVEMBER 12, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
With the national exit poll showing Obama winning with just 39 percent of white voters, a smaller share than any Democrat since Mondale, the emerging conventional wisdom holds that a demographic tidal wave of minority turnout cost Romney the presidency. As a result, Republicans are focusing on their poor performance with the burgeoning Latino population; even Sean Hannity says he's "evolved" on immigration reform. But while the national exit poll data give the impression that Romney got the job done with white voters, Romney's stellar national performance obscures stark regional differences that suggest the GOP has its own problem with white voters.
Romney’s strong national showing among white voters was almost exclusively driven by historic support from Southern and Appalachian white voters. In many counties, Obama’s performance was the worst by any Democrat since McGovern or, in some places, ever. Even a quick glance at overwhelmingly white, Southern, or Appalachian counties with a history of offering even limited support to Democratic candidates shows Obama performing anywhere from 15 to 30 points worse than Kerry did eight years ago. Obama even lost more than 50 points compared to Kerry’s performance in several “coal country” counties in southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky.
Outside the South, Romney’s performance among white voters was anything but historic. He ran behind Bush’s tallies in most of the northern half of the United States. While some believed that Obama’s weakness among white voters would translate into opportunities for Romney in overwhelmingly white states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, Obama ultimately won these three states by 5.6 to 6.9 points, even though Bush never lost any by more than 1.3 points. More broadly, you can quickly consider changes in Democratic support among white voters between '04 and '12 in the nine states where whites represent at least 85 percent of the population. These states aren't exactly representative of white voters elsewhere, but the big picture is about right: outside of the South, Romney ran behind Bush among white voters, but he made up for it in Appalachia and the rest of the South.
Obama also preserved many of his gains in affluent and well-educated suburban counties where many believed that Romney would perform well. Republicans won Jefferson, CO, Chester, PA, Loudon, VA, Wake, NC, and Somerset, NJ, in every presidential election from 1968 through 2004, but Obama carried all of them with the exception of Chester County, where Obama’s performance was still better than any other Democrat since Johnson. Obama also performed near ’08 levels in moderate Democratic-leaning suburbs like Fairfax, Polk, Franklin, Hennepin, or Oakland Counties. It's important to remember that the nation's best-educated counties are increasingly among its most diverse (whites were just 72 percent of the population in 37 counties without a major university where 40 percent or more of adults hold a Bachelor's degree), but it's clear from the results in relatively white counties (80 percent or more) like Jefferson and Larimier, CO, or Delaware, OH, that Obama's big gains over Kerry's performance in well-educated areas aren't just a product of demographic changes.
Making matters worse for Republicans, Democratic Senate candidates ran as well as or ahead of the president in white areas in just about every competitive state, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio. The performance of these candidates suggests that the GOP's issues extend beyond specific problems with Romney or the unique appeal of the president. This particular writer can't judge whether Republicans were hurt more by abortion, tax policy, or something else, but it's clear that Romney's issue among rural, white northerners wasn't just Bain Capital, and his problem in affluent suburbs wasn't just his pledge to end funding to Planned Parenthood.
If Romney's historic performance among white voters manifested evenly across the electoral map, then Republicans could justifiably consider their “demographic challenge” as their primary obstacle to victory in 2016. But the Republicans shouldn't let their national standing among white voters obscure their real challenges with white voters outside of the South. It’s not useful for Republican strategists to take solace in Obama's 39 percent showing among white voters if Obama still managed to do much better than Kerry or Gore in states like Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Minnesota. In the Electoral College system, turning "lean Republican" states like Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri into "solid Republican" states just doesn't matter.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
11 comments
I appreciate TNR's efforts to look behind the standard veneer. The white/black/latino divide certainly doesn't hold all the insights from the voting records; nor does gender. One thing I know from the many photos from rallies for both campaigns: Obama's supporters are a visual melting pot and were very affirming to see after the historic GOP efforts to suppress the vote. I am sure 2012 earned the GOP a notation in future histories of our country for the mendacity and divisiveness of their campaign.
- smabry03
November 12, 2012 at 4:14pm
Aha. So it's not ALL white voters who favored Romney, just most of those in Southern and Appalachian states. Well that makes me feel a lot better, being a Maryland resident myself. And frankly, I'm insulted both by the "47%" line Romney put out, as well as its echo from both O'Reilly and Rove that Romney only lost because there's a majority of minority "Entitled" folk unwilling to work for what they get. Clearly there's a lot of white folks listening to Fox-News who won't vote for a Democrat no matter what. But to conclude that all of America has now gone to the dogs, so to speak, was a bridge too far. I think there are still intelligent and thoughtful white folks who simply think Obama has the right ideas.
- AllanL5
November 12, 2012 at 4:35pm
What is fascinating to anyone interested is looking at the 2008 state-by-state breakdown vs. the 2012 breakdown and you can see interesting trends that are reflected in how certain states (once in the red zone) are trending from red to purple to blue. Colorado was historically red for several POTUS elections until the last 2 elections where it swung to purplish-blue. Look at the county breakdown and you see counties that were once historically red turn blue (like Jefferson, Pitkin, Gunnison). I also looked at some of the Southern states like North and South Carolina and a similar trend is showing up there. Of course there are states like OK, LA, MS that won't be changing any time soon so I guess the hard-core Confederate states and Appalachia will continue to vote GOP but their diminishing roll in national politics will continue. The GOP faces a structural deficiency among all voters but also among a shrinking % of white voters over-all and it isn't simply an issue of 'softening' their tone.
- singlspeed
November 12, 2012 at 5:28pm
endless wait for someone to start asking why 90 million voters stayed home.
- K2K
November 12, 2012 at 6:09pm
I might consider voting more Republican again when personalities with ideologies such as Grover Norquist, Steven Moore, and Rush Limbaugh, to name a few, no longer have a voice in the Republican party, or anywhere else. That may mean I'll have to vote less Republican the rest of my life, the way things are going.
- jet
November 12, 2012 at 7:50pm
i suspect that the stated "evolution" is in part because the GOP (Fox) leader(s) already knew that Nate's post about whites would turn out to be very telling indeed. and "singlespeed" (5:28pm) has it right, too.
- cdmcl3
November 12, 2012 at 8:45pm
Nice analysis, Mr. Cohn. Fortunately, it will never find its way to those whom it could most benefit -- Republicans. The "type of math they do to make themselves feel better, as Republicans" does not equip them to understand conditional numeric relationships. They already have their narrative for the next presidential electoral cycle: `don't scare the Hispanics so badly' They are not capable of digesting any further nuances.
- vst
November 13, 2012 at 7:37am
One interesting if little mentioned piece of information is that of the 11 State governorships up for grabs Democrats won 7, including Montana, Missouri, and West Virginia. Republicans only won in Utah, ND, Indiana, and NC. k2k, what are you talking about? In 2008 131 million votes were cast, so far 123 million votes were counted with places like Washington state and Alaska having many votes outstanding. So you are talking about a drop off of about 8 million votes. 1 million more people voted for McCain than Romney (so much for Republican enthusiasm). In New York State alone 1 1/2 million fewer people voted and you know damn well why. In NJ half a million. Couple this with long waiting lines in places like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc. because of Republican efforts of voter suppression and there is little doubt Obama's vote totals would be a lot higher. And can you honestly justify people having to wait for 7 hours in Florida? My sister in Northern Virginia had to wait 3. I, in my tony white suburb in Pa. spent 10 minutes at my polling station and half that time was spent talking to an Obama poll watcher. How many people in Democratic districts simply could not wait that time because they have kids they have to feed. I have a 4 year old, do you expect me to have him stand in line for 3 hours?
- blackton
November 13, 2012 at 9:10am
Very interesting analysis. I suspect, though, that some of the analysis taking place now is only going to have modest relevance to the next Presidential campaign. For one, Obama won't be running, which means that his great performance among blacks and his fantastic ground game won't apply (in addition to the fact that Republicans seem to have realized that 2008's ground game wasn't a fluke). That also means Obama's bad performance among Appalachia (which is both cultural and policy driven) may not apply, either, particularly if Clinton, who does very well with these voters, is the nominee. But Cohn's analysis holds: in order to have a much better chance at winning, the GOP candidate needs to improve with Hispanics and pierce the Midwestern wall--probably by becoming more practical and sensible. The former might happen, but the latter will be an uphill struggle for the tea-infused GOP.
- polcereal
November 13, 2012 at 12:23pm
Larimer, not Larimier. Fort Collins in Larimer County holds Colorado State University with 26,000 students.
- ReganaD
November 13, 2012 at 2:09pm
K2K - the Republican "let's delegitimise Obama's win" speaking point is "9 million", not "90 million". As in "9 million white voters stayed away because of voter suppression by Obama". The said suppression being the result of a nasty, negative campaign waged by Obama, and Obama alone, against an otherwise lily-white - pun intended - candidate. The one surprising thing is why you never bothered to ask, in 2010, what happened to millions of voters who had voted in 2008 and did not vote in 2010, or why, almost magically, the proportion of older voters in 2010 was significantly higher than any year since or before. Apparently, voter turnout is a major concern only if, well, you get my meaning :) ...
- icarus-r
November 13, 2012 at 5:23pm