ELECTIONATE NOVEMBER 13, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Within 45 minutes of the polls closing in Virginia, it was apparent that Obama was doing well enough in predominantly white, western Virginia to carry the state. The only outstanding questions were black turnout and Obama’s margins in northern Virginia. Most assumed that black turnout would be much higher than it was in ’04, but whether Obama could repeat his ’08 performance among African American voters was more of an open question. Few, if any, predicted that there would be areas where Obama would do better among black voters than in 2008, and yet that’s exactly what appears to have happened—not just in parts of Virginia, but in many predominantly black areas across the country.
Although the exit polls indicate that black support for Obama fell from 95 to 93 percent and turnout held at 13 percent of the electorate, a quick glance at the results map shows that black turnout or support for the president might have exceeded '08 levels. Compare the map of areas where Obama did better than he did in ’08 (marked by blue) with a map of the black population in the United States. Unless white turnout fell in predominantly black areas, the strong correlation between Obama’s gains and the presence of a large black population suggests that Obama did at least as well, if not better, than he did four years ago. As Harry Enten of the Guardian observed, the pre-election polls also showed an increase in black turnout.
Difference between Obama's support in '08 and '12
Black Population, 2000 Census
Across the entire lowland south, Obama won a larger share of the vote than he did in 2008. Not only did Obama perform better among black voters than in '08, but Obama's gains were sufficient to overwhelm losses among white voters. Obama even matched and exceeded his performance in many black counties in North Carolina and Virginia, where one would have suspected that Obama would have already maximized black turnout and support. In 11 predominantly black counties in southeastern Virginia, turnout increased and Obama won more votes than he did in 2008. Obama’s margin of victory in Ohio was almost entirely attributable to historic levels of black turnout in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo.
It seems hard to imagine that the next Democratic presidential candidate will approach Obama’s performance among black voters, but exactly how close the next Democratic candidate comes will matter a lot. In fact, African American turnout could be more important to the outcome of the 2016 election than the ability of Republicans to rekindle their support among Latino voters. A 10 point shift among Latino voters toward the GOP is worth a net-1.5 million votes nationally—even if the Latino share of the electorate increases by another 2 percentage points. But between 3 and 4 million new black voters joined the electorate over the last two cycles, and they voted for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. If black turnout returns to 11 percent of the electorate and the next Democratic candidate only wins 90 percent of the black vote, there’s room for a shift of a net-4 million votes in the GOP’s direction. Whether those 4 million voters stay home or return to their Republican-lean from eight years ago could easily decide a close presidential election, especially in states like Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
14 comments
Nice analysis, again, Mr. Cohn. It's a further nuance that complicates the extremely limited inferences drawn from the loss by the Republicans, i.e., "don't scare the Hispanics so much." Who would have thought that a very plausible path back to power for the Republicans would lie through a `naturally conservative (religious, not inclined to gay rights) group such as African-Americans who may no longer be as motivated to plump for the Democrats without the symbolic presence of a black man on the ticket? If I were a betting man, I would wager that the only reaction that Republicans will have to this bit of analysis (if its nuance can actually cross their blood-brain barrier) will be to double-down on efforts to supress the black vote.
- vst
November 13, 2012 at 11:56am
Yea, interesting post. I asked, over in the Norm Coleman post, how many Latino voters Republicans could peel away with an immigration law, allowing a Republican to be elected president, and them to continue their wreckless economic policies. Let's hope Nate's correct.
- jet
November 13, 2012 at 12:50pm
But it's also unlikely that the anti-Obama Applachian (white) vote will be as good for the next Republican candidate as it was this year. There was a strong perception that Obama was anti-coal and that he did not respect rural areas (clinging to guns and god and all that). Yes, there might be a swing in the black vote back to the GOP, but there will also probably be some swing of the white vote back to the Democrats.
- polcereal
November 13, 2012 at 12:56pm
"Within 45 minutes of the polls closing in Virginia, it was apparent that Obama was doing well enough in predominantly white, western Virginia to carry the state." I realize it's off-topic, but the quoted sentence hints at something I highlighted before the election: whatever it was about Obama's campaign that held Ohio's blue-color whites to him was the same thing that kept Virginia blue. The DC suburbs--which, demographically speaking, are identical to the Philadelphia suburbs--were always going to stick with O, and while there were questions about black turnout, no one really expected that to hurt the Dem ticket by more than a point or two, the open question in VA was whether the president could hold onto enough blue color industrial whites in the Southwest--and Tidewater and Richmond/Petersburg--to keep Virginia in his column. Clearly he did.
- AaronW
November 13, 2012 at 1:17pm
And I wouldn't count on those newly recruited black voters holstering their ballot fingers anytime soon, either. Voting for a winner is psychologically reinforcing--especially when you know damn well the other side wants you and your kind to sit down and shut up.
- AaronW
November 13, 2012 at 1:23pm
True. I was actually quite surprised at the political engagement of middle-aged middle class black voters I've talked to over the last month. And these people are going to support Hillary if (WHEN) she runs in 2016. If that merely allows Obama to cement his legacy and hand over the keys to another Democratic president, a feat not achieved since FDR, it won't even matter that Hillary will win far more white votes in areas of Appalachia and hold, if not widen Democratic majorities among female voters.
- chaitless
November 13, 2012 at 1:43pm
Interestingly, as the Republicans contemplate the ascendancy of one of their Hispanic leading lights to the top of ticket in 2016 or 2020, I am surprised that the Democrats are having no similar discussions. President Obama drew in excess of 93% of the African-American vote and encouraged higher turnout among the group than ever before; he gained 71% of Hispanic vote; and, if I recall correctly, more than 70% of the Asian-American vote. As this demographic coalition of ethnic and linguistic voters grows quickly, does it not occur to Democrats that these groups might not continue to be particularly enthused to vote Democratic by seeing someone who represents their image at the top of ticket? I don't sense any urgency to ensure that an African-American/Asian-American/Hispanic-American is at the top of the ticket in 2016 (President/Vice-President). That might prove to be a mistake.
- vst
November 13, 2012 at 1:54pm
Nice analysis. One factor that I didn't see mentioned was the extent to which the Republican's egregious voter suppression tactics actually spurred overall African-American turnout, both within and beyond states like Florida. I've seen anecdotal reports to that effect, but not hard data. However, if in fact that was the case, it could be that if the Republicans downplay such efforts in the future it could actually help them...though the voter suppression train in the Republican Party and conservative media circles has lots of momentum, and might attract less (counterproductive) attention in off-year elections than in presidential ones.
- Thunderroad
November 13, 2012 at 2:32pm
vst, The overwhelming reason why Republicans are pushing out ethnic political product like there's a fire sale is that the party is out of power when it comes to the presidency but has a lot of politicians in the federal government and state governments. Their party is in a worse place politically--especially when you consider the 2006-2008 flushing of the Bush administration--and the greater ferment allows less prepared candidates to be bandied about. (See 2012 Republican primaries.) Unfortunately for them, winning over their base mortally wounds candidates for the general election (i.e., their base is more extreme and unrepresentative). Additionally, the Republican electorate that most of their potential presidential candidates appealed to in their political careers is xenophobic and more white than the US has ever been in its entire history. This means their golden child nominees, like Rubio, Jindal, or Haley are much more conservative and unrepresentative of the hyphenated Americans the party is trying (terribly) to woo. It also means that there is a vast incentive for the Republicans to promote candidates out of their depth and hype their quality beyond all reason. (See the Michael Steele experiment, or think about Allen West.) In contrast, the Democrats are running candidates that are more legitimately the poster children for their ethnic communities (Barack Obama as the model black person and maybe soon the Castros as the model Hispanic Americans). And they aren't as loud about it, but their candidates are doing their own thing as they saunter towards White House contention. For all that you've heard about Mia Love, Kamala Harris does it much better. Gary Locke beat Jindal and Haley to significance by about 8 years, and as the Castro brothers work to catch up to Cruz and Rubio, you can be sure that Democrats are working as hard as they can to get their Hispanic House members competing for Senate seats.
- chaitless
November 13, 2012 at 2:58pm
I am with aaron on this, and beyond it, if Hillary runs she very well can turn out the same kind of turnout among blacks and will pick up a lot more southern whites. Unless the economy really goes south then I imagine she would have not much of a difficult time.
- blackton
November 13, 2012 at 5:00pm
How many of the GOP's leading Latinos are Cuban-American? I know Rubio is, but how many others. I'm asking this because I reckon that La Lengua is about the ONLY thing that second or third generation Cuban refugee descendents have in common with the Chicanos and more recent Mexican and Central American immigrants who form the bulk of America's Latino population.
- AaronW
November 13, 2012 at 5:02pm
The wild cards in 2016 will be homosexual families (which will grow by leaps and bounds as moms and moms and dads and dads plunge into wedlock) and atheists, now coming out of the closets. Whomever runs a ticket consisting of an atheist lesbian for President and a sex-changed whatever as Vice-President will tap into an electorate you never imagined. Sorry, TNR, you are still fighting the last war.
- skahn
November 13, 2012 at 11:18pm
aaron, Mexicans are very different than Cubanos. Most Cubanos in the Republican party are ancestors of the Caudillos, not many look either mestizo or indigenous. And no way does Rubio have slave ancestry. That mix of black blood does not exist in Mexico either where mestizos are a mix of white and indigenous.
- blackton
November 14, 2012 at 9:40am
Obama won the Cuban-American vote in Florida!
- CABChi
November 14, 2012 at 12:29pm