Daily Archives: November 7, 2012

Quick thoughts on the election

As we noted the other day, we had planned to do a pre-election poll in New Jersey but those plans were stopped by Superstorm Sandy. As it turns out, might not have made much difference. When we last polled – 5 weeks ago! – we had President Obama up by 17 points over Romney in the state. In doing so, we seemed a bit of an outlier. As it turns out, looks like the president won by, you guessed it, 17 points.

In that poll, we had the ballot question on a bond issue for higher education at 62% support. Last night it won 61%.

We were off, however, on the judge’s pay ballot issue, which won 83% of the vote – we pegged it at only 70% support.

Not that we think polling 5 weeks ahead of the election is a good indicator of what will happen on election day. But at least in the NJ presidential race, nothing happened – we were not a battleground, so we had no campaign. With no campaign, the numbers simply didn’t move.
One thing that is annoying today is the “No Change Election” meme being floated. Yes, it is true that Obama is still president, the Republicans still have the House, and the Democrats still have the Senate. BUT, on a national level, real change is evident. Instead of losing Senate seats, Democrats picked up, and may now have a 55-45 margin (including the two independents) up from 53-47 before the election. That small change is evidence of something underneath the overall numbers, and that something drove not only Obama’s re-election but also state level results like the passing of same sex marriage in three states (MD, ME, WA) when it has NEVER won a popular vote before, and the failure of a one-man-one-woman constitutional amendment in Minnesota. California actually voted to tax itself for education. Women made historic gains in the U.S. Senate. And other small, yet significant, changes appear below the national level.

These changes are driven by fundamental changes in the electorate. Young people are voting and have very different attitudes on race, gender, and social issues than do their elders. And Latino’s made up 10 percent of the electorate, with significant consequences. There is change, it is just hard to see if you only look at the big picture.

At the presidential level, our initial simple assessment is that Obama won in the end because:

The electorate in the United States is changing. More Hispanic voters that ever showed up to vote (they made up about 10% of all voters) and they overwhelmingly voted for Obama. In addition, 93 percent of African Americans voted Obama. Young voters (under 30) also strongly supported him. Whites made up only 72 percent of the electorate, continuing a steady decline in influence. Even though they went for Romney, it is no longer enough to have an overwhelmingly white electoral coalition.

Obama’s voter mobilization operation was better than Romney’s. Obama had many more campaign offices and people “on the ground” doing the hard work of getting people to go to the polls to vote. That allowed him to win a number of close states.

Voters did not like Mitt Romney as much as Obama and they did not blame Obama as much as they did former President Bush for the economic problems. They seem willing to give Obama more time to make things better.

That’s our no-pre-election-poll wrap up. We will be back in the field soon with a post-election poll and our initial look at the 2013 elections. Yep, they’ve already started…

1 Comment

Filed under 2012 Presidential Election, Gay Marriage, NJ Voters, Rutgers, Taxes