Sunday, August 30 , 2015, 8:18 pm | Mostly Cloudy 75.0º




Michael Barone: Obama’s Numbers Fell, But Romney Never Inspired Voters to Vote

By Michael Barone | @MichaelBarone |

In combing through the results of the 2012 election — apparently finally complete, nearly two months after the fact — I continue to find many similarities between 2012 and 2004, and one enormous difference.

Both of the elections involved incumbent presidents with approval ratings hovering around or just under 50 percent facing challengers who were rich men from Massachusetts (though one made his money and the other married it).

In both cases, the challenger and his campaign seemed confident he was going to win — and had reasonable grounds to believe so.

In both elections, the incumbent started running a barrage of negative ads defining the challenger in the spring. And in both elections, the incumbent had at least one spotty debate performance.

In both elections, each candidate concentrated on a more or less fixed list of target states, and in both elections the challenger depended heavily on outside groups’ spending that failed to achieve optimal results.

The popular vote margins were similar — 51 to 48 percent for George W. Bush in 2004, 51 to 47 percent for Barack Obama in 2012.

The one enormous difference was turnout. Turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections rose from 105 million to 122 million — plus 16 percent. Turnout between the 2008 and 2012 elections fell from 131 million to 128 million — minus 2 percent.

Turnout is a measure of organization but also of spontaneous enthusiasm.

In 2004, John Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore had four years before. But he lost because Bush got 23 percent more popular votes than he had four years before.

Kerry voters were motivated more by negative feelings for Bush than by positive feelings for their candidate. They disagreed with Bush’s major policies and disliked him personally. The Texas twang, the swagger, the garbled sentence structure — it was like hearing someone scratch his fingers on a blackboard.

Bush voters were more positively motivated. Political reporters had a hard time picking this up. His job rating was weak, but Bush voters tended to have a lot of warmth for him.

He had carried us through 9/11, he had confronted our enemies directly, he had pushed through with bipartisan support popular domestic measures like his education bill and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

His criticism of his opponents was measured and never personal, and he blamed none of his difficulties on his predecessor (who had blamed none of his on his).

This affection evaporated pretty quickly, in the summer of 2005, with scenes of disorder in the streets of Baghdad and New Orleans. But it was there in 2004, and you can see it in that 23 percent turnout increase.

The 2012 election was different. Obama got 6 percent fewer popular votes than he had gotten in 2008. And Mitt Romney got only 1 percent more popular votes than John McCain had four years before.

In retrospect, it looks like both campaigns fell short of their turnout goals. Yes, examination of election returns and exit polls indicates that the Obama campaign turned out voters where it really needed them.

That enabled him to carry Florida by 1 percent, Ohio by 3 percent, Virginia by 4 percent, and Colorado and Pennsylvania by 5 percent. Without those states, he would have gotten only 243 electoral votes and would now be planning his presidential library.

But the conservative bloggers who argued that the Obama campaign’s early voting numbers were below target may have been right. If Romney had gotten 16 percent more popular votes than his predecessor, as Kerry did, he would have led Obama by 4 million votes and won the popular vote 51 to 48 percent.

Romney, like Kerry, depended on voters’ distaste for the incumbent; he could not hope to inspire the devotion Bush enjoyed in 2004 and that Obama had from a diminished number in 2008.

But to continue this counterfactual scenario, if Obama had won 23 percent more popular votes this year than in 2008, he would have beaten Romney by 85 million to 69 million votes and by 54 to 44 percent.

In reality, Obama’s vote and percentage went down. Considering what happened in Bush’s second term, that suggests a course of caution and wariness for the re-elected president and his party.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. Click here to contact him. Follow him on Twitter: @MichaelBarone.




comments powered by Disqus

» on 12.27.12 @ 03:49 PM

The GOP ran a Wall Street fat cat. In spite of the popular belief by many republicans, many conservatives have an acute distain for the Street’s penchant for pirates, looters, gamblers and pillagers. Conservatives, unlike the left who believe the way to deal with looting is make everyone suffer, believe the Street should police itself. It hasn’t. It also engages in grotesque opportunism by dallying around with the Obama crowd and showering them with favors to keep its special place in Washington’s heart.

That is why turn out was low. Romney may have been the more capable and technically savvy candidate. His Mormon religion may have made him the more honest and trustworthy. But his accumulation of wealth by means of Wall Street looting was too much for many conservatives and independents too swallow and many of us said so a year ago when the oligarchs in the GOP were cheer leading his candidacy.

When the country clubbers and oligarchs in the GOP get a clue or decide they want a party that leads rather than acquiesces to its comfortable second place status we will be ready to vote. Until then its one party rule by the democrats, who now have the distinction of owning lock stock and barrel the whole banana.

» on 12.27.12 @ 05:58 PM

An interesting number-crunching analysis from “Landslide Mike”.

Remember, Barone predicted that Romney would win “easily, possibly even in a landslide”, just eight days before the election that quickly went to Obama.

» on 12.27.12 @ 08:41 PM

Thanks for todays installment of laughable IKE drivel.
Despite the predictions of Barone , IKE , Petri and other Noozhawk TeaBirchers, Republicans were turned back again. Instead of realizing that their policies are being rejected handily , their inept House majority remains in recalcitrant lockdown.
Results show that Democrats carried 55% of women voters,60% of the under 30 vote, 70% of the Hispanic vote, and 93% of the African-American vote. That leaves a couple of women and a whole lot of old white guys voting Republican.
Hopefully on the next cylcle we can clean out this do nothing House majority and find some capable Republicans who are smart enough to work across the aisle.

» on 12.27.12 @ 11:01 PM

Spoken like a true spineless minority wanna bee with zero self esteem and no convictions.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

 

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.