The polls were fairly accurate

So it turned out that the state polls were fairly accurate after all. What seems peculiar to us, particularly after the 2010 elections, is that Romney apparently got 2-3 million fewer votes than McCain got in 2008, and 5 million fewer votes than Bush got in 2004. As for Obama, the Axelrod team really did build that — an organization that sliced and diced the electorate and got them to vote, even though the president got about 9-10 million fewer votes than last time. It’s noteworthy that had Obama lost, the newly high-profile Bill Clinton would arguably have become the most important figure in the Democrat party; as things turned out, the DLC is dead.

It seems bizarre to us that McCain and Bush did so much better than Romney. How is this possible? Every anecdotal puzzle piece pointed to far greater enthusiasm for Romney than for McCain, and few GOP voters will tell you that 2012 was less important then 2004. What happened?

8 Responses to “The polls were fairly accurate”

  1. Jason Says:

    This is the question I just can’t seem to figure out. Who voted for McCain in 2008 and then failed to vote in 2012? There has to be some category of voter that bailed on Romney for some reason. Just like the WaPo predicted, Obama lost 14% of his 2008 vote. Some of them were going to Romney. Where were all the 2008 R voters?

  2. gs Says:

    I can’t figure it out either, Jason. Presumably the political pros will investigate and tell us.

    I also don’t understand why the GOP did well with the House and very well with governorships while failing with the White House and failing miserably with the Senate.

    I didn’t believe Nate Silver, but Intrade’s odds (2:1 for Obama) felt about right to me. I thought I was braced for a loss that was more likely than not—but this one hurts.

    We should have won this election. It’s essential to learn why we didn’t. That process will take time.

  3. Himself Says:

    I haven’t seen the full stats on the election, so I can’t be certain, but I strongly suspect the reason for the Republicans’ vote drop was the absence of evangelicals. I suspect they neither answered polls nor voted…and so remained completely under the radar, allowing Romney–and us–to be sucker-punched.

    Either that, or the Democrats’ vote fraud initiative is far better than we thought.

  4. Zachriel Says:

    gs: I also don’t understand why the GOP did well with the House and very well with governorships while failing with the White House and failing miserably with the Senate.

    Districting. Democrats actually garnered more popular votes for the House.

    gs: I didn’t believe Nate Silver

    He was 49 for 50 in the last election and 50 for 50 in the current election.

    Himself: I haven’t seen the full stats on the election, so I can’t be certain, but I strongly suspect the reason for the Republicans’ vote drop was the absence of evangelicals.

    Republican rhetoric drove minorities to the polls.

    Dinocrat (June 13th, 2012): The sample bias is just plain crazy because it’s an exercise in self-delusion.

    The irony is strong in this one.

  5. gs Says:

    Zachriel: no hyperlinks, no cred.

  6. Zachriel Says:

    Z: Democrats actually garnered more popular votes for the House.

    http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

    Z: {Nate Silver} was 49 for 50 in the last election and 50 for 50 in the current election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

    Z: Republican rhetoric drove minorities to the polls.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-campaign-elect-idUSBRE8A613L20121107

    Z: The irony is strong in this one.

    http://bit.ly/PMoDx2

  7. Zachriel Says:

    Hyperlinks tend to send comments to the moderation queue.

  8. gs Says:

    Zachriel: thanks.

Leave a Reply