Demographics and the Electorate

[Erc]

So, here's one question I've had for a while.

It's clear Trump is a terrible candidate among huge swathes of the electorate.  Historically bad among Latinos, somehow doing worse than Romney among Black voters, losing (for the first time in recent memory) college-educated whites.  He seems to be doing better among non-college-educated white voters than Romney did, but surely not enough to make up for everything else.

For example, let's look at the ABC-Washington Post poll released yesterday.  Obviously, margins of error among subsamples are larger, but the numbers seem roughly in line with other samples (or subsamples) from other polls.

Clinton has an 87-point lead among Black voters.
Clinton has a 49-point lead among Hispanic voters.
Clinton has a 9-point lead among whites with a college degree.
Trump has a 32-point lead among whites without a college degree.

Plugging these into 538's demographic calculator, and assuming (perhaps poorly) that turnout levels among each demographic (and the vote share among people of other races) are unchanged from 2012, you get Clinton winning by 11.5% with 363 EVs (2012+NC+GA), and with Arizona & South Carolina just out of reach.

Making some (bad) assumptions about third-party votes, here's what the map looks like (ignoring ME-02 and NE-02 for simplicity):

So, why is Clinton only leading in the low single digits and with a narrow EV margin?  Here are some theories that get bandied about:

Geographic Polarization:

Perhaps the gains Clinton is making are in the solid-D states in the Northeast and in California, which doesn't help her EV map (or, alternatively, in solid-R states, though I can't say I buy this too much as an explanation outside of Deseret, as losses in solidly Republican areas of swing states would also hurt him.)  If this is true, it can help explain her narrow EV lead, and this is already evident in the fact that she's only winning 363 EVs in an 11.5-point blowout, above.  If it's true, it also should help us feel better about Pennsylvania, as the Philly suburbs fall squarely into the sorts of places where Clinton is gaining, according to this theory.

But, more importantly, this does nothing to explain why Clinton's national PV margin in polls is so narrow; votes are votes, no matter where they are.

Third Party Effects:

Probably still not large enough to make a huge difference, and I tried to account for it in the map above by using the margin between the candidates when making the map, rather than the % of the two-way vote each got.  Probably, this actually hurts Clinton; as undecided voters make up their mind and some third-party voters come home, we expect the margin between the candidates to widen in each group.  As Clinton's already ahead in the larger groups, this should help her more, if anything.

Weird geographic effects (e.g. Johnson in NM) could have particular effects in certain states, but again this shouldn't have any impact on the overall PV.

Differential Turnout:

This is the big one.  I was assuming that each group would turn out in the same rate as they did in 2012, which is a huge assumption.  What could change?

* Will black turnout go down with Obama off the ballot? Some assume it will, but I don't think there's any real basis for that.  
* Will Hispanic turnout go up with Trump on the ballot?  I'm less convinced of that of late, but if anything that would help Clinton.  
* Are college-educated whites so disillusioned by the choices that they aren't turning out?
* Is Trump really bringing huge swathes of non-college-educated white new voters to the polls?

More generally, are the Likely Voter screens really doing their job this year?  This is not the same sort of race we've had for the last few cycles.

Pollster Herding

All the polls are showing a close race because all the other polls are showing a close race.  Whether consciously or not, perhaps the polls are being massaged to show a closer race when in fact it is a 10+-point blowout.

Stop Looking at Subsamples, You Doofus!

Is this really just an issue of what happens when you look at subsamples for too long?  I don't think so, since the two subsamples that really matter here (the two subsets of whites) are both pretty large.

Did I happen to cherry-pick the ABC/Wapo poll because it happens to fit my narrative?  I don't think I did, but if other polls are telling different stories I'd love to hear them.

Am I just being as dumb as all the "unskew-the-polls" folks from 2012?  I hope not.

[Virginiá]

More generally, are the Likely Voter screens really doing their job this year?  This is not the same sort of race we've had for the last few cycles.

That's the billion dollar question, isn't it? I feel like there is a better chance this year than others that the screens could be off noticeably, but to which candidate's benefit, who knows? Maybe Millennial turnout plummets and hurts Clinton. Or maybe non-college whites don't have a surge and Trump is swamped by reliable college-educated white voters and high minority turnout.

What I do know is that historically non-college whites are less reliable in terms of voting than college educated whites, and that there is enough reason to believe Hispanics will see very good turnout this year. There is also little-to-no precedent for a demographic like African Americans seeing their turnout plummet 6+ points in 1 cycle while others maintain/increase, as some think might happen.

Good post though! Enjoyed reading.

[jaichind]

In 2012 whites without a college degree turnout reached a record low relative to the non-White vote.  The entire premise of the Trump campaign is that this will reverse itself in significant fashion.  If it does not then Trump will lose by margins most likely worse than Romney.

[afleitch]

This issue has crossed my mind quite a number of times as well.

If you use the Reuters data for the past two weeks (which takes in Trump's good week and Hillary's good week), Clinton's two party vote share is 43.8 with whites and 96 with blacks. With Hispanics they only made up 2% of the numbers they polled (and less than 1% on an LV model), but on that she's got 78% and 65.1% of Asian's and others.

That gives an Obama 2008 result exactly (including Indiana), with an 11.6 vote lead...

For the record, the whole sample (20,000+ voters) is 45, 92, 81.7, 66.4 respectively, so fairly stable

Now part of the reason why these demographic models were put in place for this year (and indeed in 2012) is that regression modelling suggested a strong correlation. To some extent, based on prior polling, they were used relatively successfully in predicting the primaries this year and for example The Upshot used them on election nights themselves.

As I jokingly said to another poster, Yeah, we can perhaps scratch off Iowa which she was struggling with even when she was at her convention high. We can make Virginia more safe (which is a more than fair exchange) but around the margins, unless you lock up minorities, women and college voters in a room on election day and clone a couple of million non college educated whites, I fail to see how she's going to do particularly worse than Obama did with these sorts of numbers.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Looking at the 538 calculator, even if black turnout dropped to 10% with these numbers, Clinton would still win. So I don't think that this is something which she needs to be worried about, per se. Of course, this isn't to say that she should forget about black voters entirely, or that they should be written off as "safe" as they so often are these days...

[Maxwell]

I find myself asking these same questions - I suspect it largely reflects turnout and third parties muddying analysis. My thoughts are if this race is close or even a Trump win, it would require a sizable drop off in turnout from most all of the demographics where Clinton would improve on Obama's 2012 win.

[Erc]

Looking at the 538 calculator, even if black turnout dropped to 10% with these numbers, Clinton would still win. So I don't think that this is something which she needs to be worried about, per se. Of course, this isn't to say that she should forget about black voters entirely, or that they should be written off as "safe" as they so often are these days...

A few similar scenarios:

If I swap college-educated and non-college educated white turnout from their 2012 levels (a 20% shift in each), and drop black turnout 9 points for good measure, she still wins with the same margin and map Obama did in 2012.

If I decrease (and increase) (non-)college-educated white turnout by 10%, Trump would still need to win 76% of white non-college-educated votes (men AND women) to win the EC (and he'd still be down a point in the EV), keeping the numbers the same for everyone else.

I don't see that happening.  There doesn't seem to be a plausible way for Trump to win the popular vote, if the race remains like it is.  538 gives him a 36.1% chance of doing so at the moment.  Of course, some of this is reversion to the "mean", or the chance that there's a large shakeup in the race  that swings all white voters towards Trump, but it still seems too high.

[Likely Voter]

excellent post and question. I think it is clear Trump will not do better than Romney with non-whites or with college-whites (and may even do worse) so he has to make up for the Obama-Romney deficit entirely with non-college whites. Which means the election comes down to how big is his margin with NCWs and well do they turn out vs. other groups. 

And once again this all comes down to how the pollsters weigh both their RV and their LV samples.  But invariably we see that polls with big samples of NCWs show Trump doing well and polls matching the 2012 electorate (or an even less white electorate) look good for Clinton. And of course there is the issue of the Latino vote and how non-Spanish language option polls treat them. 

On a recent podcast (cant remember which one) but Paul Begala talked about the campaign polls and Super PAC polls (like Priorities USA which he works for) are basically much better than media polls. Specifically he said the PUSA polls don't show the big fluctuations we have seen in media polls, and have a small but consistent lead for Clinton. 

Of course they could all be wrong and Trump may really change everything and huge numbers of NCWs show up vs CWs and NWs, and then he wins. That is a possibility, but that is the only way he wins.

[afleitch]

I did a little experiment using the exit poll data for the 2014 House elections and used Real Clear Politics' own demographic widget. It predicted that the Democrats would have won 48% of the two party vote. Instead they won 47.1. Not too bad a margin of error. However the differences in each of the states was stark and varied greatly from the 0.9% difference recorded nationally.

If we set the Democratic national vote to 0, then the worst swing state for the Democrats was Nevada; at -9.1 points worse for the Democrats than the model predicted. The next worse state was Ohio at -8.6, then Pennsylvania at -5.1, Missouri at -4.8 then Iowa at -4.7.

The best swing states for the Democrats, where they over polled based on the estimate was New Mexico at 4.5, Arizona at 3.2, Georgia at 2.1, New Hampshire at 1, Colorado at 0.7 and Maine and North Carolina at 0.4

Not an unfamiliar pattern of states surely....?

The difference between 2014 and now is that we are using polling data, rather than the exit poll. And the results in 2014 were brutal for the Democrats (as was 2010) and turnout was at a 60+ year low and woeful amongst minority groups.

If we apply the 2014 turnout to the 2012 results, then the Democratic share is reduced to 50.9 and Florida flips to the Republicans. If we apply the state variance we found in 2014, then the states currently with Trump on 538 flip to him as well as Virginia (which we can perhaps exclude this year) and Pennsylvania.

With the Reuters data, but the 2014 turnout, the Democratic share is better 55.4. Applying the same state variance sees Trump win Ohio, Nevada and Virginia (again with the caveats), but just lose Iowa. Clinton wins all the other Obama 2012 states and adds North Carolina to her tally.

So, the LV screen appears to be suggesting a 2014 style turnout (in ratio if not in actual percentage) and even then Clinton can win, providing she relies on her minority base. The question is, they thought 2012 would be like 2010, when it was more like 2008. If 2016 is like 2012, then she's home and dry.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually think the polls are out and 538's model is correct.

[Gustaf]

This is a great question - I've been thinking the same myself.

This is also why I think Trump's poor organization should matter. If his only path to victory is a big surge in NCW turnout it seems he would be reliant on a strong GOTV operation. With zero effort from his campaign and a Republican party with lukewarm interest in bringing these (not necessarily Republican even) voters to the polls will he actually be able to do it?

But perhaps it's all wishful thinking.

[muon2]

Turnout, turnout, turnout. The most important ingredient in a successful campaign.

I have posted for months now that the turnout in 2016 will be lower than 2012. I think it may be perhaps as low as 1996. Negative campaigns drive down turnout, that's one reason they are employed. This campaign is as negative as any in recent memory and neither campaign is running a parallel positive message to counter the negativity. That negative messaging depresses educated voters that are not the "civic duty" types who automatically vote every cycle.

Black turnout was about 10% higher in 2008 and 2012 with Obama running compared to 2004. I don't see why they wouldn't return to voting patterns that match 2004.

Polling for likely voters suffered in 2012 since many screens were calibrated to 2008. There was less enthusiasm in 2012 compared to 2008 so polls mistook that for lower turnout. Polls recalibrated again after 2012 to insure that low interest responses weren't missed from the likely voter pool as happened in 2012. But maybe the low interest means what they thought it meant going into 2012. If so, then the likely voter pool is being overestimated this time, just as it was underestimated last time.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The idea that turnout will be depressed in 2016 is pretty laughable imo. While it is true that negative campaigns tend to depress turnout, all else held constant, this explanatory variable has little effect when voters are engaged and have the sense that an election is important. Voters might be disgusted by this election cycle but there is a widespread sense that this election is incredibly important and worth paying attention to. The fact that tomorrow's debate will likely be watched by hundreds of millions is telling. So no, I do not think there is any indication that turnout will be depressed. Black or millennial turnout might be depressed relative to other groups but it will be historically high in absolute terms. Interestingly, early turnout figures suggest that it is "flyover" country that hates this election. Absentee voting figures in Iowa are miserable. Absentee voting figures in North Carolina are pretty remarkable. If I think about this election intellectually, I am convinced that polling aggregates are a mirage in many states and for the country as a whole.

[muon2]

I live in flyover country, so if there's a regional difference in turnout models, I'll stand corrected. What I see around me are voters turned off, or if they are regular voters they are voting as soon as they reasonably can. They have learned that by voting early the calls and mail pieces largely stop and that part of the negative campaign stops with them.

Moving more predictably reliable voters to take early ballots is not a sign of higher turnout, but it is good for campaigns to lock down their base so they concentrate on that aspect. The question is what the fair-weather voters are doing, and can they be motivated to vote this year?

[Virginiá]

Black turnout was about 10% higher in 2008 and 2012 with Obama running compared to 2004. I don't see why they wouldn't return to voting patterns that match 2004.

Do you have the data for this? Articles/other resources seem to give varying numbers for turnout, but the one I believe I've seen most frequently is the federal data's version:



Which is essentially a total of 6.2% increase since 2004. The trend here is pretty obvious: Black turnout was already increasing prior to 2008, and I do obviously believe Obama had an effect, but who is to say black turnout wouldn't have increased more (if modestly) even if it was Clinton on the ballot? Previous trends certainly suggested it would have been possible.

Further, studies do show that people who vote once have a reasonably good chance of voting again, with the habit strengthening every time they vote thereafter. Why would all these African Americans just buck that trend because Obama isn't on the ballot?

I would have to ask - is there any precedent for one demographic's turnout to plunge so significantly while other demographics experience comparatively little, if any, drop?

I frequently see this 'disappearing black voter' theory, and I just don't understand why the default assumption after so many consecutive cycles of increasing turnout would be that these voters are not actually engaged in the process more than before, and will suddenly suffer a dramatic collapse in turnout.

[Ljube]

Turnout will be significantly lower due to both campaigns being negative and both candidates unpopular.

Election results could end up being significantly different from what we expect or what the polls show. This difference may even be staggering (10 point difference in either direction is not beyond the realm of possibility).

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Turnout will be significantly lower due to both campaigns being negative and both candidates unpopular.

Election results could end up being significantly different from what we expect or what the polls show. This difference may even be staggering (10 point difference in either direction is not beyond the realm of possibility).

The thing is, given that one side's negatives are based much more on fear than the other's, I'm not sure how much this will hold. Fear is a great motivator, after all

[muon2]

Black turnout was about 10% higher in 2008 and 2012 with Obama running compared to 2004. I don't see why they wouldn't return to voting patterns that match 2004.

Do you have the data for this? Articles/other resources seem to give varying numbers for turnout, but the one I believe I've seen most frequently is the federal data's version:



Which is essentially a total of 6.2% increase since 2004. The trend here is pretty obvious: Black turnout was already increasing prior to 2008, and I do obviously believe Obama had an effect, but who is to say black turnout wouldn't have increased more (if modestly) even if it was Clinton on the ballot? Previous trends certainly suggested it would have been possible.

Further, studies do show that people who vote once have a reasonably good chance of voting again, with the habit strengthening every time they vote thereafter. Why would all these African Americans just buck that trend because Obama isn't on the ballot?

I would have to ask - is there any precedent for one demographic's turnout to plunge so significantly while other demographics experience comparatively little, if any, drop?

I frequently see this 'disappearing black voter' theory, and I just don't understand why the default assumption after so many consecutive cycles of increasing turnout would be that these voters are not actually engaged in the process more than before, and will suddenly suffer a dramatic collapse in turnout.

I can't find my source, but I suspect they were quoting the increase in absolute turnout. 60% to 66% is a ten percent increase in the underlying numbers.

My feeling is that all demographics will drop. Blacks may drop slightly more to reflect their higher engagement during Obama's run. Since they are such a heavily Dem group, small changes in their turnout rates have a disproportionate effect on the overall Dem share.

[muon2]

To add to my post above, I would expect the black vote will converge to the white vote, if adjusted for socioeconomics. That is I would expect the college educated black vote to mirror the college educated white vote, and similarly for the non-college educated population.

[Virginiá]

To add to my post above, I would expect the black vote will converge to the white vote, if adjusted for socioeconomics. That is I would expect the college educated black vote to mirror the college educated white vote, and similarly for the non-college educated population.

Unrelated, but is it just me or does it seem like some of our biggest states are weighing down national turnout averages?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/12/the-states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-turnout-in-2012-in-2-charts/

The worst ones are the biggest (based on eligible voters):

California (55.9%)
New York (53.6%)
Texas (50.1%)

If we could get better election reforms in New York and Texas, and maybe Pennsylvania as well, it seems like we could stop looking so pathetic to the world on this!

I omited California because they have been going hard at election law changes since 2012, with SDR/automatic registration to begin in 2017-2018, and a mail voting bill I think might have been signed into law already with a slow phase in for 2020+. All the states with poor turnout have no favorable voting laws at all really. I expect Illinois' ranking to move up too with their introduction of SDR in 2014.

In New York, I imagine if Democrats can finally take the State Senate from Republicans/Independent Democrats, a raft of voting reforms there could boost turnout.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I live in flyover country, so if there's a regional difference in turnout models, I'll stand corrected. What I see around me are voters turned off, or if they are regular voters they are voting as soon as they reasonably can. They have learned that by voting early the calls and mail pieces largely stop and that part of the negative campaign stops with them.

Moving more predictably reliable voters to take early ballots is not a sign of higher turnout, but it is good for campaigns to lock down their base so they concentrate on that aspect. The question is what the fair-weather voters are doing, and can they be motivated to vote this year?

This is not going to be a low turnout election...

People are "turned off" because it has lasted so long. There's been an endless stream of news coverage for a year now. This doesn't mean that they aren't going to vote; they almost certainly will. The Brexit campaign was nasty, depressing and disappointed everyone who was involved; turnout was very high though. Elections that have consequences motivate people, even if they're irritated by the shape of those consequences.



No offense but I think that this is wishful thinking on your part. Black voters have been very engaged this year, as demonstrated by their turnout in the Democratic primary, and Latinos are more motivated than they've ever been for obvious reasons. I could see White turnout dropping among some demographics and in certain states but I doubt that there will much, if any dropout, among racial minorities.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think this thread is going to be important ...

[OneJ]

Black voters will turnout. There is no indication that Black turnout will dramatically decrease.

Trump alone motivates minorities period to accelerate to the polls.

According to the latest Marist poll, 82% of Blacks have a favorable view of Hillary. Also, another interesting thing to note is that most Blacks on multiple polls admitted that they are actually voting for her instead of voting against Trump.

I find this group of voters to be the most intriguing group of all demographic groups. Plus, President Obama and First Lady Obama will have an impact. So, it's not within your best interest to guess that Black turnout will decrease because of the "negativity". Hell, I think turnout will overall increase due to people realizing the significance of voting this election. You have to keep in mind that this election is not is not like other elections.

Remember, enthusiasm (crowd sizes, etc.) doesn't translate into votes.

[Virginiá]

This is not going to be a low turnout election...

People are "turned off" because it has lasted so long. There's been an endless stream of news coverage for a year now. This doesn't mean that they aren't going to vote; they almost certainly will. The Brexit campaign was nasty, depressing and disappointed everyone who was involved; turnout was very high though. Elections that have consequences motivate people, even if they're irritated by the shape of those consequences.

This is why I can't help but shake that this may be a high turnout election. Look at the "thought about" polls - they do loosely correlate with the final turnout rates. When more people "thought about" the election, more people turned out. Obviously we don't have a whole lot of data points, and I'm not implying >= 2008 levels, but certainly given that particular question and others, there is some basis for believing this to be a high turnout election.

This was interesting:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/07/08/why-clinton-and-trump-may-increase-voter-turnout-in-2016/



The 3 first questions appear to track final voter turnout, and for 2016 those poll questions are sky high. Higher than any year since 1992 (except for 'more interested than 4 years ago', but still around 2008-levels!)

Of course maybe I'm just overly willing to believe this idea, but isn't it plausible that even despite such negativity, people perceive an election as so important that they do indeed turn out anyway? We haven't actually had an election like this in the modern era.

At the very least, this data can't be quickly ignored/dismissed.

[muon2]

Well that is the conundrum with the data. The interest level is at a record high, but the dissatisfaction is only surpassed by 1992 when Perot had a big showing as an independent. Without the big vote for Perot the turnout in 1992 would have been abysmal. Indeed in 1996 when Perot's vote dropped from 19% to 8% turnout dropped from 58% to 52%. This is consistent with half of the Perot voters from 92 staying home in 96.

Consider the correlations of the other factors in the table with turnout. Of the first three columns, the second column seems to correlate best with turnout. If you subtract Perot's vote from the turnout, then the last column also correlates well with the remaining two-party turnout. Based on correlations, column 2 predicts a turnout higher than 2008, but column 5 predicts a low two-party turnout between '92 and '96. The only way the are both right is if Johnson/Stein together get in excess of 25% of the PV. Otherwise the election result will break one of those two correlations.

So for 2016 my sense of turnout hinges on whether Johnson/Stein can rise to pick up those disaffected voters as Perot did in 92. If not, do they stay home as they did in 96? Either way those voters would not factor much into the two-party turnout. Right now I see the third parties closer to 96 than to 92.