Why is the GOP so good at ultra narrow wins?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:35:20 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Why is the GOP so good at ultra narrow wins?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why is the GOP so good at ultra narrow wins?  (Read 1226 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 14, 2017, 12:07:31 PM »

The GOP has had three very narrow presidential wins (2000, 2004 and 2016), all closer than any Democratic win in the past 40 years. The closest Democratic win (2012) was still not nearly as close as those three. If Trump wins re-election, most people think it’ll be another ultra narrow win, which would make it 4-0.
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2017, 12:21:35 PM »

Democrats keep running up their margins in places like NYC and LA, but Republicans know how to target their message to swing states like OH, FL, and WI.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2017, 12:31:00 PM »

Democrats keep running up their margins in places like NYC and LA, but Republicans know how to target their message to swing states like OH, FL, and WI.


In 2004 it was the opposite , Kerry could have won that election despite losing the popular vote.


In 2004 Bush ran up the vote in Texas, and reduced the margins in California and New York , while Kerry tried to target his message for the swing states.



Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2017, 01:09:53 PM »

In 2000, Bush foolishly focused on California the last week instead of Florida.

In 2016, Clinton outspent Trump by a large amount and had the entire (the media/GOP/Democratic)  Establishment backing her.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2017, 02:42:15 PM »

This is a very good question.  Arguably, the last time the Dems actually won a toss up election was in 1976 (caveat that 2012 was polling as a toss up in the PV with a narrow Obama EC advantage for a long time).  This is especially odd in 2000 in that a candidate from the second largest state got an EV/PV split in his favor, so this isn't a question that begins and ends with geography or gerrymandering at the congressional level.  Possibilities:

1.  There is 2-5% of the electorate that acts like a swing vote but always comes home to the Republican at the last minute.  They act "swingy" enough to consistently fool Democratic campaigns.  Furthermore, these Democratic campaigns may turn off some of their base by tailoring their message toward people who had no intention of voting for them in the first place.

2. Republicans are simply institutionally stronger.  They consistently outperformed election models based on economic fundamentals from 1968 straight through to 2008.  The fact that 2000 was even close ("should" have been a 2008 size Gore win based on economics) and that McCain managed to keep 2008 within single digits suggests that they have a very hard floor.  We have also seen at the state level that apparent ties tend to go in their favor a substantial majority of the time.

3.  2016 was straightforwardly about geographic distribution, with Clinton massively improving in immigrant and knowledge worker heavy California and Texas while falling off just about everywhere else.  Economic models consistently predicted a 1.5-4% Republican PV win, so Clinton actually beat expectations substantially in what was otherwise a Republican version of 2012. 


2012 seems like a watershed event where Democrats finally beat expectations in a presidential election and had obviously better base turnout than the GOP.  Expectations were quite distorted in 2016 due to Trump, but it's important to remember that Hillary actually beat the economic "point spread" by about the same margin Obama did in 2012.  I've said before that the story of the 2010's is more about the left finally pulling even than it is about any robust liberal or conservative majority.  Also, it's not that hard to see a future where Republicans fall into their own geographic packing problem with the inland West shifting out from under them.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2017, 04:47:01 PM »

You are cutting off your analysis. Include 1960, which might have been stolen from Nixon. And also 1976, which was closer than 2016 in the electoral college.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2017, 04:57:17 PM »

1976 was complicated because it was supposed to be a Carter blowout until the last minute.  2000 was polling as a 2012 sized Bush win until the last month, but that just further underscores how badly Gore performed with massive economic tailwinds at his back. 

There was a long period of Dem overperformance from the 1930's to the 1960's where they seemed to win almost all of the close call elections at all levels of government and had Truman's amazing comeback win in '48.  That is basically where the GOP was from 1972-2012 at the presidential level and from the mid 1990's-present in Congress and at the state level.  Even the 2006 and 2008 Dem waves were quite underwhelming in the historical scheme of things.
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2017, 11:23:28 PM »

People fish for patterns in presidential elections, but it's really a fool's errand. A presidential election is way too rare of an event to establish patterns...it is much more useful to look at them on a case-by-case basis.

2000 and 2016 were open elections following moderately popular Democratic administrations. Both Democratic candidates in these elections were much less popular than the current presidents, and both ran against relatively charismatic Republican opponents. Both elections resulted in narrow Republican victories.

2004 and 2012 were incumbent elections held during a time when the incumbent presidents hovered around 50% approval. Both incumbent presidents had baggage, but they were lucky enough to run against relatively dull and uninspiring opponents. These elections resulted in a narrow Republican victory and a narrow Democratic victory, respectively.

2008 was an open election following a substantially unpopular Republican administration. The Democratic candidate was much more charismatic than his Republican opponent. The election resulted in a comfortable Democratic victory.

I think the fact that Democrats have recently won presidential elections more comfortably than Republicans is really just a matter of luck and small sample size. Had Al Gore won in 2000 and subsequently in 2004, we'd have most likely seen a Republican landslide in 2008. American voters are much more elastic than people think.
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2017, 03:24:08 AM »

People fish for patterns in presidential elections, but it's really a fool's errand. A presidential election is way too rare of an event to establish patterns...it is much more useful to look at them on a case-by-case basis.

2000 and 2016 were open elections following moderately popular Democratic administrations. Both Democratic candidates in these elections were much less popular than the current presidents, and both ran against relatively charismatic Republican opponents. Both elections resulted in narrow Republican victories.

2004 and 2012 were incumbent elections held during a time when the incumbent presidents hovered around 50% approval. Both incumbent presidents had baggage, but they were lucky enough to run against relatively dull and uninspiring opponents. These elections resulted in a narrow Republican victory and a narrow Democratic victory, respectively.

2008 was an open election following a substantially unpopular Republican administration. The Democratic candidate was much more charismatic than his Republican opponent. The election resulted in a comfortable Democratic victory.

I think the fact that Democrats have recently won presidential elections more comfortably than Republicans is really just a matter of luck and small sample size. Had Al Gore won in 2000 and subsequently in 2004, we'd have most likely seen a Republican landslide in 2008. American voters are much more elastic than people think.

This is more or less correct.

1. 2012 was not a narrow Democratic victory by any means. Obama won the national popular vote by 3.9% (RCP average was +0.7 nationwide for Obama), and he won every swing state except NC, which he lost by 2%. Amongst the swing states he won, aside from Florida, Obama won all the others by 3%+.

2. One reason why Dems have been winning by comfortable margins since the early 90's is due to the Bill Clinton re-alignment and big blue states such as CA and IL becoming solid Democratic strongholds. Trump was the first Republican since HW Bush 1988 to win PA and MI and first since Reagan 1984 to win WI.
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2017, 09:11:32 AM »


1. 2012 was not a narrow Democratic victory by any means. Obama won the national popular vote by 3.9% (RCP average was +0.7 nationwide for Obama), and he won every swing state except NC, which he lost by 2%. Amongst the swing states he won, aside from Florida, Obama won all the others by 3%+.


Historically speaking, 2012 was a pretty close PV margin. The majority of presidential PV’s have been decided by greater than 5%.

However, the structure of the EC that year gave Democrats a substantial advantage, and Romney’s share of the PV was very inefficient. Romney was actually leading in the PV when the election was called for Obama, and most networks were even predicting that Romney would wind up winning the PV in the early morning hours of November 7.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2017, 10:46:36 AM »


1. 2012 was not a narrow Democratic victory by any means. Obama won the national popular vote by 3.9% (RCP average was +0.7 nationwide for Obama), and he won every swing state except NC, which he lost by 2%. Amongst the swing states he won, aside from Florida, Obama won all the others by 3%+.


Historically speaking, 2012 was a pretty close PV margin. The majority of presidential PV’s have been decided by greater than 5%.

However, the structure of the EC that year gave Democrats a substantial advantage, and Romney’s share of the PV was very inefficient. Romney was actually leading in the PV when the election was called for Obama, and most networks were even predicting that Romney would wind up winning the PV in the early morning hours of November 7.

The GOP establishment plan for the 2016 cycle was to follow Romney's model and tweak it, the difference is they would cater to Hispanics & Suburban Dems instead of their base. It was actually a very Hillary-esque strategy, Hillary tried to court suburban GOP and ignored her base. Going by that template; base turnout would've been lower for GOP & that strategy would've similarly failed. Hillary would've stuck to imitating Obama 2012 in her original GE plan.

Romney's model was never a good model though, Mccain was doing far better in '08 before the economic crisis than Romney ever did. If they wanted to follow Mccain, they would've backed someone like Kasich instead.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2017, 01:18:43 PM »

It seems that the GOP is simply better at turning out their voters than the Dems are.  In a tossup race, it's usually the side with the better turnout operation that wins it.  Other than Obama's two wins, Dems have probably not won the turnout war since 1992 or earlier.
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2017, 03:06:26 PM »

Because the universe wants the Democratic Party to suffer.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2017, 08:19:25 PM »

It seems that the GOP is simply better at turning out their voters than the Dems are.  In a tossup race, it's usually the side with the better turnout operation that wins it.  Other than Obama's two wins, Dems have probably not won the turnout war since 1992 or earlier.

I don't think it is so much about being better at turning them out than it is about Republicans counting some of the highest turnout demographics as part of their base. Old people, the wealthy and well educated are all naturally high turnout voters and also currently Republican-leaning. Meanwhile, Democrats rack up huge margins among minorities and young voters, both of whom generally have some of the lowest turnout rates.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2017, 09:20:02 PM »

1884 and 1916 were pretty close, though.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2017, 01:56:50 AM »

I'd say the simplest way of explaining it is that in situations where there is an effective 50/50 climate (which, to be fair, is most elections, but I mean the notably close ones), enthusiasm, geographic distribution and (most notably) voting propensity ultimately decide the outcome.

All voters are not created equal: 1 GOP voter is worth more on average than 1 DEM voter, and I don't just mean in terms of how voters are geographically distributed. The average GOP voter is much more likely to vote in presidential, midterm, municipal and special elections than the average DEM voter. If the country is in a 50/50 mood, then the GOP wins more often than not because of voter distribution but also (and perhaps more importantly) because they have higher-propensity voters.
Logged
mvd10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2017, 08:24:38 AM »

It seems that the GOP is simply better at turning out their voters than the Dems are.  In a tossup race, it's usually the side with the better turnout operation that wins it.  Other than Obama's two wins, Dems have probably not won the turnout war since 1992 or earlier.

I don't think it is so much about being better at turning them out than it is about Republicans counting some of the highest turnout demographics as part of their base. Old people, the wealthy and well educated are all naturally high turnout voters and also currently Republican-leaning. Meanwhile, Democrats rack up huge margins among minorities and young voters, both of whom generally have some of the lowest turnout rates.

Are the well-educated really Republican-leaning? In Trump's world they're not (not even voters with only a college degree), but even pre-Trump the Republicans did only marginally better with voters with a college degree or more than with voters without a college degree (though it's still very satisying to see George W. Bush win the well-educated voters Smiley). Voters with only a college degree lean Republican while voters with a postgraduate degree lean Democrat, and together they pretty much cancel each other out. Romney got 51% of the college-educated voters and 42% of voters with postgraduate degree, so he got something like 47-48% of well-educated voters in total (probably closer to 48% as there are more voters with only a college education than voters with a postgraduate degree). Though I guess you mean older well-educated voters, and in that case you're absolutely true.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2017, 11:39:54 AM »

College educated voters have been trending Democratic for years.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2017, 12:21:11 PM »

I was thinking more of white college educated voters, who despite trending some towards Democrats this generation are still more friendly downballot with Republicans and usually still end up voting for the Republican presidential candidate, even if just barely. Though, polling-wise, generic ballot polls do have Democrats leading with them pretty often. Postgraduate voters are a comfortable Democratic group, though.

Further, while I don't have the data right now, I'm willing to bet the support among white college graduates for Democrats is even more nuanced. Younger grads are probably more Democratic than older ones (If it's anything like the overall age divide, the gulf is probably big), which gives Republicans an advantage even if they might be numerically weaker, although this is already factored in when you look at the overall results for that demographic.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.