Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
The votes are still being tallied, but it is very clear that the Romney campaign and allied groups didn’t come even close to delivering all the voters they could have, or should have, on Election Day.
I produced a very rough total for the vote by taking the state totals and increasing each candidate's share by the percentage yet to be counted in each state: 66.2 million votes for Obama, 62.5 million for Romney.
In 2008, John McCain received about 60 million votes, a couple of million short of Romney. But, of course, the population has increased. When you look at the votes as a share of the voting eligible population, Romney pulled in almost exactly the same proportion of votes as McCain did in ’08.
Romney’s campaign, despite all the turmoil and billions of dollars, could not turn out more voters than John McCain.
This is a stunning failure. Epic. And even more so when we look at the percentage of likely supporters each side turned out this year. The electorate has become more Republican and less Democratic since 2008 . . . in other words, Romney had a bigger pool of likely voters that he could draw from to outperform Obama.
I apportioned the voting eligible population in 2008 to the full 7-point party identification breakdowns for 2012. In other words, if 28 percent of the population identified as a Strong Dem, then I assigned 28 percent of the VEP to Stong Dems, and did that for each category (and split pure Indies 50/50).
In 2008, Obama’s campaign turned out 59 percent of their likely supporters, and McCain’s campaign turned out 63 percent of his likely supporters (there were a lot more Dems).
In 2012, Romney’s campaign turned out just 59 percent of potential supporters to Obama’s 58 percent.
In other words, Obama and his allies turned out about the same proportion of a smaller pool of likely supporters, and Romney, et al, failed utterly to capitalize on the shift in party ID and ideology. Looking at the relative declines in various states, I think Sean Trende is on to something with his speculation about who failed to show up and why, especially in Ohio.
The more I look at these numbers, the more angry I get . . . this election did not have to be lost.
- Comment (63)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
ORCA was just the name coined by the Romney campaign for their data mining initiative that was created in response to the Obama campaign "Narwhal" operation. (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334783.php) If this guy's narrative is accurate and indicative of the operation, it was a logistical/managerial foul-up that was really inexcusable. You can have the best data and predictive analytic tools in the world, but if you cannot get actionable information into the hands of those who need it, it is worthless.
Aug '11
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
SunnyOptimism
GOP GOTV Technology = Pencils & Clipboards
OFA GOTV Technology = iPad & Smartphone Apps
I'm sure technology is not the whole story, but seriously, what the heck did the RNC and Team R/R do with all of that money they raised?!?!?! They knew this was coming. They knew Team O was going to use massive amounts of technology. Yet they played the same tired ground game from 20+ years ago!
· 17 minutes ago
Exactly. And, they also failed to use "innovative" techniques, like turning off the credit card verification for donations (only).
I think it is interesting that Plouffe is claiming that the Obama campaign's data mining success cannot be replicated for other Dem candidates. I actually don't doubt it--but not for the reasons he's citing.
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
I was just talking to my Dad, who is a GOP volunteer in Douglas County, Colorado. First:
2008
Obama: 51,813 (41%)
McCain: 73,225 (58%)
2012
Obama: 54,093 (36%)
Romney: 93,930 (63%)
My dad literally made 600 or so calls and just explained to me the extensive nature of the operation, which sounds awesome in every way except that it pretty much kills the volunteers. They got an astounding 95% of the registered Republican vote to come out and vote (actually, 77% of them mailed in their ballots) -- you see that they garnered more than 20K additional votes over McCain's totals when Obama only got an additional 2K. (Yes, it's a growing county)
Anyway, all this to say that while it was run by the local GOP leader who is also the Romney liaison, it was a county-based operation and not directed from the campaign.
I'm just throwing this out there because I find it so interesting ...
Apr '11
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
OK. If there was a national improvement on the votes cast of 5.2%, then the GOTV operation outperformed in Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Carolina. It did less well in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, each of which were sites of unprecedented levels of vote suppressing negative advertizing. You're right that, with that level of nation-wide voting, we'd need more data before judging the impact. I think that excoriating the campaign before that data comes in goes a little too far, though.
Apr '11
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: I was just talking to my Dad, who is a GOP volunteer in Douglas County, Colorado. First:
2008
Obama: 51,813 (41%)
McCain: 73,225 (58%)
2012
Obama: 54,093 (36%)
Romney: 93,930 (63%)
My dad literally made 600 or so calls and just explained to me the extensive nature of the operation, which sounds awesome in every way except that it pretty much kills the volunteers. They got an astounding 95% of the registered Republican vote to come out and vote (actually, 77% of them mailed in their ballots) -- you see that they garnered more than 20K additional votes over McCain's totals when Obama only got an additional 2K. (Yes, it's a growing county)
Anyway, all this to say that while it was run by the local GOP leader who is also the Romney liaison, it was a county-based operation and not directed from the campaign.
I'm just throwing this out there because I find it so interesting ... · 2 minutes ago
The county campaign opted out of the national campaign's calling program? Do you know how/ why they did that? Or did they use that, but organize other things independently?
Apr '11
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
SunnyOptimism
James Of England
The Obama technological advantage, though, was very real.
Precisely!
GOP GOTV Technology = Pencils & Clipboards
[with some binders full of women ;-)]
OFA GOTV Technology = iPad & Smartphone Apps
I'm sure technology is not the whole story, but seriously, what the heck... They knew this was coming. They knew Team O was going to use massive amounts of technology. Yet they played the same tired ground game from 20+ years ago! ·
Did you make any calls? The software for that was just light years ahead of the software for previous years. There was some great data mining. There were considerable advances made with the fundamentals of the campaign, but they didn't have the added value of Dashboard. For that, they'd have needed piles of money and numerous skilled volunteers in 2011. Plus, we have corporate guys, but not social media majors.
The reason it's key to following Adam's advice is that it made it much easier to run randomized experiments and to monitor and coordinate non-phone campaigning; the value was less in the final stretch than in the ability to improve the effectiveness of the final efforts over the year before.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 3:11amAug '11
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Kudos to your dad and that awesome effort. But I just think it pales in comparison with the sophistication of the Obama team (as much as it pains me to say it). I made a small donation to Obama in 2008 to under a fictitious name to test the verification system--and I have been watching with amazement over the last few months at the number of emails that my alter-ego received from Barack, Michelle and the gang. Easily 4 or 5 each day. Most were warm and friendly--with a free "goodie", if I'd only click on the magic link to see what was being offered (oh, how I wanted to click on that link!). Some were stern and sorrowful. Didn't I realize how I was letting Barack down? One even reminded me of my $10 donation in 2008--giving me the exact date and time that I made it.
I teach this stuff and being on the receiving end totally creeped me out.
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
James Of England
The county campaign opted out of the national campaign's calling program? Do you know how/ why they did that? Or did they use that, but organize other things independently? · 10 minutes ago
I was planning on interviewing the guy behind the operation next week -- I'll get back to you. Based on what I know, I'm almost positive this was exclusive to Douglas County. Actually, I'd almost like to talk to you about it off-line after I learn more. I'll PM you then...
Jul '10
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
I think the nasty Republican primaries did Mitt in. Take a bow, Newt.
Mar '12
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Check the Romney/Obama evangelical breakdown in Colorado and you'll have more difficulty shaking the thought.
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Hoyacon
Check the Romney/Obama evangelical breakdown in Colorado and you'll have more difficulty shaking the thought. · 41 minutes ago
I think the exits tell a different story. Evangelicals were more likely to support Romney than even Mormons (by one point) and they comprised their expected share of the vote ...
I know people want to believe it and it's even an understandable assumption. I'm just not sure the data are there to support it.
Basically the turnout problems seem not to be with the base base (which is why we're focusing on turnout operations). You don't need to tell the base base to get out to vote.
Nov '12
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Is anybody else interested in the statistic that there were 10% fewer votes in the 2012 election than in 2008? And above 3 million fewer votes than in the last midterm election? We heard incessantly about somewhat lower Democrat enthusiasm, and much greater Republican interest and excitement, but to me it seems strange that in nearly every state (certainly every region) there was a serious deficit in votes.
How to account for the vanishing voters? -- or could it be vanished ballots? Na-a-ah....
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Bckeye: Is anybody else interested in the statistic that there were 10%fewer votes in the 2012 election than in 2008? And above 3 millionfewer votes than in the last midterm election? We heard incessantly about somewhat lower Democrat enthusiasm, and much greater Republican interest and excitement, but to me it seems strange that in nearly every state (certainly every region) there was a serious deficit in votes.
How to account for the vanishing voters? -- or could it be vanished ballots? Na-a-ah.... · 29 minutes ago
You do need to wait for the final vote tallies before we speculate too much in this regard. There were some obvious turnout problems that we're seeing, but there are millions of votes still coming in.
Apr '11
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Hoyacon
Check the Romney/Obama evangelical breakdown in Colorado and you'll have more difficulty shaking the thought. · 41 minutes ago
I think the exits tell a different story. Evangelicals were more likely to support Romney than even Mormons (by one point) and they comprised their expected share of the vote ...
I know people want to believe it and it's even an understandable assumption. I'm just not sure the data are there to support it.
Basically the turnout problems seem not to be with the base base (which is why we're focusing on turnout operations). You don't need to tell the base base to get out to vote. · 3 hours ago
Do you mean in the Colorado exit polls? This suggest otherwise. In an overwhelming kinda way. Nationally, I agree.
Dec '10
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
grotiushug: Two questions:
How many GOP seniors died in the last four years who were not replaced by those just younger than them?
How many among the poor who would normally vote GOP (evangelical or otherwise) are now dependant on food stamps and other befefits? · 10 hours ago
Good, and largely overlooked, questions, especially the first. According to CDC data, 2,389,130 people over age 20 died in 2009 (about 1.7m were over 65). Take the low number from the census totals for percentage of voters in the population, and say that 50% of them would have voted (and who knows, in Chicago, perhaps many of them did).
Run those numbers over 4 years and give Romney just 30% of the totals. That's 1.4 million 'votes' from people age 20 or more.
Assume no one under 65 voted. Give Romney 40% of a 50% turnout of those 65 and above: 1.4 million 'votes.'
Are these Republican 'voters' being replaced on the other end of the age spectrum?
Well, how many 14 year olds do you know who think they're going to vote Republican in four years? (No fair citing your own children).
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 12:55pmMar '11
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
This is a very interesting conversation--wonky as hell--but it illustrates the problem with the Romney campaign--no kitchen table conversation. What the progressives do well is distill a topic into simple language, often deceiving language, unfortunately. The point is that it's language people can understand and be inspired by. Our side really sucks at that.
We can beat each other over the head with stats and analysis until the cerebral hemorrhaging starts, or we can accept that Romney wasn't an inspirational candidate. He didn't move people.
You want to know what the voters who should have voted for Romney but voted for Obama, and the voters who should have voted for Romney but didn't vote at all were thinking? "Romneycare vs. Obamacare? What's the difference?"
It's simple. It's painful. But it's true.
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Palaeologus
Now hold on a moment. I haven't seen anything that suggests a positive shift in party ID for the GOP versus 2004.
Am I mistaken? · 13 hours ago
No, you're right . . . it looks pretty similar in '04 . . . I had in mind a shift from '08 but jumbled it.
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: I was just talking to my Dad, who is a GOP volunteer in Douglas County, Colorado. First:
2008
Obama: 51,813 (41%)
McCain: 73,225 (58%)
2012
Obama: 54,093 (36%)
Romney: 93,930 (63%)
My dad literally made 600 or so calls and just explained to me the extensive nature of the operation, which sounds awesome in every way except that it pretty much kills the volunteers. They got an astounding 95% of the registered Republican vote to come out and vote (actually, 77% of them mailed in their ballots) -- you see that they garnered more than 20K additional votes over McCain's totals when Obama only got an additional 2K. (Yes, it's a growing county)
Anyway, all this to say that while it was run by the local GOP leader who is also the Romney liaison, it was a county-based operation and not directed from the campaign.
I'm just throwing this out there because I find it so interesting ... · 13 hours ago
Molly, really looking forward to hearing more on this . . .
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
James, I think we have more than enough evidence to conclude they stumbled terribly. OH, VA, and FL were must-win states, getting him to 266 with NC. With those states, they needed just 4 electoral votes from anywhere else, probably CO or IA.
On these crucial big 3 they were flat on turnout. Maybe without their efforts they would have lost by even more. But that's irrelevant . . . Obama's campaign over performed where they needed to and Romney's underperformed.
And what's even more disturbing is that they apparently really did think they were in fine shape until the end, making forays into PA and other long-shots.
May '10
Re: Double the Spending, Less Turnout . . . The Numbers on Romney vs McCain
Gus Marvinson: You want to know what the voters who should have voted for Romney but voted for Obama, and the voters who should have voted for Romney but didn't vote at all were thinking? "Romneycare vs. Obamacare? What's the difference?"
It's simple. It's painful. But it's true.
And I predicted it in the primaries. It was so obvious, actually, so it's not like I'm some kind of special prognosticator for seeing it.
This is why Obamacare in the exit polls didn't seem like much of a factor: the true architects of Obamacare were heading up both tickets. Not much of a choice, is it? Regardless of campaign promises, actions speak louder than words.
When we nominated Romney, we threw away one of the largest advantages and differentiating issues between the two parties.
But the Romney fans kept insisting he would be able to distance himself from Obamacare. Sorry, it almost takes an hour to make that case. People understand things much better if they can be presented in a simple way. This sale could not be made in any kind of simple fashion.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 4:35pm