Posts Tagged ‘Romney’

The $980 million Question: 4 States; 429,000 Votes – Florida

Thursday, March 28th, 2013

In 2012, Romney lost Florida by only 74,309 votes.  Obama received 50% of the 8.4 million votes cast in Florida for the 2012 Presidential Election, defeating Romney by only 0.9 points.

What counties could have swung Florida’s 29 electoral votes towards Romney?

KEY COUNTY: MIAMI-DADE

In 2012, Miami-Dade County accounted for 10.4% of the total statewide vote in the Presidential Election, making it the single largest county in the state.  Obama won Miami-Dade by 24 points (62% to 38%) in 2012.  Had Romney performed the same in Miami-Dade as President Bush in 2004 and reduced his margin of loss down to 7 points, he would have gained 75,000 more votes and won the election in Florida.

Hispanics make up 54% of all registered voters in Miami-Dade.  In fact, the Hispanic registered voters in Miami-Dade County alone account for 6% of the entire statewide voting population.  Overall, Hispanics make up 14% of Florida’s Registered Voters.

Historically, Republican candidates who have won statewide office have lost Miami-Dade County by an average of 9 points.  In 2010, Senator Marco Rubio was the first Republican to win this county since Senator Mel Martinez won Miami-Dade by 0.2 points (or 1,385 votes) in 2004.

  •  In 2012, President Obama won Miami-Dade County by 24 points.
  • In 2012, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson won Miami-Dade County by 28 points.
  • In 2010, Republican Senator Marco Rubio won Miami-Dade County by 20 points.
  • In 2010, Republican Governor Rick Scott lost Miami-Dade County to Democrat Alex Sink by 14 points, but still won the state by 1.2 points overall
  • In 2008, President Obama won Miami-Dade County by 16 points.

 HISPANIC MEDIA IN FLORIDA

  • According to CNN Exit Polls, 60% of Hispanics in Florida voted for Obama in 2012. Obama received 61% of the vote from Hispanic women and 58% of the vote from Hispanic men.
  • It is worth noting the timing and the different Hispanic media strategies employed by Team Obama and Team Romney.  Obama went up early April 2012 and never came down.  Romney went up in July 2012 and never came down.
  • Both campaigns spent almost the same amount of money, however, according to public file analysis, Obama ran more the twice the amount of frequency when compared to Romney:  Obama spent $1.5 million and aired 13,000 spots on Hispanic media in Miami alone.  Romney spent $1.3 million and aired 7,500 spots on Hispanic media in Miami alone.
  • Obama spent a grand total of $5 million in Florida on Hispanic media.  Romney spent a grand total of $3.4 million in Florida on Hispanic media.
  • Obama uploaded at least 13 different Hispanic ads to his YouTube page during the election.  Romney uploaded at least 8 different Hispanic ads to his YouTube page during the election.

NARROW-THE-GAP COUNTIES

Instead of gaining 75,000 more votes in Miami-Dade County alone, we looked at three other counties in which Romney could have improved his margins in order to win Florida:

  • Miami-Dade County (10.4% of statewide vote, Miami market): Romney loses Miami-Dade County by 24 points.  Had he reduced his margin of loss down to 15 points, he would have gained 40,000 more votes.  In 2010, Governor Rick Scott lost Miami-Dade County by 14 points and won the election. In 2008, McCain lost Miami-Dade County by 16 points.
  • Broward County (8.9% of statewide vote, Miami market): Romney loses Broward County by 35 points.  Had he reduced his loss to 32 points, he would have gained 10,000 more votes.  In 2010, Governor Rick Scott lost Broward County by 31 points.
  • Hillsborough County (6.4% of statewide vote, Tampa Market): Romney loses Hillsborough County by 7 points.  Had he reduced his margin of loss to 3 points, he would have gained 10,000 more votes.  In 2010, Governor Rick Scott lost Hillsborough County by 3 points.
  • Orange County (5.5% of statewide vote, Orlando Market):  Romney loses Orange County by 18 points.  Had he reduced his loss to 12 points, he would have gained 15,000 more votes.  In 2010, Governor Rick Scott lost Orange County by 11 points.

Had Romney improved his vote percentage by 5 points on average in the 4 counties listed above, he would have gained 75,000 more votes and won the election in Florida.

FL 4 narrow the gaps

Answering the $980 Million Question: 4 States; 429,000 Votes – Virginia

Friday, March 22nd, 2013

VIRGINIA

Consider this: Mitt Romney loses New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida and Virginia by 429,000 votes collectively for a total of 62 electoral votes.  Three of the four swing states have Republican Governors with the exception of New Hampshire.  Had the Romney campaign been able to persuade half of the 429,000 voters mentioned above, he would have garnered 270 electoral voters and would be sitting in the Oval Office today.

This blog series will take a look at VA, OH, FL and NH and consider which counties Romney could have focused on in order to win in the Electoral College.  We are interested in uncovering where the key geographic counties are in each of the swing states.

VIRGINIA: 12 KEY COUNTIES

In 2012, Romney lost Virginia by 149,298 votes and needed only 75,000 votes to win the Commonwealth. Where did Romney need to improve his vote performance in order to claim victory in the Old Dominion?  We have boiled it down to 12 counties:

NARROW-THE-GAP COUNTIES

  • Fairfax County (13.7% statewide vote; Washington DC Market) Romney loses Fairfax by 20 points.  Had he reduced his loss to 17 points he would have gained 10,000 more votes.  In 2009 McDonnell gets 51% of the vote in Fairfax and beats Deeds by 2 points.
  • Arlington County (3.1% statewide vote; Washington DC Media Market) Romney loses Arlington County by 40 points.  McDonnell lost it by 31 points in 2009.  Had Romney garnered just 0.9% more of the vote in Arlington he would have picked up 1,000 more votes.
  • Richmond (2.5% statewide vote; Richmond Media Market) Romney loses Richmond by 57 points.  In our model we leave this county untouched.  McDonnell lost Richmond by 39 points in 2009.
  • Norfolk (2.3% statewide vote; Norfolk Media Market) Romney loses Norfolk by 45 points.  Had Romney reduced his loss to 43 points he would have gained 1,000 more votes.  McDonnell lost Norfolk County by 20 points.
  • Newport News (2.1% statewide vote; Norfolk Media Market) Romney loses Newport News by 30 points.  Had he reduced his loss to 25 points he would have gained 2,000 more votes.  McDonnell split the vote in Newport News 50/50 with Creigh Deeds in 2009.
  • Alexandria City (1.9% statewide vote; Washington DC Market) Romney loses Alexandria City by 44 points.  Had he reduced his margin by 41 points he would have gained 1,000 more votes.  McDonnell lost Alexandria City by 26 points.

Had Romney improved his vote percentage by 1.3 points on average in the 6 counties/cities listed above he would have gained 15,000 more votes.  That leaves Romney with 60,000 more votes needed to win the Old Dominion.

MUST WIN SWING COUNTIES

  • Prince William (4.7% statewide vote; Washington, DC market): Romney loses Prince William by 16 points.  Had he won the county by 8.9 points he would have gained 16,000 more votes.  McDonnell won Prince William by 18 points in 2009.
  • Loudon (4.2% statewide vote; Washington, DC Market): Romney loses Loudon by only 4 points. Had he won the county by 9.4 points we would have gained 15,000 more votes.  McDonnell won London by 22 points in 2009.
  • Henrico (4.2% of statewide vote; Richmond Market): Romney loses Henrico by 12 points.  Had he won by county by 8 points he would have gained 13,000 more votes.  McDonnell won Henrico by 13 points in 2009.
  • Chesapeake (2.9% statewide vote; Norfolk Market): Romney loses Chesapeake by 1 point.  Had he won the county by 9.1 points he would have gained 10,000 more votes.  McDonnell won Chesapeake by 21 points in 2009.

Had Romney won these four counties by an average margin of 8.8 points he would have gained 54,000 more votes.  That leaves Romney with 6,000 more votes needed to win Virginia.

IMPROVE-THE-GAP COUNTIES

  • Virginia Beach (5.1% of statewide vote; Norfolk Market): Romney won Virginia Beach by 3 points.  Had he increased his margin of victory by 1.5 points he would have gained an additional 3,000 votes.  McDonnell won Virginia Beach by 28 points in 2009.
  • Chesterfield (4.4% of statewide vote; Richmond Market): Romney won Chesterfield by 8 points.  Had he increased his margin of victory by 1.8 points he would have gained an additional 3,000 votes.  McDonnell won Chesterfield by 33 points in 2009.

Had Romney improved his margin by an average of 1.6 points he would have gained 6,000 more votes needed to win the Commonwealth.

CONCLUSION

Romney needed to shift the overall statewide vote by 2 points (or 75,000 votes) in order to win Virginia.

va counties top 12

Visual Breakdown of the $980 Million Spent on Presidential Ads

Friday, November 30th, 2012

Over $980 million was spent on television and radio advertising during the 2012 Presidential General Election.  When the ad spending from the GOP Primary is included, this total surpasses $1 billion spent on television and radio advertising.  Political ads dominated the airwaves in the battleground states throughout the election.  Who paid for all of those ads?

Of the $980 Million Total Spent: Candidates (56%) vs.  Issue Groups (44%)


Not surprisingly, the two advertisers who spent the most money on political ads were the two candidates themselves: Barack Obama was the biggest spender at $335 million and Mitt Romney was the second biggest spender at $213 million.  Between the two of them, the candidates spent $548 million on ads – but that only counts for a little over half (56%) of the total amount spent on presidential-related ads this election cycle.  The remaining 44% (another $434 million) was spent on behalf of the candidates by 23 different Super PACs and issue groups.

Of the $980 Million Total Spent: Team Romney (60%) vs. Team Obama (40%)

Sixty percent of the money spent on presidential ads came from Pro-Romney advertisers ($583 million) and 40% of the money spent on ads came from pro-Obama advertisers ($400 million).

The majority (63%) of Team Romney’s ad spend came from issue groups who spent $370 million on behalf of Romney, while the candidate spent $213 million (37%).

On the other hand, the majority (84%) of Team Obama’s buy came from the candidate himself ($335 million), while issue groups only made up 16% of Team Obama’s spend ($64 million).

Of Team Romney’s $583 Million: Issue Group (63%) vs. Candidate (37%)

There were 12 major issue groups that placed ads on behalf of Mitt Romney during the election.

Who won the ad war?

Team Romney outspent Team Obama in terms of pure dollars.  This is largely due to the multiple issue groups that advertised on behalf of Romney.  But in political advertising, more money does not always equal more ads reaching more voters.

While issue groups indisputably played a significant role in Presidential advertising this election, it is important to consider the difference between the worth of a candidate’s media buy in comparison to the worth of an issue group’s media buy.   Federal Communications Commission law guarantees candidates the best prices for purchasing ad time, but these laws do not apply to political issue groups.  This means that issue groups often end up paying double, triple or even quadruple the market rate that candidates pay for the same advertisement.  This ratio varies across different markets and time periods, and many issue groups successfully negotiate competitive rates, but these advertisers do not receive the same price protection that political candidates enjoy.  Candidates can reach voters at a lower price.

Even though Team Romney outspent Team Obama by $183 million, does that mean that Team Romney won the ad war?  After all, the majority (63%) of Team Romney’s media buy came from political issue groups (who most likely paid higher rates), while the majority (84%) of Team Obama’s total spend came from the candidate (who most likely paid lower rates).  There are several major factors to consider when approaching this question.

  1. Where? Throughout the election, candidates and issue groups alike advertised in eight different swing states (CO, IA, FL, NC, NH, NV, OH, VA), give or take a few (MI, MN, PA, WI).  Were there certain states where Obama outspent Romney?  In what markets was Romney stronger than Obama?  The ad war question must be asked on a state-by-state, market-by-market basis.
  2. At what time? Advertising for the general election began the week of April 2 (when Rick Santorum dropped out) and lasted for thirty-one weeks, until November 6.  Were there certain periods of time when Obama dominated the airwaves?  How did the GOP spending surge in the last nine days of the election affect the outcome?  The ad war question must be framed in terms of time as well.
  3. On what mediums? Broadcast, cable and radio are the three media types that political candidates traditionally place on.  Who had the most sophisticated cable buy?  When did the candidates start advertising on radio? What were the most crowded broadcast markets?
  4. At what price? Perhaps the biggest question that must be asked when determining which campaign was the most effective buy is one of cost.  Were the some markets where issue groups got better rates?  Which markets skyrocketed?  What price did each campaign pay for advertisements?

In the next few weeks, I will be exploring these questions through more in-depth posts on each subject.

How Will the Electorate Actually Look on Election Day?

Tuesday, September 18th, 2012

To followers of this presidential election, looking at the horse race can feel like a roller coaster. When viewed from certain angles and in certain perspectives, it looks like President Obama is a solid favorite to be reelected. Most public polls have him up, and he appears to be running ahead of his national numbers in the key swing states.

But viewed from other angles, Mitt Romney can seem stronger than these polls show. You can look at the changes in the overall political landscape since 2008 and conclude that Romney is being underestimated.

What is underlying these disparate views of the election is that no one is sure of what the electorate will look like this November.

2008 had the most Democratic electorate in a generation. Accordingly, Barack Obama was the first Democratic presidential candidate to earn over 50.5 percent of the popular vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Thirty-nine percent of the 2008 electorate self-identified as Democrats, compared to 32 percent who identified as Republicans.

Most public polls are assuming a turnout model roughly similar to the 2008 electorate. If this was the case, Obama would certainly win. One could make the case that Democrats are more genuinely enthusiastic for Obama than Republicans are for Romney. And it does appear that Obama is running ahead of where a generic Democrat would be running.

There is another way to look at the electorate. What if the composition looked more like the 2004 or 2010 elections? In both of these elections, the Democrat/Republican self-identification was identical. In 2004, Kerry won independents by one point, but Bush was able to win by getting 11 percent of Democrats to vote for him, compared to 6 percent of Republicans voting for Kerry.

In 2010, Republicans won a larger victory because they won independents by double digits. If this was true, a Romney win would be hiding in plain sight. Most signs do not point to a 2008 repeat in turnout disparity, but a top to bottom look at races across the country also doesn’t seem to point to a 2010-style Republican wave either.

Most of the uncertainty over where the state of the race is and will be on Election Day is over the partisan makeup of the electorate. Around 95 percent of those who identify with a party will vote for that party’s presidential candidate. Because this is such an ingrained preference, approximating the correct partisan breakdown of the electorate is the most critical part of getting an accurate view of the electorate. If pollsters presumed a 2008 turnout model but the actual election revealed a 2004 model, then there would be a large disparity between final predictions and the results.

Besides partisanship, the weighting of racial groups is also very important for determining the outcome. In 2008, 13 percent of the electorate was African-American—an outsized turnout compared to past elections. In 2004, African-Americans were 11 percent of the electorate. Because African-Americans are nearly unanimously in favor of President Obama, a one percent change plus-or-minus in the share of the electorate can make a great difference.

Hispanic turnout is also something to watch. Even though the Hispanic share of the population is increasing, the share of the electorate that is Hispanic has remained stuck at 8 to 9 percent since 2004. If Hispanic turnout stays the same or, as some reports suggest, declines then that can be a determining factor in a series of swing states like Florida, Colorado and Nevada.

Other subgroups can turn the election based on their relative share of the electorate. The 18 to 29-year-old vote was 1 percent greater in 2008 than in 2004. A reversion to past turnout levels would hurt President Obama. The proportion of the electorate that is married or single is worth watching, since marrieds tend to vote Republican and singles tend to vote Democratic. The religious composition is also of importance since nothing for white voters will predict political partisanship better than church attendance. Shifts among these subgroups are also to be looked at for hints of the final outcome.

No one can be sure of what the electorate will look like come November 6. The drama of this election is due to this above all else.

Chris Palko works as an assistant media analyst at Smart Media Group, a Republican political media buying agency in Alexandria, Va. He is a graduate of American University and George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

A version of this post was also published on Campaign and Election’s blog, Campaign Insider.

The Temperature is Not the Only Thing That’s HOT!

Monday, July 9th, 2012

Presidential Race Heats Up Online After Supreme Court’s Latest Decision

When the Supreme Court voted to uphold Obamacare, it’s no surprise that this became an immediate game-changer in the 2012 race to the White House.  In terms of support and fund-raising both campaigns can report successes.  Also not surprising was the instantaneous response that came from both sides of the political spectrum online.  As soon as the Supreme Court decision was public both Romney and Obama’s campaigns got to work revising online messaging on their websites and social media pages, implementing fundraising online and using their already established email and cell phone databases to infiltrate their supporters immediately with relevant messaging about the decision. 

 Because of the impact (positive or negative depending on whether you sit on the left or the right) that is set to take place with the decision of the health care law; it’s now become one of the most important points of contention in this already heated race to the White House. Both campaigns have leveraged this to bring in fundraising dollars following the decision. CNN reported that Mitt Romney’s camp had raised $4.6 million online alone by the Friday morning following the decision.  Likewise, Obama’s operation, while not revealing specific numbers, said they had surpassed Team Romney’s announced total.  Through traditional methods of fundraising neither side would have been able to raise that amount of money in that short a period of time. While most online donations are smaller on average the scale of reach of online allows for campaigns to connect with more supporters, more quickly.

 Beyond scale of reach, the internet allows for quick adjustment of messaging which helps to keep things relevant and timely. Both campaigns were able to promptly change messaging on their websites and social media pages so that the minute a supporter heard of the decision they could unite with their party through their candidate online. Romney’s campaign changed the homepage of their website to reflect the court’s decision, writing “Obamacare Upheld: Elections have consequences,” underneath was a large red “donate” button. More than a week later, Romney is still riding the wave of the decision to uphold Obamacare. Check out his website here. http://www.mittromney.com/forms/real-reform. In addition both campaigns utilized Facebook to garner support following the decision, again Romney still pushing the need for reform in this space as well (http://www.facebook.com/mittromney).

 Emails and text messages, now a part of everyday life in America, were leveraged as well in an effort to take advantage of this game-changing Supreme Court decision.  Romney’s campaign emailed and sent text messages to supporters asking for campaign contributions with language addressing the recent decision. They said, “The stakes couldn’t be higher. Donate $10 or more to put a stop to the policies of Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats.” Obama’s campaign manager fought back on the online space sending an email to supporters with the subject line “Let’s win the damn election.”  The email drove home their point as to why it’s necessary to keep Obama in office.

Because both campaigns were able to quickly adjust their campaign messaging and effectively reach millions of supporters within minutes of the Supreme Court decision the end was result was increased support and increased fundraising dollars.  When we have the technology of the internet at our fingertips we are not limited to positive results it can achieve for any campaign.

The Evolution of Announcing Candidacy for President

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

In the past month, two candidates for the Republican nomination for President declared using new forms of media.  Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty used a video on his Facebook page to announce his candidacy, while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney likewise posted a prerecorded video to his campaign website declaring his intentions.  While utilizing web videos and Facebook is nothing new to campaigns, using these mediums to declare is a new trend.

Prior to ‘08, candidates traditionally announced to small crowds in the primary states before using television to further spread their messages.  Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, Howard Dean and John Kerry all used stump speeches that were picked up by the news to announce their candidacies.  Only John Edwards in ‘04 used a television show to get his message out when he appeared on the Daily Show.  This tactic helps name recognition and branding considering millions of people instantly saw his announcement instead of a couple hundred at a New Hampshire town hall. Four of the major candidates in ’08 followed his lead by announcing on Letterman (John McCain), Leno (Fred Thompson), Meet the Press (Mike Huckabee), and Larry King (Rudy Giuliani).

Despite the prevalence of campaign Facebook pages and YouTube political ads in ’08, only two candidates used the web to declare.  Barack Obama announced with a video press release on his website followed by a speech in Illinois, while Hillary Clinton also used her website to declare, but only in a written statement to her followers. Romney was the only major candidate in ’08 not to utilize the web or TV to announce his candidacy, but made a speech in a museum in Michigan, so maybe he is learning this time around.