By Tom Kando
How
would the election turn out if the different ethnic, gender, age and economic
groups voted the way we are told that
they are likely to vote? Here are some
calculations I did to answer this question. My numbers are very rough, and some
may be off, but the differences are all
true.
1.
Table One: Support for Obama and Romney by (1) ethnicity, (2) gender, (3) age
and (4) income.
2.
Table Two: Size of American electorate, by (1) ethnicity, (2) gender, (3) age
and (4) income.
3.
Table Three: Voting Participation, by
(1) ethnicity, (2) gender, (3) age and (4) income.
4.
Table Four: Likely numbers of votes going to Obama and Romney, by (1)
ethnicity, (2) gender, (3) age and (4) income.
Conclusions:
1.
If people vote primarily on the basis of ethnicity, Obama loses by 42 to 58%
2.
If If people vote primarily on the
basis of gender, Obama loses by 49 to 51%
3.
If people vote primarily on the basis of age, Obama loses by 38 to 62%
4.
If people vote primarily on the basis of income, Obama wins by 56 to 44%
1. Support for the two Presidential Candidates
Group
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Total
|
1. Hispanics
|
70
|
30
|
100
|
2. Blacks
|
90
|
10
|
100
|
3.Non-Hisp. Whites
|
30
|
70
|
100
|
4. Asians
|
45
|
55
|
100
|
5. men
|
40
|
60
|
100
|
6. women
|
57
|
43
|
100
|
7. 18 thru 35 yrs.
|
60
|
40
|
100
|
8. 36+
|
38
|
62
|
100
|
9. income <$100,000
|
60
|
40
|
100
|
10.income >$100,000
|
40
|
60
|
100
|
Total US electorate
|
100%
|
240 million
|
1. Hispanics
|
15%
|
36 million
|
2. Blacks
|
13%
|
31 million
|
3. Non-Hispanic Whites
|
67%
|
161 million
|
4. Asians
|
5%
|
12 million
|
5. Men
|
49%
|
118 million
|
6. Women
|
51%
|
122 million
|
7. 18 through 35 years old
|
13%
|
31 million
|
8. 36+
|
87%
|
209 million
|
10. Income <$100,000
|
80%
|
192 million
|
11. Income >$100,000
|
20%
|
48 million
|
Total number of Americans who
vote
|
58%
|
140 million votes
|
1. Hispanics
|
44%
|
16 million “
|
2. Blacks
|
44%
|
14 million “
|
3. Non-Hispanic Whites
|
64%
|
103 million
“
|
4. Asians
|
60%
|
7 million “
|
5. Men
|
56%
|
66 million “
|
6. Women
|
60%
|
73 million “
|
7. 18 through 35 years old
|
33%
|
10 million
“
|
8. 36+
|
62%
|
130 million
“
|
9. Income <$100,000
|
55%
|
106
million “
|
10. Income >$100,000
|
70%
|
34
million “
|
4. Votes Likely to Go to Obama and Romney
Group
|
proportions
Obama/Romney
|
Total votes
|
To Obama
|
To Romney
|
1. Hispanics
|
70-30%
|
16 million
|
11 million
|
5 million
|
2. Blacks
|
90-10%
|
14 million
|
13 million
|
1 million
|
3. Non-Hispanic Whites
|
30-70%
|
103 million
|
31 million
|
72 million
|
4. Asians
|
45-55%
|
7 million
|
3 million
|
4 million
|
Total:
|
42-58%
|
140 million
|
58 million
|
82 million
|
Group
|
proportions
|
Total votes
|
To Obama
|
To Romney
|
5. Men
|
40-60%
|
66 million
|
26 million
|
40 million
|
6. Women
|
57-43%
|
73 million
|
42 million
|
32 million
|
Total:
|
49-51%
|
140 million
|
68 million
|
72 million
|
Group
|
proportions
|
Total votes
|
To Obama
|
To Romney
|
7. 18 thru 35 yrs old
|
60-40%
|
10 million
|
6 million
|
4 million
|
8. 36+
|
38-62%
|
130 million
|
49 million
|
81 million
|
Total:
|
39-61%
|
140 million
|
55 million
|
85 million
|
Group
|
proportions
|
Total votes
|
To Obama
|
To Romney
|
9. Income <$100,000
|
60-40%
|
106 million
|
64 million
|
42 million
|
10. Income >$100,000
|
40-60%
|
34 million
|
14 million
|
20 million
|
Total:
|
56-44%
|
140 million
|
78 million
|
62 million
|
11 comments:
Follow the Money.
People will vote for whichever president they will be better off financially with.
Those are interesting numbers but I would caution a couple of things, as someone who at one point ran campaigns. Numbers change (both positive and negative). At the same time, remember that we live under a system called the Electoral College - so where those voters are makes a difference. Finally, there are three more important indicators than the splits you present. First, the economy - and the signals are quite mixed at this point. Employment numbers continue to be troubling - this has been an anemic recovery. Second, the favorability ratings - and again - while the President has enjoyed some improvement in recent months he is still pretty low. Third, the motivation of the voters. At this point there are a large percentage of voters against the President who are highly motivated. It is unclear whether the President's troops are as motivated.
I thank Gordon, NWE and Dr. Tax for their comments.
Yes, the variables which will determine the ultimate outcome of the election are innumerable.
And yes, self-interest is probably the foremost predictor.
I just presented my guesstimates for discussion. And my numbers are indeed all aggregate nationwide totals. The electoral college system makes it possible to win the presidency with fewer than 50% of the votes (as George W. Bush did). So what will happen in November is anyone's guess...
I can't BELIEVE the information that comes out of your head!!
Did you notice that as we Asians become affluent, we become more politically White? I wonder if that is true with other ethnic groups.
I have trouble keeping up with you.
Kiyo,
Thanks for your comment.
You keeping up with me? Ha!
You, the glorious book award recipient and all!
You are a role model to me.
But yes, I do feel a small amount of pride about this particular post, because all these numbers are off the top of my head,
jotted down in a very short amount of time.
So it is what it is – superficial, not very exact, but somewhat erudite…
Yes, Asians are probably moving a bit to the right (as are so many others, alas…).
And of course, speaking of superficiality, the word “Asians” does violence to reality, as it covers a multitude of groups, from Japanese-Americans to Hmongs and a myriad of South- and Southeast Asians, with widely divergent political values…
You obviously do a good job of presenting some factors about who votes for whom. You invite revisions. Here is my take on the election:
With all the data you provide you may be obscuring the real determinant of voter's choices. Which may be:
1. Union membership. This trumps all other factors and we know how this large group votes.
2. Takers. This includes all persons not paying income tax. (That does not include social security 'tax' which was originally presented not as a tax but provision for a retirement system.
Voting age students who are largely takers of Gov. grants etc. (Notice how President Obama loves to speak to them dangling hints of student loan forgiveness and deferment of loan paybacks.)
Teachers who are looking for support for their union membership.
Federal workers who like their pension system.
Police,fire,and prison guards who seek federal support.
Almost the entire education system which relies on federal funding.
3. The Hollywood group.
4. The tort attorneys.
5. Inhabitants of large metropolitan areas. I do not know exactly why the largest cities in the USA are predominantly liberal while the rest of the country is more evenly divided. You can easily see this on a map of the elections by states.
The above usually vote Democratic. It is almost impossible for a Republican to be elected in any political division because of this concentration of voters with such a narrow range of issues.
Question: Why has California had Democratic control of the legislature for 40 of the last 42 years? An occasional Republican governor has been the exception. Can this be why California is so dysfunctional? Does the opposition party NEVER have a good idea?
Why can the federal government, in 2008-2010 have control of the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Reps. and not put forward or pass a LEGISLATIVE MANDATED budget? They do not want a budget because it will crimp their spending.
We may need more taxes but we surely need less spending. What has the Energy department ever accomplished? We have no energy policy. Aside from creating some ' standards' what has the Education department accomplished? These large departments may not need to be eliminated but they must be more efficient and the people who do not see this are blinded by some other agenda.
I thank Al for his detailed response.
In some ways, it parallels Dr. Tax's comments, as both remind us of several of the arguments which conservatives have been making for a long time.
I hope it helps. After the June 5 elections, I realize that I forgot to emphasize the most powerful predictor of all: which side has the most super PAC money!
Tom:
A couple of thoughts based on the good information you provided.
I’m not sure whether or not the projections you have were based on the last race and/or whether these take into account the electoral votes. California will, again, tip to Obama cancelling out a lot of the votes of white males and the proverbial little old ladies in tennis shoes (with Tea Party hats). In any event, here are a couple of things I wondered about:
• You seem to assume that the Republican base of male, white Southerners will turn out and support Romney. Has anybody yet figured out what it means to be a Bishop in the Mormon church? Romney cannot sell himself as a Evangelical.
• If the economy shifts into a recovery mode, most polls (including the NYT) show Obama beating Romney.
• There will also be a lot of cross-over votes (both ways). Wealthy Catholic Hispanics are not likely to vote their class.
• Wealthy women are not going to support Romney.
• The outcome will be determined by who turns out at the polls---angry white guys or the rest of us.
Hi Scott,
Obviously there is hardly any predictive value to anything I jotted down – for many reasons, including the ones you mention.
It was just fun to “codify” all the recent talk about polls indicating this and that – which demographic group tends to go this way and which one is more that way.
Right. Angry white guys. I swear, people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity even VISUALLY remind me of Joe McCarthy – almost literally spitting out their venom…
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!