2016 Voters, by the Numbers

A data-driven sneak peek at what the electorate is apt to look like next November.

Election day volunteer Vicki Groff places a sign to direct voters to a polling station at Kenilworth School February 28, 2012 in Phoenix, Arizona. 
Getty Images
David Wasserman and Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
David Wasserman and Charlie Cook
July 10, 2015, 1:01 a.m.

Part of what makes the 2016 pres­id­en­tial race so much fun is that two very as­tute ob­serv­ers look­ing at it through two dif­fer­ent lenses can come up with two totally dif­fer­ent pre­dic­tions about which party is likely to pre­vail.

Elec­tion day vo­lun­teer Vicki Groff places a sign to dir­ect voters to a polling sta­tion at Kenil­worth School Feb­ru­ary 28, 2012 in Phoenix, Ari­zona. (Jonath­an Gibby/Getty Im­ages)

Look­ing at the race through a his­tor­ic­al lens, the odds would seem stacked against Hil­lary Clin­ton (as­sum­ing that she is the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ee). In the post-World War II era, only six times has one party held the pres­id­ency for two con­sec­ut­ive terms, and only once has that party kept the White House for a third—a pat­tern that re­flects what I call the “time for a change” voter dy­nam­ic. In fact, the last Demo­crat­ic pres­id­ent dir­ectly elec­ted to suc­ceed an­oth­er was James Buchanan, in 1856; he fol­lowed Frank­lin Pierce.

But look­ing through a demo­graph­ic lens, the mod­ern GOP’s in­creas­ing re­li­ance on a shrink­ing pool of older, white, and work­ing-class voters—and its fail­ure to at­tract non­white voters—would seem to present an enorm­ous obstacle to the even­tu­al Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee. In 1980, when non­white voters were just 12 per­cent of the elect­or­ate, Ron­ald Re­agan won 56 per­cent of white voters and was elec­ted in a land­slide. But in 2012, when non­white voters ac­coun­ted for 28 per­cent of the elect­or­ate, Mitt Rom­ney took 59 per­cent of white voters—and lost the pres­id­en­tial race by 4 per­cent­age points. Without a total brand makeover, how can Re­pub­lic­ans ex­pect to pre­vail with an even more di­verse elect­or­ate in 2016?

(RE­LATED: The Gender Sub­plot)

Al­though we don’t yet know the iden­tity of the fu­ture GOP nom­in­ee, we can be­gin to sur­mise what the elect­or­ate will look like next Novem­ber. Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port House Ed­it­or Dav­id Wasser­man re­cently crunched census and exit-poll data to build a stat­ist­ic­al mod­el of the likely elect­or­ate in each state, break­ing down voters in­to five dis­tinct groups: 1) whites with col­lege de­grees, 2) whites without col­lege de­grees, 3) Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans, 4) Lati­nos, and 5) Asi­ans/oth­ers.

First, the good news for Demo­crats: If the elect­or­ate evolves in sync with the Census Bur­eau’s es­tim­ates of the adult cit­izen pop­u­la­tion (ad­mit­tedly, a big if), the white share of the elect­or­ate would drop from 72 per­cent in 2012 to 70 per­cent in 2016; the Afric­an-Amer­ic­an share would re­main stable at 13 per­cent; the Latino por­tion would grow from 10 per­cent to 11 per­cent; and the Asi­an/oth­er seg­ment would in­crease from 5 per­cent to 6 per­cent. If the 2012 elec­tion had been held with that break­down (keep­ing all oth­er vari­ables stable), Pres­id­ent Obama would have won by 5.4 per­cent­age points rather than by his ac­tu­al 3.85-point mar­gin.

In ad­di­tion, the group with which the GOP does best—whites without col­lege de­grees—is the only one poised to shrink in 2016. Pres­id­ent Obama won just 36 per­cent of these voters in 2012, while 42 per­cent of white voters with col­lege de­grees pulled the lever for him. But if the elect­or­ate changes in line with census es­tim­ates, the slice of col­lege-edu­cated whites will grow by 1 point, to 37 per­cent of all voters, while the por­tion of whites without de­grees will shrink 3 points, to just 33 per­cent of the total. In oth­er words, the GOP doesn’t just have a grow­ing prob­lem with non­whites; it has a shrink­age prob­lem as well, as con­ser­vat­ive white seni­ors are sup­planted by col­lege-edu­cated mil­len­ni­als with dif­fer­ent cul­tur­al at­ti­tudes.

(RE­LATED: 2016 Elec­tion Will Not Be About the Can­did­ates)

All that said, none of these data points proves that Re­pub­lic­ans are doomed in 2016; in fact, the GOP has some reas­on for op­tim­ism. First, hard math makes talk of Demo­crats “ex­pand­ing the map” by cap­it­al­iz­ing on fa­vor­able demo­graph­ic trends in Ari­zona and Geor­gia sound pre­ma­ture at best. For ex­ample, Rom­ney beat Obama by 7.8 per­cent­age points in Geor­gia in 2012. Wasser­man es­tim­ates that the white share of the elect­or­ate there could de­cline from 64 per­cent to 62 per­cent—but that change by it­self wouldn’t erase even a third of Rom­ney’s mar­gin of vic­tory in the state.

Fur­ther­more, the shifts a Re­pub­lic­an would need to win the Elect­or­al Col­lege vote might be less dra­mat­ic than com­monly thought. If you’re search­ing for the “ma­gic num­ber” of Lati­nos that Re­pub­lic­ans would need to cap­ture the White House, you may not find one. Even if Rom­ney had done 10 points bet­ter with Lati­nos in every state in 2012—win­ning 37 per­cent in­stead of 27 per­cent na­tion­ally—he would have won only one ad­di­tion­al state: Flor­ida. That’s primar­ily be­cause Latino voters tend to be con­cen­trated in states such as Cali­for­nia, New York, and Texas, which aren’t Elect­or­al Col­lege battle­grounds. However, if the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee were to do just 3 points bet­ter across all five seg­ments of the elect­or­ate in 2016—a goal many GOP can­did­ates eas­ily sur­passed in 2014—he or she would win sev­en more states, and 305 elect­or­al votes.

That may be easi­er said than done. But the bot­tom line is that demo­graph­ic trends, while help­ful to Demo­crats, are no guar­an­tee that the party will hold the White House bey­ond 2017.

What We're Following See More »
HEARING THIS AFTERNOON
Mueller Indicts Attorney for Making False Statements About Gates
18 hours ago
THE LATEST
THE QUESTION
What’s the Value of Suspicious Transactions by Paul Manafort that Mueller Is Investigating?
18 hours ago
THE ANSWER

About $40 million, "a much larger sum than was cited in his October indictment on money laundering charges."

Source:
CHINESE INVESTORS AS WELL AS RUSSIANS
Mueller Looking into Kushner Finances
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Special counsel Robert Mueller's interest in Jared Kushner has expanded beyond his contacts with Russia and now includes his efforts to secure financing for his company from foreign investors during the presidential transition, according to people familiar with the inquiry. This is the first indication that Mueller is exploring Kushner's discussions with potential non-Russian foreign investors, including in China." At issue specifically is his quest for financing help on the beleaguered 666 Fifth Avenue building.

Source:
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
4 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
4 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login