Access the .pdf here: 2012 Post-Election Analysis
Young voters played a decisive role in the 2012 presidential election. According to the exit polls, Barack Obama received fewer votes than Mitt Romney among voters over the age of 30, but won young voters – nationally and in key swing states – by such large margins that he was re-elected.
With the 2012 presidential election season over, many are looking into what happened that led to a GOP loss. National Journal’s Jill Lawrence asked David Winston for some insight into why Romney’s successes during campaigning didn’t lead to a victory:
GOP pollster David Winston, asked about his party’s miscalculation, said that there had been more “interest, engagement, enthusiasm” around Romney after he aced the first debate, which established a “new equilibrium” that some people perceived as momentum. “You’re seeing increased activity, so it looks better,” Winston said. “But that activity didn’t represent him leading the race.”
To read more, turn to nationaljournal.com.
The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein writes about recent poll numbers for President Obama and Mitt Romney, turning to David Winston for some insight into why Romney’s numbers are good now, but may not lead to a victory in November:
Another argument I heard was that with the polls this close, the election really comes down to turnout. “The number of variables in terms of turnout that still exist are major,” e-mailed David Winston, director of the Winston Group. “Party ID, minority composition, younger voters [all] make it more complicated to assess.’
To read the full article, turn to washingtonpost.com.
For the third and final presidential debate of this election season, the WG’s David Winston continues his series writing for the Wall St. Journal’s Washington Wire blog. Winston gives his reaction to Monday night’s debate, stating that Governor Romney succeeded in his tactic of avoiding attacking Obama and instead offering his ideas:
…Mr. Romney came to the debate with a strategy that avoided harsh attacks on Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy record, instead offering voters his own foreign-policy direction for the future. Several times during the debate when Mr. Obama went on the offensive, Mr. Romney calmly told the president he was more interested in talking about where each of them would take the country rather than engaging a rhetorical war of attrition.
To read the full post, turn to blogs.wsj.com.
The WG’s David Winston continues blogging for the Wall St. Journal’s Washington Wire, this time highlighting his takeaways from the second Obama-Romney debate. Although President Obama came out stronger than he did in his first debate, says Winston, but he still needs to play defense:
One of the interesting points of debate that emerged was the question of whether the weak economy is the result of the policies of former President George W. Bush or the policies of President Obama. The resolution of this question will be a determining factor in the election.
To read more, click to blogs.wsj.com.
The WG’s David Winston chatted with Chris Jansing this morning, along with former Senator Byron Dorgan about campaign finances, taxes, and the first presidential debate:
Matt Bai writes an op-ed in today’s New York Times about the future of the Republican party after the elections. Bai talked to the WG’s David Winston, who provided some stats that work in Romney’s favor, but expressed that Romney needs to take advantage of the current economic situation:
Obama hasn’t won anything yet, of course, and on the day Winston and I talked, Romney still had three debates in which to make his case. But in Republican circles, you can already hear the howls of agony and recrimination. “When you have unemployment that high, and the economy is perceived to be as weak as it is, the door is wide open for a challenger, irrespective of party,” Winston told me. “You have to lay out the alternative so that people have something to go to.” The main question facing the party, should Romney lose, will be this: Was the fateful flaw the candidate’s inability to articulate that alternative, or was it the alternative itself?
To read the full article, turn to nytimes.com.
An October 6th post writes about the result of Romney’s successful first presidential debate, and turns to the WG’s David Winston’s analysis that we posted on October 5th. One part of the analysis in the blog post delves into Winston’s analysis of a post-debate discussion held by Democracy Corps:
Democracy Corps also conducted a post-debate discussion with 45 swing voters in Colorado. Its results were largely consistent with those of CBS and CNN. Democracy Corps concluded, though, that “this debate did not emerge as the game-changer the Romney campaign needed.”
But Winston is not persuaded:
Most of the data in the focus group doesn’t support this conclusion and was more in line with the two quantitative studies by CBS and CNN which showed clear movement. Their rationale was that no supporter of President Obama in the focus group moved to Governor Romney.
Looking at the numbers it looks like this represented about 14 people (out of 45), a small group to make such a definitive conclusion. This is a quantitative conclusion based on qualitative data from 45 people in Denver preselected to match certain demographic criteria. Focus groups can provide possible theories; they cannot provide quantitative conclusions.
So Democracy Corps was spinning.
To read more, turn to powerlineblog.com