Green Room

How many tea-party supporters voted for Obama?

posted at 1:05 pm on November 10, 2012 by

A footnote from the national exit poll that I missed earlier this week. Note to the 11 percent: You’re doing it wrong.

Reuters/Ipsos conducted its own exit poll, based on a massive sample of 40,000 people, and got basically the same result — 12 percent of those who “identify strongly” with the tea party pulled the lever for four more years.

One other detail from the Reuters poll, possibly related, possibly not:

Voters who switched from Republican John McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012 said their choice was based on which candidate “cares about people like me.” That suggests the Obama campaign may have been successful in painting Romney, a wealthy businessman, as out of touch with average voters, particularly after his leaked remarks about the “47 percent” he said he would not “worry about.”

That squares with Sean Trende’s theory that lots of working-class white voters who were otherwise gettable ended up staying home due to alienation from Romney. A few of them may have been so alienated that they turned out but voted for O. Could help explain the wayward tea partiers here.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I thought the tea Party was racist so how could we even imagine that some may have pulled the lever for “the black man”. In fact, the racism is SSSSOOOOO deep in them, they should have been knocking everyone over to vote that guy out.

watertown on November 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I think about 11% of any population is nuts.

Ragspierre on November 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Could help explain the wayward tea partiers here.

Steveangell, Floating Rock, Pragmatic… various others…

Thanks, assholes.

You didn’t “destroy the country to save it”. You destroyed the country to destroy it.

Alberta_Patriot on November 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Voters who switched from Republican John McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012 said their choice was based on which candidate “cares about people like me.” That suggests the Obama campaign may have been successful in painting Romney, a wealthy businessman, as out of touch with average voters, particularly after his leaked remarks about the “47 percent” he said he would not “worry about.”

Anyone who bought that whole line of bullsh!t and switched their vote because of it, is a certified, card-carrying imbecile who deserves what they get.

Dopenstrange on November 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Cant really see the tea party doing this, unless its revenge against romney and the gop for not taking ron paul seriously or some stupid crap like that.

Jack_Burton on November 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM

i want to see the numbers on who the Ron Paul people voted for – or if they voted at all.

Curmudgeon on November 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Nicely done, supporters of RONPAUL and Gary Johnson! Dear Leader truly appreciates your help!

Mr. Prodigy on November 10, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Zero. If they voted for President Choom, they are not Tea Party supporters, no matter what they claim. They are idiots.

RoadRunner on November 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM

want to see the numbers on who the Ron Paul people voted for – or if they voted at all.

Curmudgeon on November 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM

The ones I know checked out of the election months ago and didn’t even vote.

Because of, like, principle and stuff.

MikeknaJ on November 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Or, Allah, it could be that those 12% are the ones who didn’t whore themselves to the Republican Party.

Let’s face it, the Republican Party, among it’s many, many faults, lost the initiative under Bush. Bush could have tackled health care reform, but didn’t. Instead he made a massive crony payoff to BigPharma. He could have tackled immigration reform, and secured what Charles K. rightly calls a natural conservative constituency. Instead, he did nothing.

The Republicans didn’t deserve to be voted for. Period.

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM

You’re still copy/pasting that crap?

Mr. Prodigy on November 10, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Wtf is wrong with people? Do they really think Obama cares about them? Hey, guys, he’s wealthy too. Sure, Romney’s rich…because he was extraordinarily successful. Obama may have won, but the way he drove class resentment was shameful.

changer1701 on November 10, 2012 at 1:33 PM

And all you mopes who keep blaming Paul supporters and others for causing Romney to lose this election, keep in mind just how many people stayed home. Keep in mind that Romney got less votes than McCain. Nobody lost this election for Romney, besides Romney and the Republican Party.

The sooner you all stop being Party Bitches like the brain dead liberals consistently do, the better.

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

A few of them may have been so alienated that they turned out but voted for O. Could help explain the wayward tea partiers here.

Then why did losing GOP Senate candidates generally underperform Romney? Are we assuming that these hypothetical Tea Party-supporting turncoats voted for Dem Senate candidates in greater numbers than they did for Obama?

steebo77 on November 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Brilliant response, Mr. P.

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Come on, HA “true cons” fess up.

JPeterman on November 10, 2012 at 1:36 PM

BOOOOOSH!!!

Mimzey on November 10, 2012 at 1:36 PM

The only battleground state that Johnson even came close to making a difference in was FLA. Keep fishing for excuses.

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Alot of Paultards voted for Obama, some of them may claim “Tea Party” creds if asked.

jp on November 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Where can I get my “Don’t Blame me, I voted for Romney” T-Shirt?

portlandon on November 10, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Damn Tea Party moochers.

lester on November 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

My guess is most of the paul supporters didnt bother to even vote. If its not their guy on the ballot, they dont give a crap about the country. Between them and other conservatives sitting out, we have four more years of Obama and the destruction of the USA.

Jack_Burton on November 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Anyone who thinks that Hispanics are a “natural conservative constituency” is smoking some heavy choom. Yes, and I am Hispanic, not that it should matter. For every one like me, there are 15-20 Obamarrhoids. Even Florida Cubans are starting to trend toward the Democrats. Some “conservative” strategists are so effing clueless, it’s unreal (*cough*Rove*cough*).

Travis Bickle on November 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

As I said the other day…a slim majority has chosen catastrophic failure over rational reform.

It could…and I fear WILL…get very ugly. ObamaCare changes the paradigm of “next election”.

We had a chance to stop it, and many Americans sat on their butts and did nothing.

Ragspierre on November 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Ten percent of any group is insane. It’s just how it is.

alwaysfiredup on November 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Come on, HA “true cons” fess up.

JPeterman on November 10, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Voted straight ticket republican for the first time in my life. Possibly also my last.

alwaysfiredup on November 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

A few of them may have been so alienated that they turned out but voted for O. Could help explain the wayward tea partiers here.

And it’s idiots like this that make seemingly rational people distrust conservatism, and lump us all together as angry, old white men. Classic example of, “I didn’t get my way, so I’m taking my football and going home.”

BettyRuth on November 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Voted straight ticket republican for the first time in my life. Possibly also my last.

alwaysfiredup on November 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Because you’re mad at the result or because there might not be another election?

Alberta_Patriot on November 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

He could have tackled immigration reform, and secured what Charles K. rightly calls a natural conservative constituency. Instead, he did nothing.

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM

“If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority. It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation. Hispanics will prove to be even more decisive in the victory of Governor Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which raised upper-income taxes and the sales tax, than in the Obama election.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald

Heather McDonald

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mac_donald.htm

kakypat on November 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

It is not You’re doing it wrong. It is that the Media has distorted the national face of the Tea party before it waved a flag. Those 11% believed the spin that Mitt and the GOP was not friendly to the tea party not that Obama and the Democrats are openly hostile to tea party.

Oh and those 11% are most likely fall in to the People who see no difference between Obama and Romney.

tjexcite on November 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Voters who switched from Republican John McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012 said their choice was based on which candidate “cares about people like me.”

Because Barack “18 Holes” Obama cares about the people he put into poverty.

There’s nothing dumber on planet Earth than the American voter.

CrustyB on November 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Anyone who thinks that Hispanics are a “natural conservative constituency” is smoking some heavy choom. Yes, and I am Hispanic, not that it should matter. For every one like me, there are 15-20 Obamarrhoids. Even Florida Cubans are starting to trend toward the Democrats. Some “conservative” strategists are so effing clueless, it’s unreal (*cough*Rove*cough*).

Travis Bickle on November 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

You are absolutely right!

Especially about Rove, et al…

kakypat on November 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

The socialists won because after decades of leftist indoctrination from cradle to grave most people believe they have a right to live as parasites.
They’re ignorant of history, economically illiterate, self centered, greedy and grasping (me, me, me, and f**k you), materialistic, and have no scruples (if you ain’t cheatin’ you ain’t tryin’).
As history shows, this won’t last long and the end will be bloody.

single stack on November 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

You guys are sad, with your “waaaahhhh, all those Paultard supporters and fake tea party folks stayed home and ruined the country with their spiteful “principle”"

Right, there were millions upon millions of tea party folks and Paul supporters, who just stayed home. Whatever you have to tell yourself….

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I’ve voted for every Republican presidential candidate since Nixon/’72 (when I was 19); but I think George Bush made a critical mistake in going to war in Iraq (and I said so before that war began). It cost the country eight years of Barack Obama as president (so far).

That said: Bush did try to pass a bipartisan immigration reform bill and it was shot down by democrats (and some republicans). So no one can fault him for not trying to pass immigration reform. Heck, Bush has proposed more immigration reform bills than Obama has. Bush also tried to pass Social Security reform but the media breathlessly told us at the time that SS was in no danger of bankruptcy for many decades. Now, they tell us it effectively went bankrupt in 2011. Oops.

jdp629 on November 10, 2012 at 2:14 PM

You guys are sad, with your “waaaahhhh, all those Paultard supporters and fake tea party folks stayed home and ruined the country with their spiteful “principle””
Right, there were millions upon millions of tea party folks and Paul supporters, who just stayed home. Whatever you have to tell yourself….
jwally on November 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM

It was a combination of 10 million people who stayed home. Not just the ones you listed. America’s demise is just as much the fault of these people as it is the lying parasitic left.

jawkneemusic on November 10, 2012 at 2:16 PM

After the shock of 2010, the legacy media made it their mission to destroy the TEA party in any way they could. They seemed to have peeled off enough to change the 2012 election.
Until conservatives destroy the legacy media nothing changes.

d1carter on November 10, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Jawkneemusic, that is absolutely correct. But these folks who can’t seem to bring themselves to admit that the Republican Party lost because it is CRAP want to blame the loss on purists, Paulbots and the fake tea party people instead.

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

I tend to buy the theory that most of these are Ron Paul supporters. I cannot see many outside that camp voting for Obama out of disgust, at worst I’d expect them to stay home.

My general feelings are this, in reverse chronological order, starting from the election and working backward.

Sandy was probably the death nail. It may not have changed many minds, but I could easily see the good press boosting Obama’s turnout. As other have pointed out, Obama’s early voting numbers were down, while Republicans were voting early in much greater numbers. This pointed to much lower enthusiasm before Sandy, but after Sandy on election day, the democrats seemed to have just enough enthusiasm to get their vote out.

The debates probably helped Romney greatly, and after the first debate he probably was ahead. I actually think Romney won the second and third debates as well, but by much lower margins. His performance in each seemed to give him a bounce, but the following debates didn’t give him enough of a bounce to last him till election day. Had election day been held a week earlier, we’d probably be hearing about President Romneys transition team right about now.

The 47% probably did hurt turnout somewhat. While it was an overplayed news story that was later overshadowed by the debates, democrats brought it up every chance they could get in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. It likely fed into the narrative they had been building, starting with Romney not caring about the auto industry. The moral of the story here is that candidates have to assume camera’s are recording them even at private events. You cannot assume that a democratic operative isn’t spying on you, or that security is going to get all the cameras.

I don’t buy that voters are giving Obama a pass on the economy. So the nobody could fix it line coming out of the convention is probably moot. The exit polling data clearly showed that Romney was narrowly but decisively more trusted on the economy. If voters had voted based on their economic interests, Romney would have won. What the Democratic convention did show, was that conventions could be effective tools for juicing turnout. Democrats spoke almost exclusively about social issues at their convention, and while people said the economy was the number one issue, clearly a small majority lied.

Don’t schedule our conventions in hurricane zones. For that matter, schedule them earlier, and put a few weeks in between our convention and the democrats. The later is important, as it can sometimes take 3-4 days for any bounce to materialize. The appearance of momentum is important, so you cannot let the democrats stamp out that appearance by letting them hold a convention immediately after yours. Also, deal with any issues that may create infighting well before the convention.

Todd Akin’s comments on abortion, and his subsequent refusal to step down, was the biggest blunder of the entire election. Not only did it cost us a senate seat, but democrats and the media never let anybody forget this story. In one debate, Obama even asserted that it was Romney who said Akin’s comments. This was the debate with Candy Crowley, so Romney was never given an opportunity to respond. Nobody really picked up on this in the second debate, but I noticed it, and I bet single mothers picked it up too.

Paul Ryan was a good pick, while he isn’t a masterful campaigner, democrats wasted nearly two weeks of news cycles trying to attack Ryan on medicare. Not only did this fail, but it allowed the Romney campaign to talk about financial issues, which helped him. The campaign showed clear strength during this time, right until Akin’s comments switched the focus back to social issues.

The primary was devastating, for numerous reasons. The biggest reasons were probably, Santorum and his repeated insistence on wading into social issues. This is what really got the War on Women meme started, and what ultimately plagued the campaign right up to election day. There were other errors as well, ranging from Romney being forced to go to the right of Perry on immigration, to Cain’s alleged affairs, to Gingrich’s Bain capital attacks.

In the future, primaries must contain fewer candidates to start with, must be winner take all to assure the primaries don’t leak into general election season, and must contain more sitting Governors and Senators.

The big take away however, was that when our campaign was able to focus on fiscal issues, on the size of the government, debt, and jobs, we rallied and showed signs of great strength. When we got caught up in social issues, we were slaughtered. Therefore, in the future social issues have to take a back burner to core issues. This does not mean we nominate Pro-Abortion candidates, it means we nominate candidates that can talk about a broad range of issues without getting into a philosophical discussion about abortion. Like it or not, national race candidates must appeal to the broadest range of voters, or they’ll lose. In Presidential year elections, even senate races are treated like national elections, therefore candidates like Akin and Mourdock are simply unacceptable.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Didn’t Romney get more African American votes than McCain? Can anyone explain it?
I am sure 11% of liberals voted for Romney. It’s just statistical noise…

Beside, didn’t Mitt Romney SIDELINE all Tea Party activits leaders? Mitt Romney did not want anything to do with the Tea Party once he won the nomination…believing that it could only hurt him with independents. The result is Millions of them that came out in 2010 stayed home.
As Sarah Palin is only campaigning where she is wanted, Tea Party voters have a right to not support a flip flopper that snubbed them. Just waht would Mitt Romney do for conservatives as President? HE wouldn;t be that much different than Obama anyway.
Republicans need to nominate a TRUE conservative, not some fair weather flip flopper…

jules on November 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Alot of Paultards voted for Obama, some of them may claim “Tea Party” creds if asked.

jp on November 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM

As usual, you lie. Don’t know a single Paul supporter who would have voted for Obama. RP himself said that in the wake of the eclection it is clear that American is too far gone. RP was never an Obama supporter, and neither are 99% of his supporters. Many of them voted for Johnson or wrote RP in. Some of us voted for Romney.

Firefly_76 on November 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Firefly_76 on November 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

There were multiple polls showing that several of Ron Paul supporters second choices were Obama. Keep in mind, a lot of Ron Paul supporters were college students, who are naturally more inclined to vote for Obama to start with. Also keep in mind that Ron Paul did have some good things to say about Obama’s foreign policy platform.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM

*America

Firefly_76 on November 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Also keep in mind that Ron Paul did have some good things to say about Obama’s foreign policy platform.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Like what? Drone strikes? Kill list? Ramp up in Afghanistan? He may have said Obama sounds better sometimes on foreign policy, but he would have clarified that there is no difference between Obama and Bush’s third term on foreign policy … because there isn’t.

Firefly_76 on November 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Zero. If they voted for President Choom, they are not Tea Party supporters, no matter what they claim. They are idiots.

RoadRunner on November 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM

THIS

RedInMD on November 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

jules on November 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

This reads like petty ranting if you ask me. Here’s the thing, I expected a few tea partiers to stay home, you never get 100% turnout after all. However, tea partiers are the same ones who for years insisted that Obamacare was a mortal threat to the American people, and that repealing it, at any cost, was the highest priority.

Keep in mind, that well before the primaries were over, it was ROMNEY that was winning the tea party vote. It was the social conservatives that were dragging their feet until the end.

So what you’re saying is that evangelicals, whom dragged their feet the most during the campaign, managed to get out in full force for Romney, but tea partiers whom supported him didn’t.

Sorry, that doesn’t wash. This is why I believe the Ron Paul backers are largely responsible for this stat.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Firefly_76 on November 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

He praised Obama for taking a less aggressive stance towards Iran. This happened right in the middle of one of the debates. You probably don’t remember, but it was a fairly talked about moment at the time.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Voters who switched from Republican John McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012 said their choice was based on which candidate “cares about people like me.” That suggests the Obama campaign may have been successful in painting Romney, a wealthy businessman, as out of touch with average voters, particularly after his leaked remarks about the “47 percent” he said he would not “worry about.”

…looking at the personal history of the two men…you can see those that belive this ^ don’t have two brain cells to rub together…and several have commented here!

KOOLAID2 on November 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM

KOOLAID2 on November 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Hey, be nice would ya.

Look, at this point I’m less concerned with Romney’s loss than with the democratic parties continued strength. Romney was close enough that any one of a dozen factors would have easily made a difference. The democratic parties continued strength however, suggests that there is something fundamentally flawed with how we campaign nationally.

I mean seriously, our core issues are consistently ranked as being more popular than the democrats issues, but we still LOSE national elections. This means we’re doing something very wrong, and I want to find out what it is.

And on one final thought, I don’t think the problem was Romney. He outperformed the senate races by a large margin, and did so by sticking to largely conservative issues like the economy and budget.

My suspicion is that our problem is that we haven’t figured out how to marry our grass roots to a national campaign. I mean, there are other problems too, like our difficulty appealing to minorities, but in a lot of these states better support from minorities would not have helped.

Therefore, I suspect that the party, and even the tea party, haven’t figured out what sort of candidates our grass roots actually want.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 3:17 PM

we still LOSE national elections. This means we’re doing something very wrong, and I want to find out what it is.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Easy:

Democrats: strip the work requirement out of food stamps —> 73% increase in food stamp recipients. Food stamp looks like an ordinary credit card. Same pattern with dozens of other entitlements. No shame attached to welfare anymore.

Republicans: Message is safety net is fine, but take pride in earning your way.

Increasing number of voters: Hmmm. Welfare v. Work. Hmmm. Welfare v. Work. Let’s see. Welfare v. Work.

Result: Voters put their kids on the road to serfdom.

RushBaby on November 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3