The Rise of Non-White Voters: Why The Racial Composition Of National 2016 Election Polls May Be Missing The Mark

Exit polling indicates that the non-white share of the electorate has increased by 2-4% in every presidential election since 1992. Picture courtesy of Jacquelyn Martin/A.P.

The Cook Political Report's Political Analyst David Wasserman recently tweeted the message below, regarding the likely racial make-up of the 2016 presidential election:

New @CookPolitical: White % of electorate may fall from 72% to 70%, Latinos & Asians/Others each up 1%, AA % stable: http://t.co/lMsalsgl5L

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) June 19, 2015

Wasserman's tweet revives a point made very shortly following the 2012 election, when I posited that based on demographic shifts since 1992, white voters could expect to make up anywhere between 68-70% of the 2016 electorate.  Why? Because the white share of the presidential vote has dropped between two and four points every cycle since 1992.

Well, the prognosticators at The Cook Political Report have spoken. And given their level of expertise in these matters, I'll happily give them the benefit of the doubt and go with their estimate - the 2016 electorate should be roughly 70% white, and 30% non-white.

Based on Wasserman's analysis, it might be a bit surprising to learn that the racial composition of some pollsters' surveys looks little like his assumption of the 2016 electorate. Democratic firm Public Policy Polling's most recent national survey found likely voters identifying as 74% white, and 26% non-white. If PPP's past success boils down to, what their director Tom Jensen called in 2013 "... a well informed but still not entirely empirical hunch," you have to wonder what less-than-empirical hunch led them to peg the 2016 electorate at 74% white, 26% nonwhite. These figures represent an even LESS racially diverse electorate than the one that showed up in the 2012 presidential election. And as I've already noted, the electorate has become MORE racially diverse in every presidential election since 1992. In other words, for the 2016 electorate to resemble PPP's racial composition, a major reversal of precedent is required.

Polling Update: Hillary Clinton's Image Dinged In Wake of Email Scandal, Though The Injuries Are Minor

Photo courtesy of Yana Paskova/Getty Images

In the seemingly never-ending spectacle that is the modern day presidential campaign, the month of March 2015 will likely be remembered for the New York Times story revealing Hillary Clinton skirted State Department rules requiring work-related email retention. The fact that the former New York Senator was conducting government business over a private, in-home family email server dominated 2016 news for days afterwards. Naturally, three weeks into this story, the headlines and questions have taken a toll on Clinton's image.

The days of soaring, rockstar-like favorability ratings have come to an end for Mrs. Clinton (though this trend was emerging even before 'emailgate'). In fact, her post-scandal numbers more closely resemble the contentious days of the 2008 Democratic Primary than the lofty highs from her stint as Secretary of State.

Of the nine surveys to measure Clinton's favorability rating before and after the email scandal broke, all but one found her net favorable rating had dropped in its aftermath. The one that did not was conducted March 1-5, even though the email story broke late in the day on March 2, and didn't reach peak media fervor until days later. The poll was also completed five days before Hillary's largely-panned press conference on March 10.

Beyond the NBC/WSJ poll, Clinton's net favorable rating dropped anywhere from six to twenty-four points before and after the story broke. Economist/YouGov has taken two polls since the Clinton scandal broke, and has measured the smallest drop (from 52/44% on July 7-10, 2014, to an average 48/46% post-controversy).

The post-controversy Economist/YouGov numbers represent an average of two surveys, one conducted on March 14-16 and March 21-23, 2015.

Public Policy Polling, of all pollsters, measured Hillary's largest favorability drop. Granted, their pre-email story survey is two years old. Regardless, a 56/37% to 43/48% drop is stark nonetheless.

Clinton averaged a 52/38% favorable/unfavorable rating among pollsters that tested her favorability both before and after the email story. She averaged 46/43% after the story broke.

Other pollsters measured the effect of the email story on Hillary's public image in different ways, and the results are more mixed for the former First Lady.

Economist/YouGov, for example, conducted extensive post-email polling on Clinton, and found doubts about her sincerity up sharply from last year.

On the other hand, a Republican pollster found that just 36% of Americans have a less favorable view Mrs. Clinton as a result of the email scandal. Twenty-nine percent say the same in a recent CBS News survey. For comparison, 45% held a less favorable view of Mitt Romney as a result of the infamous "47%" remark in the early fall of 2012. Thirty-two percent felt the same about Barack Obama's 'You didn't build that' remark earlier that same year.

Furthermore, Hillary's outstanding numbers in the 2016 Democratic Primary are still in great shape:

*The pre-email scandal PPP poll in Wisconsin included former home-state Senator Russ Feingold as a 2016 Democratic Presidential primary candidate, while the post-email scandal survey did not. ^The post-controversy Economist/YouGov numbers represent an average of two surveys, one conducted on March 14-16 and March 21-23, 2015.

And while Mrs. Clinton's lead over her potential 2016 GOP contenders dropped across the board in the latest CNN poll, she still maintains double-digit leads against all of them.

It may sound fair to say the Clinton's are nothing if not deceitful. But as they've shown time and time again, they are resilient as well. While emailgate has undoubtedly been unhelpful for Hillaryland, it's not as bad as it could be, and seems far from fatal. Absent new information, Clinton will survive with minor scrapes and bruises.


Updated on March 25 to include new St. Leo University, PPP, Economist/YouGov, and CBS News polls. 

Despite Gosnell Trial, slew of new state restrictions, public opinion still mostly pro-choice on abortion

Dated January 22, 1973. Photo courtesy of veracitystew.com.

Over the last few weeks, Americans have heard a flurry of stories regarding abortion (or not). From the mass infanticide that occurred at the hands of Dr. Kermit Gosnell at a Pennsylvania abortion clinic, to tough new restrictions being enacted in four states, the always-controversial topic has returned to the center of public debate. And according to at least one source, a narrow majority now think abortion should be illegal with or without exceptions, even as 53% say they support gay marriage.

But contrary to NBC's recent finding, a close look at the entirety of abortion polling over the last two years indicates Americans are generally more supportive of abortion rights than not, with less than a quarter supporting a blanket ban. However, as often the case, abortion polling data is highly predicated on question wording/phrasing.

This article takes a look at the often complex nature of abortion polling from January 2011 to present, using surveys compiled from pollingreport.com, argjournal.blogspot.com, and other assorted internet searches. 
Now, back to question wording.

Opinions on abortion are all over the map, depending on how the pollster chooses to phrase the question and frame the debate. For example, opposition to the procedure tends to run a bit higher than average when pollsters specifically offer the rape/incest/life of mother exception as an answer option. In fact, the above referenced NBC/WSJ poll showing 52% opposing abortion with or without restrictions specifically asked: "Which comes closest to your view on abortion--abortion should always be legal, should be legal most of the time, should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life, or abortion should be illegal without any exception?"

Over the last two years, 5 polls have been taken in which the abortion question contained some variation of the rape/incest/life of mother option, and by a 50-48% margin, respondents felt abortion should be illegal with or without exception. 48% of respondents said abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances:

* Marist asks: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your opinion on abortion: 1) abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy. 2) abortion should be allowed only during the first 6 months of a pregnancy, 3) abortion should be allowed only during the first 3 months of a pregnancy, 4) abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest , or to save the life of the mother, 5) abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother, or 6) abortion should never be permitted under any circumstance."                                                                                                 ** CBS asks whether abortions should be 1)"permitted in all cases," (35%) 2) "permitted with greater restrictions," (13%) 3) "only in cases of rape/incest/save woman's life," (27%) 4) "only to save woman's life," (10%) OR 5) "not permitted at all." (11%)

There is only one other abortion question phrasing that yields a net negative number of people supporting legal abortion. When both CNN and Gallup pollsters asked respondents whether they felt abortion should be legal under any circumstance, most circumstances, a few circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances, an average 58% of respondents came down more on the pro-life side, while just 39% felt abortion should be available under any or most circumstances: