To no-one’s surprise, Mitt Romney easily won Saturday’s primary caucus in Nevada.
It would be churlish not to point out that the victory was overwhelming, taking 50% of the vote and a 29% lead over the second-placed Newt Gingrich. Nevada confirmed that Romney is almost certain to be the Republican candidate in November. The results were:
- Romney: 16,486 (50%)
- Gingrich: 6,956 (21%)
- Paul: 6,175 (19%)
- Santorum: 3,277 (10%)
However, as I put in my last post on Nevada, it is also worth comparing what happened in the state four years ago. Romney won then as well, taking a near identical 51% that time around. But what changed this time was turnout: take a look at the graph below setting out the results this time alongside those from 2008′s primary:
The number of voters in the Republican primary in 2008 was 44,315, this time it was only 32,894: a 26% drop.
This should worry the Republicans, and indeed Romney. Their party was batting on a losing whicket in 2008 and this time around they have been trying to stoke up anti-Obama fervour, a president who after all has had negative approval ratings solidly for the last six months.
So, why did over 11,000 fewer Republicans bother to turn up to vote on Saturday? Well, there has been a slow but steady improvement in Obama’s approval ratings this year: they hit a net zero today (46%-46%), showing a slow upswing in his popularity as employment numbers improve. But it seems more as if the Republicans think that Romney is their most sensible choice who is best placed to fight in November, but that they are struggling to be very enthusiastic about it.
You will recall me identifying a similar trend in Iowa (where his vote dropped from 2008) and Florida last week. It all feels a little as if the Republicans have woken up to reality after the heady Tea Partying over the last three years, but with a bit of a hangover.
Comparing with 2008, the map has shifted a little too. Compare the map below from Saturday’s results with the 2008 one I posted earlier.
The first thing to note is that Romney won 14 counties this time, compared to 16 in 2008. Ron Paul’s margin in Nye County widened this time around from just over 1% last time to 17% this time around. Paul also won Esmeralda County, although as I noted in my earlier post, hardly anyone lives there: there were only 58 voters and Paul won 20 to Romney’s 19!
Gingrich took a county too, Mineral County, although again the numbers were small.
More worrying for Mitt are some of the places where he actually won. 69% of the state’s population live in Clark County, around Las Vegas, and whlist his share of the vote stayed about the same, his votes fell by 29% there from 2008 from 13,841 to 9,797.
Similarly, Romney’s number of votes fell by 30% in the second largest county, Washoe County around Reno. Comparing the two maps, you can see that Romney made up ground in the unpopulated north-central counties like Lander and Pershing whilst losing it all along the California border.
The way ahead
This is a busy week for primaries, the busiest in fact before we hit Super Tuesday on 6 March. Tomorrow, there are three contests:
- the Colorado caucus (should be an easy Romney win) on Tuesday
- the Minnesota caucus (won by Romney in 2008, but seen as more open this time around) on the same day. Gingrich has been putting in time here.
- a strange primary in Missouri which doesn’t select delegates, but is seen as indicative, also on Tuesday. McCain won the state in 2008, with Romney in third place.
- On Saturday, the results come out from the Maine caucuses, which started at the weekend. Romney won this as well last time, but Ron Paul is working the state hard to pull off an upset.
HERO
PRAT
VILLAIN
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
This is just a guess, but I’d actually be very surprised if it wasn’t true.
The drop in turn-out compared to 2008 can be explained simply by the fact that this time the GOP base is looking for a candidate to unseat an incumbent.
The record shows that incumbent Presidents can only be unseated when, as in 1980 or 1992, a third party challenger siphons off a sizeable chunk of their base. I see no sign of that happening this year – do you?
Mike, you make a good point about third party runs impacting outcomes in US presidential elections, and not only in incumbency situations – George Wallace in 1968 comes to mind. Having said that Reagan would have almost certainly won in 1980 anway, and I suspect Clinton would have done so too, given that Bush Sr had approval ratings in the 30s. What price Ron Paul running Third Party if Romney is the candidate?
My own view on the low turnout is that it is a combination of (i) a serious enthusiasm deficit for Romney amongst the Conservative base that these days is overwhelmingly the GOP (he is on any measure a woefully bad candidate, who Obama is very fortunate to have as is opponent), (ii) a sense of inevitability around Romney – tight races drive up turnout, (iii) the lack of a single conservative candidate who the base could really rally around as we saw with the almost absurd succession of anti-Romneys – had Palin (at least the 2009 version rather than the 2011 version) decided to run, I think we might be seeing something very different.
{ 3 trackbacks }