Subject: Re: US HOUSE ELECTIONS AND NATIONAL EXIT POLL OBSERVATIONS
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 11:11:57 -0500

got it but I'm confused:

by the part in yellow - how is that an increase from 2010 - was 2010 12-13%
below 79?

Gersh paragraph on AA vote:

The African-American vote was again instrumental in the success of several
 Democratic House voters.  Even though Democrats won 89% of the
African-American vote in 2014, it is a remember of how difficult it will be
to approach 95% without President Obama on the ballot,. Democrats held an
83% advantage among Black voters in 2012 House elections, compared to 79%
this year. The share of the Black vote increased from 12% to 13% from 2010
to 2014.

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Gersh sent me to memo he did for Pelosi...a little self congratulatory for
> DCCC, but helpful nonetheless.
> Cheryl, I think you were off the call yesterday when we were talking about
> this, but, from what I'm seeing, AA vote was proportionally better than
> 2010 IN DISTRICTS/STATES WHERE A GOOD FIELD PROGRAM WAS RUN (important
> qualifier!)  So the idea that AA vote fell off everywhere proportional to
> other voters isn't true.  In some cases the opposite happened.  And where
> smart programs were run, we got the 1-4 point lift field is expected to
> deliver.  For example, AA voters were 24% of the electorate in Louisiana in
> 2010.  They were 30% this year.  But when you're getting 18% of the white
> vote, you just can't win.  HRC will have a similar, although MUCH easier
> challenge when AA support drops to, say, 90% (vs 95-98% for Obama) and she
> needs to get white vote performance over 40%.
>
> Gersh paragraph on AA vote:
>
> The African-American vote was again instrumental in the success of several
>  Democratic House voters.  Even though Democrats won 89% of the
> African-American vote in 2014, it is a remember of how difficult it will be
> to approach 95% without President Obama on the ballot,. Democrats held an
> 83% advantage among Black voters in 2012 House elections, compared to 79%
> this year. The share of the Black vote increased from 12% to 13% from 2010
> to 2014.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:45 AM
> Subject: US HOUSE ELECTIONS AND NATIONAL EXIT POLL OBSERVATIONS
> To: [email-masked]
>
>
>  OVERVIEW AND HISTORY
>
> As of November 9, 2014, slightly more than 75 million votes have been cast
> in US House elections, with Republicans holding a 6.8% advantage over
> Democrats; mirroring the 6.8% Republican margin in 2010. Yet Democrats lost
> 63 seats in 2010, and appear to have relinquished only 12-15 seats this
> year. Now it is true thatf the moderate level of losses is the number of
> seats taken out of play in 2010, it is also apparent that Democrats have
> once again won a majority of the mostly closely contested races in this
> year's election.. This is attributable to a changein strategy from offense
> to defense in early October. Moreover, the state of play was accurately
> digested by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee when undecided
> voters starting making up their minds and trended Republican.
>
> The 6th year of a President's tenure is habitually unfavorable for the
> incumbent's party. Since 1966, the average loss has been 19.5 seats for a
> President in his second midterm. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan's second
> midterm yielded a modest 6 seat loss in 1986, while Democrats gained 5
> seats in the second term of the Clinton Administration in 1998..
>
> Accentuating the obstacles for incumbent parties in midterm elections, in
> 24 of 26 midterms since 1914. the opposition gained seats.  Democrats
> sustained even greater losses in the last two midterms. President's Obama's
> party lost 75-78 seats in 2006 and 2010, compared to a net loss of 24.5
> seats for Bill Clinton and 11 seats for George W. Bush. Obama's job
> approval has hovered around the 42% level, about 7% below the presidential
> midterm average over the past 60 years.
>
> 2014 OVERALL LANDSCAPE
>
> As already depicted, Democrats lost 12-15 seats last week, with a popular
> vote deficit currently 6.8%. The partisan composition of the electorate was
> virtually unchanged from 2010 - 35% Democrats, 36% Republican and 29%
> Independent -  35%-35%-29% in 2010.  House Democrats won 92% of their own
> party voters and only 5% of Republican voters. The Republican advantage
> among Independents was 12% - a 7% reduction relative to their share of the
> 2010 Independent vote, but still a fatal margin for Democrats. . This data
> point may be overstated, as a majority of the Independents are partisan
> leaners in one direction or the other. In 2012, Democrats enjoyed a 5%
> partisan advantage, as more non-white voters participated in the election.
> In recent years, the electorate has been 5% less white in presidential
> election years.
>
> The gender gap expanded in 2014, with men voting 51%-47% Democratic, a 2%
> increase over the 2010 election. Conversely, Republicans won the male vote
> by 16%, an offestting 2% increase, with the overall gender gap reaching
> 20%. While appearing insignificant, the gender gap may have played a large
> role in the outcome of selected House races. In crucial midterm states -
> New York, Florida and California, initial exit poll data reveals the share
> of the male vote increased over 2010, and actually was larger than in the
> female share in New York, where Democrats lost 3 House seats.
>
> Contributing to the overall decline in the total House vote, Latinos
> comprised only 8% of the electorate. Although,8% was the same percentage as
> in 2010, the rapid growth of the Latino population suggested that its share
> would rise in 2014.  Although Democrats won the Latino vote by 62%-36%,
> their margin decreased by 4% compared to 2010, and by 12% relative to
> 2012.,  Democrats were counting on emulating the 71% Hispanic share of the
> vote earned in 2012. Low Latino turnout clearly cost Democrats Texas 23,
> and may have contributed to any losses that materialize in California.
> Competing in seats held by Republicans, for example California 10 and 21
> and Colorado 6 were impossible without a large vote from Hispanic voters.
> Since 2012 when Republicans won less than 30% of the Hispanic vote, it
> would seem that matching President Obama's  46% margin may be extremely
> challenging now and in the future, unless the immigration debate explodes
> and eclipses other concerns. ..
>
> The African-American vote was again instrumental in the success of several
>  Democratic House voters.  Even though Democrats won 89% of the
> African-American vote in 2014, it is a remember of how difficult it will be
> to approach 95% without President Obama on the ballot,. Democrats held an
> 83% advantage among Black voters in 2012 House elections, compared to 79%
> this year. The share of the Black vote increased from 12% to 13% from 2010
> to 2014.
>
> Looking at individual states, there are several alarming trends to note,
> although one must be cautious in the interpretation of the individual state
> exit poll data.
>
> ILLINOIS - The state-wide share of Latino voters declined from 8% to 6%
> between 2010 and 2014. The African-American voted declined from 19% to 18%.
> While we have no discernible data about the Asian vote, it is important to
> point out that national exit polls suggested a large decline in the
> Democratic share of Asians. This may have contributed to the loss of Brad
> Schneider in Illinois 10, and closer than expected victories for Tammy
> Duckworth and Bill Foster.
>
> NEW YORK - The margin, rather than the outcome, were surprises in New York
> 1 (Bishop) and especially New York 24 (Maffei). According to exit polls,
> the share of African-American voters was down from 18% in 2010 to only 13%
> in 2014. While the margin may be inflated, it is clear that
> African-Americans were unmotivated in 2014.
>
> CALIFORNIA - Despite impressive Hispanic population growth, the share of
> the total declined from 22% to
> 20% compared to the previous midterm. Moreover, the African American vote
> was down from 10% to 8%. Examining the alarming decline in total votes in
> selected congressional districts, we know low turnout contributed to the
> potential defeats of Ami Bear (California 7) and Jim Costat (California
> 16), along with the closer than anticipated  victories of Pete Aguilar
> (California 31) and Raul Ruiz (California 36).
>
> Following discernible trends of the past few elections, the share of
> voters under 30 was only 13% in 2014, and the Democratic vote margin was a
> modest 7%. Conversely voters over 65 represented 20% of the total
> electorate, according Republicans a 16% margin.
>
> The always crucial Catholic vote favored Republicans by 9%, and the GOP
> share of the Jewish vote increased to 33%.
>
> Perhaps the most critical data point from the midterm election was the
> loss of middle class voters earning $50,000 to $100,000 a year who favored
> Republican House candidates by an 11% margin.
>
> CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS .
>
> Contests in Arizona 2, California 7 and 16, and to a lesser extent,
> California 26 and New York 25 may still be undecided. It appears that
> Democrats lost 12-15 seats in this year's midterm election.
>
> Democrats won only 3 Republican held seats, defeating Republican
> incumbents in Nebraska 2 (Terry) and Florida 2 (Graham), while adding an
> open seat victory in California 31 (Miller).
>
> Conversely, Republicans ousted between 10 and 13 Democratic incumbents:
> Florida 26 (Garcia), Georgia 12 (Barrow), Illinois 10 (Schneider), Illinois
> 12 (Enyart), Nevada 4 (Horsford), New Hampshire 1 (Shea-Porter), New York 1
> (Bishop), New York 24 (Maffei), Texas 23 (Gallego) and West Virginia 3
> (Rahall) The fate of California 7 (Bera), California 16 (Costa) and Arizona
> 2 (Barber) is still unknown.
>
> Democrats also lost open seats in Iowa 1 (Braley), a close race that was
> impacted by the 8% defeat sustained by Bruce Braley in the Iowa  US Senate
> race; Maine 2 (Michaud), a surprising result, given that a conservative 3rd
> party candidate amassed 11% of the vote, seemingly an impediment to the
> successful Republican candidate. Democrats, as anticipated lost 3 other
> open seats in New York 21 (Owens), North Carolina 7(McIntyre) and a closer
> than anticipated defeat in Utah 4 (Mathieson).  All of these losses,
> including the incumbent defeats materialized in districts defined as
> marginal, or likelh to go Republican. by the DCCC.
>
> There were only a limited number of defeats in Republican districts
> targeted by the DCCC. Predictably, when Mark Pryor's fortunes declined in
> the Arkansas US Senate race, Pat Hayes lost a chance to win in Arkansas 2.
> Similarly  the landslide victory of Shelley Moore Capito in the West
> Virginia Senate contest doomed the strong campaign waged by Nick Casey in
> West Virginia 2. Still Casey came within 4 points of victory. Braley's
> anemic performance to a larger than expected defeat for Stacey Appel in the
> marginal 3rd district of Iowa, another race that was heavily targeted.
>
> Rated as vulnerable, Democrats retained open seats in Massachusetts 6
> (Tierney) and, Hawaii 1 (Hanabusa);   Tempted to enter
> potentially .marginal open seat contests in Virginia 10, Michigan 8, New
> Jersey 3, Pennsylvania 6 and Arkansas 4, none of these races were
> competitive at the end of the day. A few marginal district Republican
> incumbents - Colorado 6 (Coffman), Michigan 1 (Benishek), Illinois 13
> (Davis), Kansa 2 (Jenkins), Kansas 3 (Yoder), North Dakota 1 (Cramer),
> Michigan 6 (Upton), Michigan 7 (Walberg), Minnesota 2 (Kline), Pennsylvania
> 8 (Fitzpatrick), California 10 (Denham), California 21 (Valadao) and New
> York 23 (Reed) were prudently either not initially targeted,  or abandoned
> when the final result became transparent.  The less said about the
> potentially promising New York 11 race the better. Dominic Recchia ran an
> incompetent campaign. Moreover, a more qualified candidate may well have
> lost, given the disappointing turnout among Hispanics and Asians.       ,
>
> A WORD ABOUT INCUMBENT RACES
>
> As already reviewed, Democrats lost 10-13 incumbents. Earlier in the
> cycle, when the Republican wave was far less conspicuous, I believed that
> Democrats would lose 8 or more incumbents, even in a more positive
> electoral environment. The ultimate goal of fighting the Republicans to a
> draw, or even gaining seats, was predicated on winning more Republican
> districts. When the Republican advantage became more obvious, it was no
> longer feasible to compete in more than a handful of GOP districts.
>
> Had a strategic judgment not been made to emphasize incumbent protection,
> it is probable that more Democratic incumbents would have succumbed to the
> national trend, potentially mirroring what happened in 2010.
>
> The following incumbent Democrats were reelected in marginal or even
> Republican leaning districts.  Frontline and other marginal members across
> the country won against the backdrop of a negative national mood. :
>
> ARIZONA 1 - Kirkpatrick
> ARIZONA 9 - Sinema
> CALIFORNIA 24 - Capps
> CALIFORNIA 26 - Brownlee
> CALIFORNIA 36 - Ruiz
> CALIFORNIA 52 - Peters
> CONNECTICUT 6 - Esty
> FLORIDA 18 - Murphy
> ILLINOIS 17 - Bustos
> IOWA 2 - Loebsack
> MINNESOTA 7 - Peterson
> MINNESOTA 8 - Nolan
> NEW HAMPSHIRE 2 - Kuster
> NEW YORK 18 - Maloney
> WASHINGTON 1 - Del Benne
>
> This list may later include Arizona 2, California 7 and 16, as duly noted.
>
> Although all other Democratic incumbents were reelected, some faced
> unexpectedly close contests. Why? : Clearly the national mood contributed
> to the potential loses. Other factors need to be noted: Unprecedented low
> turnout buffeted Louise Slaughter in New York 25 (Rochester area) and Jim
> Costa (Fresno) in California 16.  Although he eventually won by 4%, Rep.
> Jim Himes race was unexpectedly tight as a result of low turnout in the
> urban portion of Connecticut 4, and a shocking outcome in the Maryland
> gubernatorial contest badly eroded support and turnout for John Delaney in
> Maryland 6.  The absence of a state-wide election for Governor or US
> Senator clearly reduced the margin of victory for Emmanuel Cleaver in
> Missouri 5 (Kansas City).
>
> A WORD ABOUT 2016
>
> Realistically, regaining a House majority is an extremely remote prospect
> in 2016. A deficit of 30-33 seats is too much of a burden. Yet an expanded
> electorate, with more youth, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics, will
> generate an environment favorable to gaining seats, perhaps even a
> considerable number.
>
> Gaining even 10 sears, however, is a formidable task. Due to the second
> consecutive cycle of DCCC success in winning more close races than
> Republicans, the list of Democrats winning reelection by 10% or less will
> be 29-32 districts, compared to only 15-18 for Republicans. This is far
> from the only measure of potential marginality, but it is an initial
> indicator. Districts such as New Jersey 2, 3 and 5, New York 11 and 24,
> Pennsylvania 6 and 8, California 10 and 21, Florida 13, Iowa 3, Kansas 3,
> Kentucky 6, Michigan 1, Minnesota 2 and 3, Nevada 3,  Washington 3 and
> Wisconsin 7, are likely to be more competitive than they were in 2014. None
> of these districts were decided by less than 10% this year.;
>
>
>
>