Could Jim Matheson have beaten Orrin Hatch?

Posted on November 20, 2012 by Adam Brown

Matheson does not have as much appeal statewide as in the fourth district

This analysis was performed by Robert Richards, a student research fellow at BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy (“like” CSED on Facebook), in collaboration with CSED faculty. The writing is mostly his. Inquiries about this research should come to Adam Brown or Quin Monson.

After the 2011 redistricting in Utah, Representative Jim Matheson had an important decision to make. Should he run in the new fourth district, where more of his former constituents lived, or in the second district, where he currently resides? Or should he set his sights on statewide office and challenge either Orrin Hatch or Gary Herbert? Matheson chose the fourth district, but what if he had chosen one of the other three options?

On the Utah Colleges Exit Poll, we asked voters statewide how they would have voted in a hypothetical Hatch/Matheson Senate race. The table below shows the outcome of our hypothetical Senate election, in which Orrin Hatch wins quite handily among this year’s voters.1

If the contest for U.S. Senate had been between Orrin Hatch, Republican, against Jim Matheson, Democrat, who would you have voted for?
Orrin Hatch 55%
Jim Matheson 34%
Someone else 6%
Don’t know 6%

So what would Jim Matheson have to do to win statewide office in this scenario? The graph below shows the partisan breakdown of his winning coalition of voters in the fourth district, compared to the partisan breakdown of those who said they would have voted for him in a Senate election against Senator Hatch. The largest gap between the two lines is in the category of weak Republicans and independents who lean Republican. Matheson has won for a decade in Republican-majority districts by persuading these less-committed Republicans to cross party lines and vote for him (including this year). Matheson does not have as much appeal statewide as in the fourth district, though. This is the gap Matheson would have to focus on closing to win a statewide election.

Percent of voters (by partisanship) who would support Jim Matheson over Orrin Hatch in a hypothetical Senate race

Keep in mind that the fourth district results shown above are for that district only. Assembling a similar winning coalition for a Senate campaign would have to be done statewide. Weak and independent Republicans throughout the rest of the state may not be as friendly to Matheson as the ones in his district.2

Still, the graph above suggests that Matheson could have been within striking distance of taking Orrin Hatch’s Senate seat. He has proven that he can overcome strong Republican challenges in two different House districts. Unless an actual Matheson statewide campaign becomes a reality, this question must remain hypothetical. But that doesn’t mean researchers and political junkies can’t wonder.

Methodological Note

The Utah Colleges Exit Poll was conducted on Election Day 2012 by student volunteers from various colleges and universities in the state of Utah. The question used in this analysis appeared on one of the statewide forms. Data was weighted according to the sampling design. You can read further details about the exit poll in a previous post.

About Adam Brown: Adam Brown is an associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University and a research fellow with the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. You can learn more about him at his website.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

How Does Jim Matheson Keep Winning?

Posted on November 20, 2012 by Quin Monson

It’s simple math. For Democrats to win in Utah, they must win over a substantial share of Republican voters.

This analysis was performed by Alissa Wilkinson, a student research fellow at BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy (like us on Facebook), in collaboration with CSED faculty.  Inquiries about this research should come to Quin Monson.

Representative Jim Matheson has won a very narrow victory over Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love in one of the most hotly contested U.S. House races this year.  The final tally will be certified by the state next week, but now that the counties have finished their counting he appears to have hung on by only 768 votes (hat tip @RobertGehrke).

Republicans have tried to oust Matheson before and they came very close in 2002 and 2010. Like 2002, in 2012 Matheson faced the challenge of introducing himself to new potential constituents.  Moving into a new district is risky business for any elected official, but especially so for a Democrat in a Republican state.  A Democrat just can’t win on Democratic votes alone in Utah. It’s simple math.

So how does Jim Matheson continue to win?  He gets enough Republican votes–sometimes just barely enough. This year Matheson won 23 percent of the Republican vote. When we classify Republicans we include independents who “lean” towards the Republican Party as well as “not so strong” Republicans (also labeled “weak” Republicans) and “strong” Republicans.

Drawing on 2012 Utah Colleges Exit Poll data, the figure below shows that Jim Matheson captured 11 percent of strong Republicans’ votes. These numbers are even more impressive when contrasted with Mia Love who only managed to win 3 percent from strong Democrats.  He won more than a third of both not so strong Republicans and independent leaning Republicans.

How does 2012 compare with earlier years?  The figure below uses Utah Colleges Exit Poll data from 2000 through 2012 to show that Matheson has consistently won a significant share of Republican votes.  Note that in 2002 (also a redistricting year), Jim Matheson won in a more heavily Republican district than he had in the previous election. Comparing 2002 to 2012, Matheson did better among not so strong and strong Republicans while losing a small number of independent leaning Republicans. 2008 was by far Representative Matheson’s best year among Republicans, where he obtained over 60 percent of not so strong Republicans’ votes and even 32 percent of strong Republicans.

So, why can’t Jim Matheson be beaten? It’s simple. He consistently maintains an overwhelming majority of Democratic votes as well as a significant percentage of the Republican votes. It’s simple math. For Democrats to win in Utah, they must win over a substantial share of Republican voters.

About Quin Monson: Quin Monson is Associate Professor of Political Science and a Senior Scholar with the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on How Does Jim Matheson Keep Winning?

How did Ben McAdams win?

Posted on November 20, 2012 by Kelly Patterson

How did McAdams win?  First, he kept his base and won big among independents.

This analysis was performed by Carlos Madrid, a student in the class that organized the Utah Colleges Exit Poll.  The writing is mostly his. Inquiries about this research should come to Kelly D. Patterson

Ben McAdam’s victory in the Salt County Mayor’s race illustrates how a Democratic candidate can piece together a winning coalition.  Contrary to pre-election polls that showed him tied with Republican Mark Crockett, McAdams won the election by a comfortable ten-point margin.

How did McAdams win?  First, he kept his base and won big among independents.  He received 97% of the vote from those who identify as “strong Democrats” and 95% of the  “Not So Strong Democrats.” He received 66% of the Pure Independents.

Second, he attracted support from Republicans.  This was the key to his larger than expected victory.  He received 38% of the “Independent leaning Republicans” and 11% of the “strong Republicans,” who generally are the most loyal Republicans,.

Third, he created a coalition that combined voters from different faiths.  On Election Day, 50% of Salt Lake County voters classified themselves as LDS.  And while the proportion of LDS voters in Salt Lake County is about 16 percentage points less than the state as a whole, successful candidates in the county must still attract at least a share of this group.  McAdams received 39% of the LDS vote in Salt Lake County and received 73% from those from other faiths.  He also attracted the support of 60% of those who say they have no religious affiliation.

Finally, McAdams, like other Democrats in the state and nation, received overwhelming support from Latino voters.  He garnered 88% percent of the Latino vote.

Democrats have a difficult time in the state of Utah, but there are electoral jurisdictions where they can win.  They do this by running up large margins among Democrats and their affiliated groups and by securing a modest but critical share from the Republican party.

About Kelly Patterson: Kelly Patterson is a professor of political science at Brigham Young University and a senior scholar at the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on How did Ben McAdams win?

Can Mia Love Still Win?

Posted on November 19, 2012 by Quin Monson

If the Utah Colleges Exit Poll estimate accurately reflects all absentee voters, Love will make up some of the current deficit but eventually lose by 1,572 votes.

This analysis was performed by Matthew Frei, a student research fellow at BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy (like us on Facebook), in collaboration with CSED faculty. The writing is mostly his. Inquiries about this research should come to Quin Monson.

Counties in Utah’s 4th congressional district have been working long hours since election day to count absentee and provisional ballots. November 20th is the state-mandated deadline for counties to publish final vote totals. With such a close race in Utah’s fourth congressional district, the outcome will depend on absentee and provisional ballots tallies. Most of those ballots were cast by voters in Salt Lake County, but some are also from Utah, Juab, and Sanpete Counties.

Currently, Representative Matheson is leading Republican challenger Mia Love by only 2,646 votes. We don’t know exactly how many ballots remain to be counted. So, let’s take a look at a few scenarios. The chart below show the proportion of uncounted ballots Mia Love would have to win to close the gap. The numbers in the chart below assume that 2.6% of uncounted ballots will be cast for someone other than Matheson or Love.
So, how likely is it that Love could win?

According to the Salt Lake Tribune there are about 28,700 absentee ballots that remain to be counted.  To win, Mia Love would have to take about 53.32% of the absentee ballots.1 How likely is that? This year, our Utah Colleges Exit Poll included a sample of early voters. 214 of the absentee voters surveyed live in the 4th congressional district. Among those voters, Mia Love won 51.4%, Jim Matheson won 47.7%, with the rest going to someone else. If the Utah Colleges Exit Poll estimate accurately reflects all absentee voters, Love will make up some of the current deficit but eventually lose by 1,572 votes. It is important to note that there is a 6.7% margin of error around our projection of Mia Love’s absentee vote percentage.  Mia Love’s actual percentage could be between 58.1% and 44.7% of absentee votes.

The bottom line: Mia Love could still be elected, but this is unlikely.  While she is leading among absentee voters in our sample, the lead doesn’t appear to be big enough to overtake him (and the uncertainty around the estimate is substantial).  Love would need either a much larger number of uncounted absentee ballots or a larger win among the current estimated number of absentee ballots.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Nationwide, single member districts hurt Democrats

Posted on November 16, 2012 by Adam Brown

No matter who controls the Utah Legislature, it will be hard for Democrats to win as many legislative seats in Utah as their popular vote might suggest.

I wrote recently that single member districts hurt the minority party, whatever the minority party might be. (In Utah, that means Democrats.)

Meanwhile, recent research is also showing that single member districts hurt Democrats specifically, whether they are the minority or not. A major reason: Democrats have their support concentrated in urban areas. (Sound familiar?) That means Democrats in Utah face a double whammy–not only are they the minority party, they are also the urban party.

Here’s one writeup of this recent research, posted today at The Monkey Cage (every political scientist’s favorite blog, and the inspiration for our own blog–if you like how we try to connect political science methods to Utah politics here at Utah Data Points, you should definitely follow The Monkey Cage to see a similar approach to national politics). From the post:

States that are heavily urbanized … are more distorted against Democrats than more rural states…. Indeed, urbanization has a negative and significant effect on the difference between seats won by Democrats and expected seats, even after controlling for the party in control of redistricting.

Utah is incredibly urbanized, with 75.4% of the population living in only 4 of 29 counties (Utah, Salt Lake, Davis, Weber), despite these counties containing only 4.4% of the state’s dry land. As a result, no matter who controls the Utah Legislature, it will be hard for Democrats to win as many legislative seats in Utah as their popular vote might suggest.

Update: Edited for clarity.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Nationwide, single member districts hurt Democrats

Did gerrymandering produce Republican gains in the Utah Legislature?

Posted on November 13, 2012 by Adam Brown

Single member districts are always going to give the minority party fewer seats than votes, and the disparity gets larger as the minority party gets smaller.

I wrote last week that the 2013 Utah Legislature will be the second-most Republican group in the past 80 years. Today I saw that the Tribune wrote up a good story framed around my analysis.

The story repeated a common misconception that is worth clearing up. The misconception arises from two statistics that stand at odds with each other:

  • In last week’s elections, the median Democratic candidate in Utah’s 75 House races won 28% of the vote.
  • Despite winning 28% of the vote, Democrats won only 19% of the seats.

Commenting on the 19% vs 28% difference in the House, here’s what Democratic chair Jim Dabakis told the Tribune: “Those numbers are prima facie [self-evident] evidence of gerrymandering by Republicans.” He continued, “They have far more offices than they deserve from the votes they received because of how they twisted boundaries.”

Let’s be clear about this. The 19% vs 28% difference is not prima facie evidence of gerrymandering. I’ll explain why.

The “cube law” of single member districts

Political scientists have long known that single member districts distort the relationship between votes and seats. In fact, the classic “cube law” predicted the following relationship between votes and seats in an electoral system structured the way ours is1:

The cube law, as applied to Utah’s single member district electoral system

The Democrats won 28% of the vote. The cube law pictured above would predict that a party winning 28% of the vote would win only 6% of the legislative seats in the absence of any gerrymandering at all. Democrats won far more than 6% of the seats last week; they won 19%. They outperformed the prediction significantly. Why? It has to do with where Democrats live.

Why residential patterns matter

Imagine if Utah’s Democratic voters were sprinkled evenly around the state rather than concentrated in Salt Lake County and a few other areas. If that were the case, then their 28% of votes would produce 0% of seats; every Republican candidate would win by exactly a 72-28 margin, without any gerrymandering at all.

Given that people usually don’t distribute themselves evenly, but in a more haphazard  fashion, the cube law instead predicts a more generous outcome: 6% of the seats for the minority.

As it happens, people in Utah tend to cluster a bit more than that. Because Democrats are clustered in Salt Lake County, they won several seats there. However, an awful lot of the Democratic votes cast elsewhere were wasted in places like Utah County. Even if Democrats were given complete authority to draw legislative district lines in Utah County however they wish, there is no map that they could draw that would ensure a single legislative district in the County with anything close to a Democratic majority. (Here’s the proof.)

The punchline: Single member districts are always going to give the minority party fewer seats than votes, and the disparity gets larger as the minority party gets smaller. I discussed this pattern at length in a previous post (see “Do single member districts hurt Democrats?“).

It’s still possible that a gerrymander happened, but the 19% vs 28% difference is not evidence of it–you have to look elsewhere for evidence. Meanwhile, if you want 28% of the vote to produce 28% of the seats, you have to change our electoral system to proportional representation.

Okay, but did a gerrymander happen?

In the case of Christine Watkins, it might have. The legislature moved a big chunk of (conservative) Duchesne County into her district, which was previously dominated by Carbon County. Maybe that change was made for partisan reasons; maybe it was made for demographic reasons. No matter the reason, it may have contributed to her narrow loss. If it was gerrymandered to hurt her, though, I’m puzzled why Rep. Watkins voted in favor of the change.

Then again, maybe the reason for her loss is that Carbon County has moved dramatically away from the Democratic Party over the past few elections. In fact, between 1992 and 2008 Carbon County made a bigger move to the right than any other county in Utah.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What is the demographic future of the two-party system in Utah?

Posted on November 9, 2012 by Kelly Patterson

This analysis was performed by Matthew Frei, a student research fellow at BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy (like us on Facebook), in collaboration with CSED faculty. The writing is mostly his. Inquiries about this research should come to Kelly Patterson. 

The nervous handwringing over the condition of the national Republican Party has not quite reached Utah, but it probably will in coming years.

National exit polls showed that Latinos made up 10% of the vote on election day. 71% of those voters supported President Obama.

Utah, for the moment, seems to be bucking that trend. While 13% of Utah residents are of Hispanic or Latino descent (compared to about 17% nationally), Utah Colleges Exit poll results show that only about 5.2% of Utah voters are Latino (It was 4.5% in 2008). While Latinos are the second largest ethnic group in the Utah electorate, they are still dwarfed by the 89% of the state’s electorate that is white.

The voting patterns of Latinos are different from those of whites in Utah as well. 59% of Latinos in the state voted for President Obama this year. In only one of the races featured below did the Latinos give a majority of their vote to a Republican candidate (Jason Chaffetz in the 3rd congressional district).

Voting Patterns for Hispanic/Latino

President

Mitt Romney 37%
Barack Obama 59%

Governor

Gary Herbert 37%
Peter Cooke 58%

Senate

Orrin Hatch 39%
Scott Howell 58%

1st Congressional District

Rob Bishop 41%
Donna McAleer 54%

2nd Congressional District

Chris Stewart 20%
Jay Seegmiller 74%

3rd Congressional District

Jason Chaffetz 53%
Soren Simonsen 45%

4th Congressional District

Mia Love 27%
Jim Matheson 71%

As the Latino population continues to grow nationally and in Utah, Republicans and Democrats at both levels will need to stand up and take notice. Republicans will need to convince Latinos that they care about their issues. Democrats will need to spend more time mobilizing those voters who already seem disposed to support them.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What is the demographic future of the two-party system in Utah?

Introducing the 2nd most Republican Utah Legislature in 80 years

Posted on November 7, 2012 by Adam Brown

Utah’s Republicans may have lost the presidency, but they can rejoice in their increased dominance of the state government.

Preliminary results suggest that Republicans picked up 3 seats in the Utah House and 2 in the Utah Senate. The 2013 Utah Legislature will have a 61-14 Republican majority in the Utah House and a 24-5 Republican majority in the Senate.

Those are huge, massive, overwhelming Republican majorities. Let’s look at the past 80 years, since the 1933 Legislature, for some perspective.

  • The 2013 Utah House will be 81.3% Republican. That doesn’t quite match the previous record (85.5% in 1967), but it matches the previous runner-up (81.3% in 1985).
  • The 2013 Utah Senate will be 82.8% Republican. That matches the previous record (82.8% in 1983) and exceeds the previous runner-up (82.1% in 1967).

We’ll have the most Republican Utah Senate (tied with 1983) in 80 years, and the second-most Republican Utah House (tied with 1985) in 80 years.

In total, 81.7% of the 2013 Legislature’s members are Republican, placing the 2013 Legislature in second place behind 1967 (84.5%).

Let’s put these numbers into perspective. This chart shows the percentage of the House that was Republican in each odd-numbered year from 1933 through the upcoming 2013 Legislature. You can see the spikes in 1967 and 1985. Republicans lost lots of ground in the late 1980s and early 1980s, but they have gradually regained it.

Partisanship in the Utah House, 1933-2013

That was the House. Below you’ll see the figure for the Utah Senate. You can see that the share of Senators who are Republican has matched 1983 and exceeded 1967.

Partisanship in the Utah Senate, 1933-2013

Utah’s Republicans may have lost the presidency, but they can rejoice in their increased dominance of the state government.

An historical aside

If you’re curious why my figures go back only to 1933, that’s because Utah had a strange relationship with the national political parties for the first forty years of statehood. After the dissolution of the old People’s Party and Liberal Party, it took Utah’s voters several decades to find a consistent partisan identity.

Below, you can see how erratic the House’s figure would look if I used the entire 1897-2013 data series. (The Senate figure is similar.) From 1897 through 1933, both parties experienced periods of near-unanimous control of the Legislature. Taking the long view, Utah Democrats can console themselves that it could be–and has been–worse.

Partisanship in the Utah House, 1897-2013

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Lots of freshmen in the Utah House?

Posted on November 7, 2012 by Adam Brown

In January 2013, there will be more freshmen in the Utah House than at any other time in the past 20 years.

From a glance over the election results, it looks like there will be 20 new faces in Utah’s House of Representatives when it convenes in January 2013. That’s 27% of the 75-member chamber. As a result, in January 2013, there will be more freshmen in the Utah House than at any other time in the past 20 years. After the 1992 elections, the 1993 session opened to a chamber that consisted of 36% freshmen.

Here’s a chart to put those numbers into perspective, though. For each odd-numbered year since 1901, it shows how many freshmen were in the room when the gavel called the chamber into session. 27% freshmen may seem high when compared to the past 20 years, but it seems low when compared to the period from 1901 to 1993. In fact, there were only four occasions prior to 1993 when fewer than 27% of Utah’s Representatives were freshmen: 1975 (20%), 1985 (20%), 1989 (23%), and 1991 (25%).

I’ve written before about the decline of turnover in the Utah Legislature. See here or here.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Which Utah pollsters correctly predicted the election results?

Posted on November 7, 2012 by Adam Brown

Only one of Utah’s three professional pollsters was reasonably accurate with almost every prediction it made.

In the two weeks prior to the election, several pollsters tried their hand at forecasting the election results in Utah’s various races. I thought I’d find all the predictions and put them into a single table alongside the actual results.

The competitors

  • Key Research with BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. Predictions were posted here. (Although I am involved with CSED, I was not involved with this poll. In fact, the first I heard of it was when the predictions were posted to this blog.)
  • Utah State University student poll. Run by students, not by a professional polling firm. Predictions were posted here.
  • Mason-Dixon poll, commissioned by the Salt Lake Tribune. Results for different races were posted at different times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Mason-Dixon revised its prediction in the Salt Lake County mayor’s race from R+10 to R+1; I put both numbers into the table below.
  • Dan Jones poll, commissioned by KSL and the Deseret News. Results for different races were posted at different times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
  • I took the official results from the Tribune since the state’s official website appears to be down right now.

How to read our comparisons

One major difference between prediction polls and official results is that prediction polls will have lots of “undecided” responses. To make a more valid comparison, I compare each poll’s predicted margin to the actual margin.

For example, the actual result in the presidential race (for Utah) was 73% Romney to 25% for Obama, a margin of 48 percentage points in favor of the Republican. I write that below as “R+48,” where “R” means “Republican” and “+48” refers to the margin. In this race, the BYU/Key poll predicted R+51 while the Tribune/M-D poll predicted R+45. Both were off by 3 points.

Comparison of prediction polls

In the table below, I use yellow to highlight any poll that was correct within 4 points. We’ll call this “reasonably accurate.” I use red to highlight any poll that was incorrect by at least 10 points. We’ll call this “wildly inaccurate.” Take a look.

Office Actual result BYU, Key USU Trib, M-D DNews, Jones
Pres. R+48 R+51 R+53 R+45 R+43
Gov. R+40 R+46 R+59 – R+45
Sen. R+35 R+39 R+44 – R+47
UT1 R+46 R+42 – – R+57
UT2 R+28 R+26 – – R+16
UT3 R+52 R+53 – – R+50
UT4 D+1 Tie – R+12 R+4
SLCo mayor D+10 – – R+1, R+10  D+3

The results speak for themselves. Only one of Utah’s three professional pollsters was reasonably accurate with almost every prediction it made.

The exit poll

The Utah Colleges Exit Poll released its predictions at 8:00pm last night, immediately after the polls closed but before any official results had been posted. The poll is run by student volunteers who fan out across the state. The exit poll released updated predictions at 10:00pm after additional polling forms were returned by the student volunteers. The exit poll results were posted here (first you’ll see the 10pm numbers; scroll down to see the 8pm numbers). Let’s see how they did:

Office Actual result Exit poll, 8pm Exit poll, 10pm
Pres. R+48 R+48 R+47
Gov. R+40 R+41 R+40
Sen. R+35 R+36 R+35
UT1 R+46 R+46 R+45
UT2 R+28 R+21 R+20
UT3 R+52 R+61 R+59
UT4 D+1 D+3 D+4
SLCo mayor D+10 D+19 D+22

On the whole, the exit poll fared very well. The predictions were off noticeably only in the Salt Lake County mayoral race. Of course, in posting the poll results (before the official results came out), Quin Monson pointed out that the poll hadn’t sampled enough people in Salt Lake County to make a firm prediction there.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Which Utah pollsters correctly predicted the election results?