Source: https://www.sayfiereview.com/featured_column?column_id=60
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:09:33+00:00

Document:
The eyes of the nation were focused on Florida on March 15, 2016 for good reason. The state’s 2016 presidential preference primary (PPP) featured hotly contested races in both major parties—elevated by two nationally televised debates held in Miami just days before the election, the “do or die” candidacy of Miami native Marco Rubio, the winner-take-all nature of the GOP primary, and the testing of Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton’s relative strength over surging Bernie Sanders in a diverse state she won handily in the 2008 primary. Up for grabs were 99 Republican delegates and 214 Democratic delegates (allocated proportionally). Another 32 Democratic conventioneers are superdelegates—largely party and elected officials.
This graphic-intensive look back at the PPP results offers glimpses of the real challenges ahead for both parties as they fight to win the nation’s premier swing state in November.
While the overall turnout rate in the primary was a record 46 percent, it was considerably higher for Republicans than Democrats (55 percent v. 37 percent). Clinton easily bested Sanders (64 percent to 33 percent), while Trump prevailed over his major GOP competitors, effectively chasing Rubio out of the contest (Trump 46 percent, Rubio 27 percent, Cruz 17 percent, and Kasich 7 percent). But an unevenness in both turnout and margin of victory across media markets illuminates some daunting challenges ahead.
To some analysts, the party turnout differential indicates an enthusiasm gap—with Republicans more enthusiastic about voting than Democrats—a common pattern after one party has held the White House for eight years. Toothers, it reflects a more competitive and higher profile race on the GOP side. Still others argue that it shows the disproportionately negative impact of a closed primary system on Democrats—who usually garner a higher percentage of the young vote—a larger share of which register as independent or No Party Affiliation (NPA).
Republicans. GOP turnout varied widely across the state’s 10 media markets. (See Figure 1.) It was highest (62 percent) in the Naples-Fort Myers market, where Donald Trump defeated his rivals with a wider margin than statewide, followed by the two I-4 Corridor markets (Orlando 57 percent; Tampa-St. Petersburg 56 percent).
Regretfully for Rubio, turnout was lowest (49 percent) in the crucial Miami-Fort Lauderdale media market (which he carried—49% to Trump’s 33%).
Of the other nine markets where Trump got the most votes, he won an outright majority in only one: Palm Beach-Fort Pierce, his adopted home—the location of his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Overall, Cruz garnered his strongest support in North Florida, although he bested Rubio in only two small markets—Panama City and Tallahassee.
Notes: May not add to 100% due to rounding.
Calculated by authors from official elections voter rolls and returns from the Florida Department of State Division of Elections.
Democrats. Turnout was highest in two of the smaller markets—Gainesville-North Central Florida and Tallahassee (44 percent and 43 percent respectively)—home to large universities with historically more liberal Democratic voters. (See Figure 2.) The lowest turnout was in the Panama City market (31 percent)—another small market where more conservative Democrats reside.
Clinton fared best in larger markets—Miami-Fort Lauderdale (73 percent) and Palm Beach-Fort Pierce (69 percent).In general, Sanders was more successful in areas with higher shares of younger voters. For example, he came within one point of matching Clinton’s performance (48 percent to 49 percent) in the Gainesville market. Her largest margin of victory was in Miami-Fort Lauderdale, where she won nearly three-quarters of the vote: 73 percent to 26 percent. Her strength in this market likely has a lot to do with her higher levels of support among blacks, Hispanics, and older women.
Democrats have to be more than a little concerned about the lower-than-statewide turnout rate of party members in the large Miami-Fort Lauderdale market (34 percent). Lower than usual turnout in this Democratic-rich part of the state also cost them the 2014 gubernatorial race.
While it is true that primary voters in general tend to be older and more ideologically defined party supporters, a comparison of who voted based on exit poll data from the 2016 PPP does hint at some GOTV challenges for each party.
Gender. Women were a majority of the voters in each party’s primary, although a larger share of Democratic than Republican voters: 58 percent v. 51 percent. (See Table 1.) These figures closely mirror actual gender differences in party registration as of January 2016.
On the other end of the age spectrum, 29 percent of Republican PPP voters were 65 or older compared to just 25 percent of Democratic voters. (Similarly, 35 percent of Republican registrants are 65 plus compared to 30 percent of Democratic registrants.) The senior share of the PPP voters from both parties was lower than registration shares. The question is why? Was it the tone of the campaign? The candidates? Or something else?
Race/ethnicity.The composition of PPP voters showed some clear racial/ethnic differences: 78 percent of Republican voters were white, while 52 percent of Democratic voters were non-white. Blacks made up a considerably larger share of Democratic than Republican voters (27 percent v. 3 percent). The difference was much smaller for Latinos (20 percent v. 16 percent).
Among registered voters, blacks are 28 percent of Democratic registrants but just 1 percent of Republican registrants. Latinos make up 15 percent of Florida Democratic registrants and 11 percent of Florida Republican registrants. A higher proportion of Republican Hispanic PPP voters were Cuban, while most Democratic Hispanic voters were non-Cuban.
Based on these exit poll results, it appears that that both minority groups turned out at higher rates than their white counterparts—suggesting both parties will need to improve their white voter GOTV efforts in the general election phase of the campaign.
Education and Income. Among those who voted in each party’s primary, there were fewer educational differences than income differences. A majority (52 percent) of Republicans voting were college educated (bachelor’s or postgraduate), compared to 48 percent of the Democratic PPP voters.
In contrast, 50 percent of Democratic voters had a household income below $50,000 compared to 33 percent of the Republicans. And considerably more Republicans than Democrats had household incomes of $100,000 plus (35 percent v. 19 percent).
Ideology.More than half (54 percent) of the Democrats who voted in the PPP described themselves as liberal, compared to just 3 percent of Republican voters. Conversely, 70 percent of the Republicans proclaimed to be conservative, compared to just 9 percent of the Democrats. This pattern is historical in nature. Primary voters tend to be further left and right than general election voters.
Religion.Republican voters also tend to be more religious, a fact best illustrated among those claiming to have no religion: 8 percent of Republicans, compared to 21 percent of Democratic voters. Protestants comprised a much larger share of Republican voters than Democrats (51 percent v 36 percent), but only a slightly larger share of Republicans were Catholic (29 percent v. 22 percent). Jewish voters were more prevalent among Democratic PPP voters (4 percent v. 2 percent). NOTE: No data were available for what proportion of Democratic voters were white Evangelical Christians, but among Republicans, it was 38 percent.
Results from the exit polls were conducted for the National Election Pool (NEP) by Edison Research and are based on interviews with 1,659 Democratic voters and 1,907 Republican voters. The poll has a margin of sampling error of approximately ±2%.
Top Issue. While 35 percent of the voters in each party identify the economy and/or jobs as the most important issue, the second most cited issue among Republicans is government spending (26 percent), but for Democrats it is health care (25 percent). Slightly more Republicans than Democrats (22 percent vs. 15 percent) point to terrorism as their biggest concern.
While more than three-in-four Democrats (77 percent) are looking for a candidate that is experienced in politics, more than half of Republicans (52 percent) are looking for a candidate that is outside the establishment.
Results from the exit polls were conducted for the National Election Pool (NEP) by Edison Research and are based on interviews with 1,659 Democratic voters and 1,907 Republican voters. The poll has a margin of sampling error of approximately ±2%. NOTE: The exit poll questions differed by political party.
Given the highly competitive nature of this election cycle on both sides of the aisle, it is not surprising to see some differences of opinion within each party.
Democrats. (See Table 3.) Among Democratic PPP voters, 55 percent prefer that the nation’s next president should continue President Obama’s policies, while 25 percent think the next president should be more liberal, and 14 percent think that he or she should be less liberal. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of Democratic voters are worried about the U.S. economy, with half of those being very worried.
While 46 percent think that race relations have gotten worse recently, the good news for Democrats is that a plurality of Democratic voters (46 percent) trust both Clinton and Sanders to handle race relations.
Of significance to the Hillary Clinton campaign is the fact that more than three-quarters of Democratic PPP voters (76 percent) said they did not consider the candidate’s gender in making their decision.This was the opinion among Democratic Party activists. It is likely the percentage of the general electorate would be lower.
Republicans. Republican primary voters were most divided over the illegal immigration issue. (See Table 4). Just over half (54 percent) favor offering legal status to illegal immigrants currently working in the United States, while 37 percent want them deported to their home countries.
Higher levels of agreement exist on other issues. Well over half of Republican voters (64 percent) support the temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States proposed by Trump, while only a quarter of Republican voters (26 percent) oppose the plan.
Feelings of dissatisfaction and disaffection run high as well, with 86 percent saying they are either dissatisfied or angry with the U.S. federal government and 60 percent articulating that they feel betrayed by Republican politicians. Two-thirds of Republican voters do not think it is necessary to reduce Social Security benefits (not surprising given that 74 percent of Republican primary voters are 45 or older). Reflective of the religious composition of PPP Republican voters, 60 percent believe that current U.S. support for Israel is not strong enough, compared to a mere 8 percent who view it as too strong.
Perhaps most concerning for the party is the fact that nearly three-in-ten Republican primary voters (29 percent) indicate that they would consider a third party candidate if the general election were to be a Clinton-Trump matchup.
Notes: Exit polls for Florida Presidential Preference Primary on March 15, 2016.
Voting patterns in each of these vitriolic primary contests have underscored the challenges each party’s eventual nominee will face in unifying his or her respective party. Bluntly put, intra-party partisanship was on full display.
Republicans are facing similar challenges with their field (Table 6). Although Trump has the highest proportion of Republican primary voters that say they would “definitely vote for him” should he win the nomination (57 percent, compared to 45 percent for Rubio and 43 percent for Ted Cruz), he also has the highest proportion of respondents that say they would “not vote for him”: 25 percent, compared to 24 percent for Rubio and 23 percent for Cruz.
The bigger problem for Trump, however, is his perceived untrustworthiness. More than half (55 percent) of Florida Republican primary voters believe Rubio is honest, compared to less than half for Trump (49 percent) and Cruz (44 percent).
Democrats. Part of the dynamic on the Democratic side likely arises from the vastly different bases of support enjoyed by each candidate (Table 7). Clinton has a large advantage over Sanders with female (68 percent to 30 percent) and minority voters (black 79 percent to 20 percent; and Hispanic 72 percent to 28 percent). Younger voters strongly support Sanders over Clinton: Among those in the 18-29 age bracket, 65 percent prefer Sanders to Clinton’s 34 percent. On education, Sanders outperformed his statewide average with college graduates, while Clinton outperformed with voters without a degree. Clinton also bested Sanders in each ideological category, particularly those self-identifying as moderate (70 percent) or conservative (70 percent), but also among liberals (59 percent).
Republicans. On the Republican side, Trump’s greatest challenges are among women and Hispanics: While 55 percent of male Republican voters supported him, only 40 percent of female voters did the same. (Table 7) Likewise, although he polled 51 percent among whites, only 27 percent of Hispanics supported him. Rubio’s campaign invested considerable resources in targeting “unconventional” Republican voters and reaped dividends: Rubio well outperformed his statewide average among females (33 percent), young Republicans (33 percent among those 18-29, and 31 percent among those 30-44) and Hispanics (52 percent).
After Jeb Bush and Chris Christie left the nomination race, John Kasich angled to become the standard bearer of the moderates, a cause with which he had some success in the Florida PPP. He outperformed his statewide average among voters 65 and older (11 percent), voters with a postgraduate education (10 percent), and self-identified ideological moderates (14 percent).
Table 7. Who Voted for Whom?
“—“ denotes a category for which the sample is not large enough to report results breakout.
There were considerable differences in the timing and geography of those that voted. (See Table 8.) A majority (67 percent) of Democratic voters decided who they would vote for in the primary more than a month in advance of voting, compared to just 47 percent of the Republicans. On the highly contested Republican side, 28 percent decided in the week before the election, compared to just 17 percent of the Democrats. Nonetheless, these statistics show that a sizable proportion of voters—large enough to swing an election, especially in razor-thin Florida elections margins—were late deciders.
More than half of Democratic voters (52 percent) came from urban areas, while voters on the Republican side were more likely to come from the suburbs (49 percent vs. 42 percent) or rural areas (11 percent vs. 5 percent) than their Democratic counterparts. Democratic voters were most likely to come from the Miami/Gold Coast area (26 percent), while Republican voters were most likely to come from the North/Panhandle (23 percent) and Gulf-Coast/Mid-Florida (23 percent) regions as defined by the exit pollsters. These data suggest that both parties will have to improve GOTV in the I-4 Corridor where 44 percent of the state’s registrants reside.
When the Florida Legislature announced its primary calendar, two Florida sons were polling at the top of the Republican field, while Hillary Clinton commanded the Democratic field by imposing margins. A year is several lifetimes in politics, and the fortunes for Florida’s one-time favorites changed considerably. An unexpected candidacy from another adopted Floridian, Donald Trump, ended the presidential dreams of former Governor Jeb Bush before the Florida primary. On March 15, Florida Republicans then rejected U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, prompting him to immediately suspend his campaign. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton easily defeated Bernie Sanders, allowing her to regain national momentum at a time when she really needed the boost and in a large, diverse, very important swing state.
In spite of the Trump and Clinton victories in Florida’s 2016 presidential preference primary, neither really locked down the nomination in the Sunshine State. The races here did identify potential problems for each party in turnout and support. Each party could face a major turnout hitch in key portions of its base depending on who are the ultimate nominees.
Should Clinton get the nomination, the question is whether Sanders supporters (millennials, especially young females, progressives, blue collar white males) would vote for her. Should her opponent be Trump, the odds of young females and progressives voting for her would go up, but worrisome for her candidacy is the possibility that blue collar white males might cross over and support Trump.
On the Republican side, should Trump become the Republican nominee, he would likely face turnout problems related to his weaknesses among women and Hispanics. Worse yet for his candidacy, they might actually cross over and vote for Clinton (especially suburban women). However, should Trump be denied the nomination at a contested convention, the GOP nominee would likely face loss of support from anti-establishment voters. And while they might not be willing to vote for Clinton either, their decision not to vote at all actually would help her.
Stay tuned and get ready for another battle royale for the Sunshine State’s 29 Electoral College votes. Both major parties must fight hard to keep their base and, at the same time, win a hefty chunk of the votes of the one-fourth of Floridians who are registered as NPAs.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.