Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Micro-targeting Pro-Choice Women Who Voted For President Obama in 2008 But Are Not Strong Supporters in 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Micro-targeting Pro-Choice Women Who Voted For President Obama in 2008 But Are Not Strong Supporters in 2012

1,360
views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,360
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. NARAL Pro-Choice AmericaMicro-targeting Pro-Choice Women Who Voted For President Obama in 2008 But Are Not Strong Supporters in 2012
  • 2. What We Did: Modeling Pro-Choice Obama Defector WomenPROJECT GOAL: The identification of a set of women in battleground states mostlikely to have voted for President Obama in 2008, but who are not stronglysupporting him now.During June and July 2012, GQRR completed more than 20,000 IVR (interactivevoice response) interviews. We then cross-referenced our survey data withconsumer data and other variables from Catalist. Using advanced analytictechniques, we built three mathematical models:1. Choice. Updates NARAL Pro-Choice America’s model predicting the likelihood of whether a voter is pro-choice or anti-choice.2. Persuasion Obama Defectors. Identifies the people most likely to have voted for President Obama in 2008 but are either supporting Romney, are undecided, or are only soft Obama supporters now.3. Turnout Obama Defectors. Identifies the people most likely to have voted for President Obama in 2008 but are least likely to turn out in 2012. © Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 2
  • 3. What We Did: Building a ListThe models were then applied to the entire Catalist voter file, giving every voter onthe file a score of between 0 and 100 on both choice and defection:• Choice. A score of 100 means that voter is most likely to be pro-choice, while a score of 0 means the voter is most likely to be anti-choice.• Obama Defectors (both persuasion and turnout). A score of 100 means that voter is most likely to be an Obama defector, while a score of 0 means the voter is least likely to be a defector.The choice and persuasion models were then crossed to find the women voterswith the highest scores on both. © Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 3
  • 4. Obama Underperforming Among Women Relative to 2008 Women Men +13 +5 +1 -3 56 52 49 48 49 47 46 43 Obama McCain Obama Romney Obama McCain Obama Romney Exit Polling Exit Polling Sept. 2012 Sept. 2012 2008 2008 © Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 4
  • 5. 338,000 Women in the Battleground Counties Are Most Likely to Fit the Pro-Choice Obama Defector Profile 7 Number of Women Most Likely to Be Pro-Choice Obama Defectors 6 5 5,145,542In Millions 4 3 2 1 1,219,281 0 338,020 National Battleground States Battleground Counties © Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 5
  • 6. A Majority of the Most Likely Pro-Choice Obama DefectorWomen Are Independent and Younger Most Likely Pro-Choice Defector Women Democrat 29 Independent/Other/Unknown 56 Republican 1 18-29 26 30-39 27 40-49 17 50-64 20 65+ 10 White 67 Black 18 Hispanic 8 Other 6 © Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 6
  • 7. The Most Likely Pro-Choice Obama Defector Women byCountyState County # of Likely State County # of Likely Pro-Choice Pro-Choice Defectors Defectors CO Adams 11,190 NH Hillsborough 3,433 CO Arapahoe 2,906 NH Rockingham 2,537 CO Denver 10,927 NV Clark 13,779 CO Jefferson 3,296 OH Cuyahoga 43,067 FL Hillsborough 32,035 OH Franklin 43,616 FL Orange 5,173 OH Hamilton 20,432 FL Pinellas 27,590 VA Fairfax 49,661 IA Johnson 8,017 VA Henrico 3,590 IA Polk 3,410 VA Loudoun 12,942 IA Story 2,202 VA Prince William 3,965 NC Mecklenberg 5,667 WI Kenosha 993 NC Wake 9,744 WI Milwaukee 15,855 WI Racine 1,993 © Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 7
  • 8. What It MeansThe pro-choice Obama defector model—exclusive to NARAL Pro-Choice America—allows us to maximize efficiency in targeting this key voting bloc at the individuallevel.• NARAL Pro-Choice America now owns the only Obama defector women model and the most accurate choice model in the country.• The model eliminates guesswork. – NARAL Pro-Choice America no longer wastes resources communicating with someone who is anti-choice, nor do we “miss” voters who are pro-choice. We can now communicate more often and more directly with prime targets without incurring any additional cost. – It allows an organization like NARAL Pro-Choice America to put a specific pro-choice message in front of a specific voter.• The model will help guide NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 2012 political outreach efforts. NARAL Pro-Choice America will not work directly with the Obama campaign, but because we know exactly who these women are and what messages they respond to, NARAL Pro-Choice America can maximize the value added to the Obama campaign in a focused, strategic way.• The model can also be shared with pro-choice candidates and campaigns around the country to help them improve their communications. © Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 8