myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Election 2016
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 8503

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:43 pm    Post subject: Election 2016 Reply with quote

I took some time to research not just the current election voting trends, but those since 2000 in the swing states. It provides some interesting insight. This is primarily aimed at CB, I expect most of the right to continue their victory dance and avoid reading anything more than 140 characters. Sorry that I can't figure out a way to arrange this data in columns, but if you try you can see the results by year and party.

Vote totals and trends in swing states

Michigan vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 62% 64.2 66.9 63.5
Dem 2.17 2.48 2.87 2.56 2.267
Rep 1.95 2.31 2.05 2.12 2.279
Total 4.23 4.84 5.01 4.73 4.87

According to http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/see_how_every_michigan_county.html, there were large decreases in turnout in Democratic counties in 2016, including that of Flint. Clinton was down about 78,000 votes in Wayne County.

Wisconsin vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 72.4 70.8 66
Dem 1.242 1.490 1.68 1.62 1.382
Rep 1.237 1.478 1.26 1.40 1.409
Total 2.6 3.0 2.98 3.07 2.9

Lowest turnout since 1996, but up in many rural counties This is very enlightening: http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election

and shows that Clinton was down about 43,000 votes in Milwaukee County. Wisconsin has not voted Republican since 1984


Pennsylvania vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 53 60.5 63.7
Dem 2.49 2.94 3.28 3.00 2.84
Rep 2.28 2.79 2.66 2.68 2.91
Total 4.91 5.77 6.0 5.75 5.9

Florida vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 74 75 72 74.4
Dem 2.9123 3.58 4.28 4.24 4.49
Rep 2.9128 3.96 4.04 4.16 4.60
Total 7.6 8.4 8.47 9.3

The final margin in Florida was 200,000 votes. Turnout was the major reason for Clinton’s loss. She won 8 counties, but in 5 of those counties the turnout was 71 or 72%. Small, but significant. In contrast, 5 of the counties that went strongly for Trump had turnouts over 81%.

North Carolina vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 48 55.4 63 6 7
Dem 1.26 1.53 2.14 2.178 2.16
Rep 1.63 1.96 2.13 2.27 2.34
Total 2.9 3.4 4.3 4.5


CLINTON DID NOT DO AS WELL AS OBAMA WITH MANY GROUPS

The Latino vote went for Obama by 71-27, but only by 65-29 for Clinton. Black vote went for Obama 93-6, and only 88-8 for Clinton. Black turnout was down as well. Millennials voted strongly for Clinton—55-37 in the 18 to 29 age group. But they threw 8% of their votes to third party candidates, and thus were below their 60-37 margin for Obama. The margin was particularly telling in Wisconsin, where Clinton won voters under 30 by just 4 points. Obama won them by 23 points four years ago.

The women’s vote is more complicated and nuanced. Overall, women favored Hillary 54-42. But non-college educated white women, favored Trump by a 62-34 margin. This astonishes me, given his comments about women and those with disabilities, I find it nearly impossible to believe that women could vote for Trump.

There was certainly some impact from GOP restrictions on voting. Fourteen states had new restrictions on voting in place, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law argues that voter suppression was a result. However, only Wisconsin was one of the swing states that had new restrictions, and there are other reasons for turnout differences in Wisconsin. I believe it is more likely that efforts to reduce polling places impacted turnout, as Republicans closed voting locations in about 43 percent—165 of 381 counties—that had been covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights law. That reduced sites to cast votes in jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory voting practices. It remains to be seen whether those restrictions can be curbed by 2018 or 2020, or whether a new Supreme Court justice will continue unwinding the protections of the Voting Rights Law.

Trump was the Change candidate, as Obama was in 2008. Kellyanne Conway pointed this out in an interview, and I think it helps account for some part of the swing in turnout. Conventional wisdom, which I shared, was that Hillary’s ground game would get her voters to the polls, and that Trump’s lack of a ground game, and negatives, would depress Republican turnout. Being identified as a change candidate, with nothing more substantive behind it than talking points like “lock her up” and “drain the swamp” allowed Trump to capture the excitement of swing voters interested in change. The Clinton campaign failed to successfully tie Trump to failed policies that aren’t change, like massive cuts in taxes for the wealthy. In this respect, I think that Clinton’s pivot to a negative campaign questioning Trump’s ability to govern, rather than stressing a positive array of changes, was a mistake. It turns out that Clinton couldn’t scare like Trump, and failed to inspire like Obama. I think all on the left read too much into Obama’s high popularity at 56%. The dissatisfaction with Obama care, and the simple fact that politicians too long in the public eye build up negatives worked against Hillary. I know when the campaign started, I wanted a different choice than another Bush and another Clinton.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM—NON COLLEGED EDUCATED WHITE VOTERS

In Wisconsin, the election difference can be found in the departure of those without a college degree, who are 55% of the electorate. In 2012 they voted for Obama by a 4% margin, but in 2015 they went for Trump by a 56-40 margin, a net gain for Republicans of 20 points. This trend doomed Feingold. A similar but less dramatic shift occurred in Pennsylvania, where they represent 52% of the electorate. In 2012 they voted for Obama by a 57-42 margin, but they shifted to Trump by a 52-45 margin, dooming the candidacy of Katie McGinty.

Clearly Democrats lacked a counter argument to Trump’s talking points that linked Clinton policies on trade to the loss of manufacturing jobs for those without a college education. It is one thing to blame the Clinton’s for shrinking manufacturing jobs, it is quite another to think that Republicans have any interest in helping those affected. They have held the Congress for four years without passing, or even proposing, any legislation that might help. Instead they have fought unions, infrastructure funding, rescue and turnaround of the automotive industry, and increases in the minimum wage. There is no consensus about the net impact of NAFTA. While the Economic Policy Institute claims that NAFTA cost the US 700,000 jobs, researchers without EPI’s support by unions, including the Congressional Research Service, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and Yale researchers Caliendo and Parro find only small impacts.

The bigger impact on manufacturing jobs in the US is automation. Manufacturing remains a major economic sector in the United States, with 12.3 million employees. But the US has shed 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. Both parties have been largely silent about these losses, their causes and what the government or business should do about these changes.

It would be healthy to have a national political discussion about this phenomenon. The changing nature of the economy has reduced employment opportunities for those without college degrees, and income inequality has soared, even with those with college degrees. The tech industry is one of the worst actors in this respect. It is fair to fault the Democrats for not making this their issue in the 2016 election. On the other hand, it would take a seismic shift in the Republican Party for them to look beyond tax and regulation cuts for ways to address the problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4188

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Election 2016 Reply with quote

His analysis was a little less rigorous in 2012.......but still wrong.

mac wrote:
A time for peace, a time for war--and a time to gloat. Iso, NW, mrgybe, matty, bard--not enough angry white guys to make up for the demographic changes. And Elizabeth Warren to boot. Let me be the first to thumb my nose at you all, and say enjoy the next four years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 2428

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Election 2016 Reply with quote

mac wrote:
I took some time to research not just the current election voting trends, but those since 2000 in the swing states. It provides some interesting insight. This is primarily aimed at CB, I expect most of the right to continue their victory dance and avoid reading anything more than 140 characters. Sorry that I can't figure out a way to arrange this data in columns, but if you try you can see the results by year and party.

Vote totals and trends in swing states

Michigan vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 62% 64.2 66.9 63.5
Dem 2.17 2.48 2.87 2.56 2.267
Rep 1.95 2.31 2.05 2.12 2.279
Total 4.23 4.84 5.01 4.73 4.87

According to http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/see_how_every_michigan_county.html, there were large decreases in turnout in Democratic counties in 2016, including that of Flint. Clinton was down about 78,000 votes in Wayne County.

Wisconsin vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 72.4 70.8 66
Dem 1.242 1.490 1.68 1.62 1.382
Rep 1.237 1.478 1.26 1.40 1.409
Total 2.6 3.0 2.98 3.07 2.9

Lowest turnout since 1996, but up in many rural counties This is very enlightening: http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election

and shows that Clinton was down about 43,000 votes in Milwaukee County. Wisconsin has not voted Republican since 1984


Pennsylvania vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 53 60.5 63.7
Dem 2.49 2.94 3.28 3.00 2.84
Rep 2.28 2.79 2.66 2.68 2.91
Total 4.91 5.77 6.0 5.75 5.9

Florida vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 74 75 72 74.4
Dem 2.9123 3.58 4.28 4.24 4.49
Rep 2.9128 3.96 4.04 4.16 4.60
Total 7.6 8.4 8.47 9.3

The final margin in Florida was 200,000 votes. Turnout was the major reason for Clinton’s loss. She won 8 counties, but in 5 of those counties the turnout was 71 or 72%. Small, but significant. In contrast, 5 of the counties that went strongly for Trump had turnouts over 81%.

North Carolina vote totals in millions

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Turnout 48 55.4 63 6 7
Dem 1.26 1.53 2.14 2.178 2.16
Rep 1.63 1.96 2.13 2.27 2.34
Total 2.9 3.4 4.3 4.5


CLINTON DID NOT DO AS WELL AS OBAMA WITH MANY GROUPS

The Latino vote went for Obama by 71-27, but only by 65-29 for Clinton. Black vote went for Obama 93-6, and only 88-8 for Clinton. Black turnout was down as well. Millennials voted strongly for Clinton—55-37 in the 18 to 29 age group. But they threw 8% of their votes to third party candidates, and thus were below their 60-37 margin for Obama. The margin was particularly telling in Wisconsin, where Clinton won voters under 30 by just 4 points. Obama won them by 23 points four years ago.

The women’s vote is more complicated and nuanced. Overall, women favored Hillary 54-42. But non-college educated white women, favored Trump by a 62-34 margin. This astonishes me, given his comments about women and those with disabilities, I find it nearly impossible to believe that women could vote for Trump.

There was certainly some impact from GOP restrictions on voting. Fourteen states had new restrictions on voting in place, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law argues that voter suppression was a result. However, only Wisconsin was one of the swing states that had new restrictions, and there are other reasons for turnout differences in Wisconsin. I believe it is more likely that efforts to reduce polling places impacted turnout, as Republicans closed voting locations in about 43 percent—165 of 381 counties—that had been covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights law. That reduced sites to cast votes in jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory voting practices. It remains to be seen whether those restrictions can be curbed by 2018 or 2020, or whether a new Supreme Court justice will continue unwinding the protections of the Voting Rights Law.

Trump was the Change candidate, as Obama was in 2008. Kellyanne Conway pointed this out in an interview, and I think it helps account for some part of the swing in turnout. Conventional wisdom, which I shared, was that Hillary’s ground game would get her voters to the polls, and that Trump’s lack of a ground game, and negatives, would depress Republican turnout. Being identified as a change candidate, with nothing more substantive behind it than talking points like “lock her up” and “drain the swamp” allowed Trump to capture the excitement of swing voters interested in change. The Clinton campaign failed to successfully tie Trump to failed policies that aren’t change, like massive cuts in taxes for the wealthy. In this respect, I think that Clinton’s pivot to a negative campaign questioning Trump’s ability to govern, rather than stressing a positive array of changes, was a mistake. It turns out that Clinton couldn’t scare like Trump, and failed to inspire like Obama. I think all on the left read too much into Obama’s high popularity at 56%. The dissatisfaction with Obama care, and the simple fact that politicians too long in the public eye build up negatives worked against Hillary. I know when the campaign started, I wanted a different choice than another Bush and another Clinton.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM—NON COLLEGED EDUCATED WHITE VOTERS

In Wisconsin, the election difference can be found in the departure of those without a college degree, who are 55% of the electorate. In 2012 they voted for Obama by a 4% margin, but in 2015 they went for Trump by a 56-40 margin, a net gain for Republicans of 20 points. This trend doomed Feingold. A similar but less dramatic shift occurred in Pennsylvania, where they represent 52% of the electorate. In 2012 they voted for Obama by a 57-42 margin, but they shifted to Trump by a 52-45 margin, dooming the candidacy of Katie McGinty.

Clearly Democrats lacked a counter argument to Trump’s talking points that linked Clinton policies on trade to the loss of manufacturing jobs for those without a college education. It is one thing to blame the Clinton’s for shrinking manufacturing jobs, it is quite another to think that Republicans have any interest in helping those affected. They have held the Congress for four years without passing, or even proposing, any legislation that might help. Instead they have fought unions, infrastructure funding, rescue and turnaround of the automotive industry, and increases in the minimum wage. There is no consensus about the net impact of NAFTA. While the Economic Policy Institute claims that NAFTA cost the US 700,000 jobs, researchers without EPI’s support by unions, including the Congressional Research Service, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and Yale researchers Caliendo and Parro find only small impacts.

The bigger impact on manufacturing jobs in the US is automation. Manufacturing remains a major economic sector in the United States, with 12.3 million employees. But the US has shed 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. Both parties have been largely silent about these losses, their causes and what the government or business should do about these changes.

It would be healthy to have a national political discussion about this phenomenon. The changing nature of the economy has reduced employment opportunities for those without college degrees, and income inequality has soared, even with those with college degrees. The tech industry is one of the worst actors in this respect. It is fair to fault the Democrats for not making this their issue in the 2016 election. On the other hand, it would take a seismic shift in the Republican Party for them to look beyond tax and regulation cuts for ways to address the problem.




Mac let me save you all the research time.

Hillary had no message, except Trump is not fit to run.

Hillary spent 2 billion dollars attacking Trumps character and it was not enough.

The arrogant dems nominated a candidate UNDER AN ACTIVE FBI INVESTIGATION, and people took notice , as they should have.

Obamacare

Corrupt media

Corrupt DNC

Corrupt Hliiary

Thats why she F##king lost...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 3596
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
NW--when the results are in, I will give you the numbers and remind you of your foolish claim. That way I get to laugh at it twice.

Laughing yet?

From the H vs. T thread, pg. 144

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 8503

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh look, 140 character wisdom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 2428

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Oh look, 140 character wisdom.


That's all it took. The problem with you libs is, you spend to much time analyzing and breaking down the data. Try listening to the people next time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 8503

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
mac wrote:
Oh look, 140 character wisdom.


That's all it took. The problem with you libs is, you spend to much time analyzing and breaking down the data. Try listening to the people next time.


You must mean the majority that voted for Hillary and rejected Trump's incompetence, bigotry and misogyny. I heard them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 2428

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
mac wrote:
Oh look, 140 character wisdom.


That's all it took. The problem with you libs is, you spend to much time analyzing and breaking down the data. Try listening to the people next time.


You must mean the majority that voted for Hillary and rejected Trump's incompetence, bigotry and misogyny. I heard them.


Did she get the majority? If she did it was by a Hillary hair.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 3596
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
mac wrote:
Oh look, 140 character wisdom.


That's all it took. The problem with you libs is, you spend to much time analyzing and breaking down the data. Try listening to the people next time.


You must mean the majority that voted for Hillary and rejected Trump's incompetence, bigotry and misogyny. I heard them.

I'll bet you were one of them.

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 5937

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did anyone see the poor little 8 year old black boy who voted for Trump in school? His bitch mother destroyed the little guy and threw him out of his home. This is the liberal fascism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30  Next
Page 1 of 30

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group