Presidential election, 2016

[Cynic Hero '86]

The intellectual bankruptcy of the boomer left would like ensure that voters would be repulsed by just about any boomer democrat.

[pbrower2a]

(05-26-2016, 05:57 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: The intellectual bankruptcy of the boomer left would like ensure that voters would be repulsed by just about any boomer democrat.

Hillary Clinton, much more liberal than Donald Trump and undeniably a Boomer, is still ahead.



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump




30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

[pbrower2a]

(05-27-2016, 11:38 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: What we're seeing is those same "Northern Cities" states where Trump did well in the GOP primary are showing their true "color." The truth is, the so called "Hard Hats" who vote GOP up there are still a minority within the "Hard Hat" demographic. Most of the Union people still vote Dem. People of color in those states are like 90% Dem. Educated whites up there mostly vote Dem.

We are going to see a similar pattern here in CA in both the Primary (GOP one's now a moot point but the vote will still be interesting) and General.

I think that we are going to see some of the same pattern in such Southern cities as Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis, and Atlanta. The polls seem to be tightening in the Southern states with big cities. North Carolina is close to the borderline between D and R, and I am not sure that I can call Florida or Virginia truly "Southern" any more. Watch the minority vote. Mexican-Americans in Texas are usually rather conservative on social issues -- but turn on the anti-intellectualism and the bombastic rhetoric about deportation, and they could really turn on Trump.

Do I see Hillary Clinton picking up Texas? No. Winning it by 6% instead of 12% bodes ill for the GOP. Such indicates that the media have already called Florida and Ohio for Clinton.

[Eric the Green]

Another analysis of how Hillary could lose:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...ump-213924

Another article on where the election will be decided:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/us/pol....html?_r=0

[Eric the Green]

Just using the easily available map from the http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/evcalc.php site, with Democrats in red and Republicans in blue, I used polls posted on wikipedia, except in Oregon there were two, and I used the one favoring Hillary based on likely history. Where there are no polls, 2012 results are shown. Darker colors indicate a larger vote % for the leader only. Iowa is tied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_...tion,_2016


Dem
336

Rep
196

Ind
0

Tos
6

[Cynic Hero '86]

This election is about Policy in general and is actual about economic, foreign policy and military than it is about the personalities of the candidates. If liberal boomer elites refuse to realize they need PERMISSION from the people first before they do things like helping Bosnia against Milosevic or stopping Saddam or intervening against Assad, they will be forced to recognize the people's prerogatives or they will be forced out of power altogether. The people are taking their rights BACK whether the elite wants it or not.

[Eric the Green]

(05-30-2016, 05:58 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: This election is about Policy in general and is actual about economic, foreign policy and military than it is about the personalities of the candidates. If liberal boomer elites refuse to realize they need PERMISSION from the people first before they do things like helping Bosnia against Milosevic or stopping Saddam or intervening against Assad, they will be forced to recognize the people's prerogatives or they will be forced out of power altogether. The people are taking their rights BACK whether the elite wants it or not.

Boomers were the ones who first spoke out against intervention and stopped it, in the sixties and early seventies.

[playwrite]

(05-30-2016, 12:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Just using the easily available map from the http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/evcalc.php site, with Democrats in red and Republicans in blue, I used polls posted on wikipedia, except in Oregon there were two, and I used the one favoring Hillary based on likely history. Where there are no polls, 2012 results are shown. Darker colors indicate a larger vote % for the leader only. Iowa is tied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_...tion,_2016


Dem
336

Rep
196

Ind
0

Tos
6

Have you read about Trump's 15-state strategy?  

http://truthfeed.com/?p=4574

It includes NY and CA, and notice the rubes think it is "brilliant!"

It's not just that these two states are solidly behind the Blue Wall, they are the two most expensive media markets in the country!  

Notice how the rubes believe it is brilliant because Clinton will have to spend money defending these two states.  They can't grasp how much more you have to spend in a state where nearly the entire political machine is in the hands of your opponent.

They should be paying attention to this little bit of news that seems to have been missed by all the cable news that's too busy fawning over the Talking Yam -

Quote:Trump camp concedes it's low on money

Donald Trump's campaign has alerted Senate Republicans that he won't have much money to spend fending off attacks from Hillary Clinton over the next couple months.

The notice came when Paul Manafort, Trump's senior advisor, met with a group of Senate Republican chiefs of staff for lunch last week, sources familiar with the meeting told the Washington Examiner. The admission suggests that Trump will be far more dependent on the GOP brass for money than he has led voters to believe, but it's consistent with his reliance on the Republican National Committee to provide a ground game in battleground states.

So much for Trump not being beholden to the money guys.  

Hopefully, in a week from now, the Dems can take full advantage of the Trump campaign going dark for a couple of months.

Sure Trump will continue to get his free coverage from the media, but he does that by his 'Trump attributes' which will provide the exact conformational bias to what the Dems will be painting him with.  By the time they get going again, it will be sleepy August and he'll be wearing the paint that will make "Romney 47%" seem tame.

[pbrower2a]

Gore, the incumbent VP, inherits the President from a popular President in 2000 -- NOT!



Dole and Dubya -- blue
Clinton and Dubya -- green (Florida disputed for a month... thus the light shade)
Clinton and Gore -- red

No state went from Dole to Gore.

Gore lost fully eleven states that Clinton had won four years earlier... and any one of them could have ensured that the Great Disaster would have not been President.

...we all know about Florida. But also, had Gore picked up Colorado (which went to Clinton in 1992) or Virginia (which would go to Obama in 2008) he would have won the Presidency.

Heck, maybe Gore would have been wiser to select Carl Levin (D-MI) as his VP; he might have done better, and George W. Bush would be forgotten by now. Maybe 9/11 would have never happened.

[Eric the Green]

(05-31-2016, 11:52 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-31-2016, 09:26 AM)playwrite Wrote: So much for Trump not being beholden to the money guys.  

Hopefully, in a week from now, the Dems can take full advantage of the Trump campaign going dark for a couple of months.

Sure Trump will continue to get his free coverage from the media, but he does that by his 'Trump attributes' which will provide the exact conformational bias to what the Dems will be painting him with.  By the time they get going again, it will be sleepy August and he'll be wearing the paint that will make "Romney 47%" seem tame.

CA has a white minority. Sure a few PoC will vote for Trump but not enough to matter. So, take a majority of PoC voting Dem, then take a significant chunk of whites who'll vote Dem no matter what, and Trump will get pounded here.

The pundits are all amazed at how far Trump has come, after dismissing him as a lunatic who had no chance. They are so impressed that now they think he can win in November. But running for the nomination of the stupid party does not take much brains, or much of anything. The mostly angry old white guys who voted for Trump in the primary are not going to be enough for him to win California OR the White House. And if he thinks he can buy California in the election, then he's even more stupid than the pundits originally thought he was.

And to top it off, in my new, more-carefully researched horoscope system, he's not as formidable as he was in the old system. He beat Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and John Kasich, but just about anyone could have beaten those guys. Yes, the election might be close, but it might also be a blowout.

[playwrite]

(05-31-2016, 11:52 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: CA has a white minority. Sure a few PoC will vote for Trump but not enough to matter. So, take a majority of PoC voting Dem, then take a significant chunk of whites who'll vote Dem no matter what, and Trump will get pounded here.

The guy also lives in a bubble of yes-people here.  He's going to get pounded in the City and that means the state.

It looks like Clinton is going for they psychops as well -

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...tter_nymag

Quote:I asked her whether the time she was spending in Kentucky, a red state, reflected more than her desire to win the primary there the following week (which she did, by a hair). Her eyes lit up; it’s as if she’d been waiting for someone to ask her about the surprising possibilities of the electoral map this year. So which states do you think Trump puts in play? I asked, mentioning the possibility of Georgia, which some think could go Democratic for the first time since her husband won it in 1992.

“Texas!” she exclaimed, eyes wide, as if daring me to question this, which I did. “You are not going to win Texas,” I said. She smiled, undaunted. “If black and Latino voters come out and vote, we could win Texas,” she told me firmly, practically licking her lips.

Unlike Trump in CA or NY, Clinton coming into Texas to campaign, even if she losses the state, is going to do awesome things down ticket and build the Hispanic and AA voter rolls for the eventual Blue takeover.  If Trump screws-the-pooch on the funding side and wastes his money in CA and NY, Clinton could do some big long term existential damage to the GOP in Texas which is a key step in their demise as a national party.  Fingers crossed! 

[playwrite]

David Wasserman (DW), over at 538.com, has a very smart analysis of the GOP's 'White Man's Hope' that Trump is going to turn out a massive increase in the White, particularly male, cohort and win the general election, and thus beat demographic fate of the increasing non-White (also female, urban, more educated) electorate - 

‘Missing’ White Voters Might Help Trump, But Less So Where He Needs It


Using the "high tide" (and yes, I love that historic reference) of the Ross Perot driven  non-Hispanic White turnout of 70% in the 1992 (compared to 62% in 2012) and substituting that for the actual turnout in 2012, in each state, DW shows on a national basis Trump could gain a few million more votes than Obama's margin of victory in 2012!  Eek!

However, what DW also shows is that most of that gain would happen mostly in states that would not have any impact on the Electoral College.  Only three of the 12 swing states (FL, OH, NV) would a return to Ross Perot election turnout by Whites potentially make a difference.  And in those states, he would have to take 58% of the White vote in FL, 75% in OH, and 89% in NV - only Florida is within the range of around 60% that Romney got in 2012.

That might be doable except for a couple of big things -

The non-White cohort has increased from 29% in 2012 to likely 31% in 2016, and that's before considering any registration drives particularly within the Hispanic communities in reaction to Trump's  candidacy.  In 2012, there were 23 million eligible Hispanic voters; in 2016 that will grow to 26 million.  And those are national numbers, this trend is being amplified in states like FL and NV.  Trump will have to use some of his "Ross Perot White turnout" voters just to stay even with Romney's 2012 result.

Then there's the problem for Trump of getting all White voters.  There is clearly a difference in support Romney got among educated White voters (56%) and what Trump is getting (a 46/45 split with Clinton; probable a result of his "woman problem").  Trump will need to use some of his increase in non-educated Ross Perot turnout voters to make up for decrease appeal to the White educated voter.


The analysis shows that Trump's path isn't impossible, but the challenge is pretty unprecedented (imagine the cold-hearted demographic facts of 2020!).


Also, one thing that DW's analysis didn't discuss is the likelihood of these new Ross Perot voters actually finding their way to the voting booth in November.  The educated White cohort that is going for Sanders has been having problems doing that (busy students, 1st timer registration mistakes).  What percentage of these working class voters that Trump is relying on will get permission from their modern-day plantation owners to take time off?

[playwrite]

(06-02-2016, 10:54 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Interestingly, I was thinking about 1992 just this morning. There is no doubt that the Rightist vote will be divided in November. No doubt at all. All French and other alternatives need to siphon off is a few percent. Most such siphoning will be in so called Purple states, where demographics among likely GOP(ish) and indy voters do not favor Trump.

Yea, David French as well as Gary Johnson and his Libertarian Party won't make much of a dent on a national basis, but it would be really interesting what they could do in certain states.   The DC GOP Establishment that live in Northern VA could go with French and put that swing state even farther out of Trump's reach.  Texas has a strong Libertarian presents that combined with a huge increase in Hispanic voter registration could make things more interesting there - not likely enough to deny Trump the electoral votes but it might make him have to spend some big money there that they usually don't have to. In all cases, it might not be the actual votes, or even the money, it might just be additional reasons to not be too enthusiastic and harm their GOTV efforts. Fingers crossed for good luck!

[pbrower2a]

Here's something to look at: what happens if one jiggles the voting patterns of the various ethnic groups, and among white people, the college-educated and non-college (who behave very differently in their voting). The model has its flaws, but such flaws keep it simple and flexible.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016...-election/

I can quickly dispense with "Asians and others", "others" typically American Indians and Alaska natives. These people are heavily concentrated in non-swing states (AK, AZ, CA, MT, NV, OK, OR, WA) so their votes cannot swing any state.


Blacks? Reliably D, and their level of voting could swing the election based on four states which go R if the black vote falls to about 30% (in order, FL, VA, OH, and PA). Suppression of the black vote to that level (28% or less) has happened before in two of those states, and it won't happen now in any of those four states. Most of the states with large black votes are former Confederate states.

The Latino vote is below the levels of both educated and non-college white people and of blacks, and roughly that of Asians. Even if it went to the levels associated with educated white people, such would push only one state from R to D -- his only really close loss in 2012 (North Carolina), and a State not heavily known for a large Hispanic population. Such would not flip Arizona, let alone Texas. Latino participation would have to drop greatly to flip Florida to a Republican advantage, and to a ridiculously-low level (20% or lower) to flip either Colorado or New Mexico.

Donald Trump's problems in the swing states of Colorado and Florida are far bigger than the Latino vote. His problems in the swing states of Florida, Virginia, and Ohio are far bigger than the African-American vote. "The Donald" might be making some points with undereducated white people who must compete with blacks and Latinos for jobs, but he is probably turning educated white people much more likely to see educated minorities as co-workers, partners, or friends. Educated white voters have some potential to swing in their partisan identity this year -- more than any other group of voters.

Educated white people vote (77%) -- more than do blacks (66%), non-college whites (62%), "Asians and others" (49%) and Hispanics (48%). They simply are not as partisan as the other groups. In the 1950s they might have been about 80% Republican, which today would leave Democrats with six states (CA, HI, MD, NJ, NY, RI, and DC, which would be good for Democrats getting 42.7% of the popular vote and 119 electoral votes. Such would be a typical Eisenhower victory in the 1950s. That percentage went down to 56% Republican, probably reflecting the 1950s' 'cloth coat' of Patricia Nixon well fits much of the Obama coalition.


When all is said and done, the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. They have their differences in personal history and in their political style, but one would expect such of any two Presidents.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.



gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.


(But this also may suggest that Barack Obama has similarities of ability and temperament to Eisenhower).

A swing the other way (to 65D educated white people which has them voting much more like Asians, who are generally highly-educated) gives Hillary Clinton 60.1% of the popular vote 490 electoral votes, and all but eight states (ID, WY, UT, OK, AR, KY, AL, and WV). In essence in such a scenario, educated people of all kinds except perhaps Mormons recognize Donald Trump as a dangerous demagogue and give him a defeat on the scale of Goldwater or McGovern. Trump still does well enough among undereducated white people (I did not adjust their percentage and participation) to win eight states.

Shift the vote of undereducated white people to 57-58%D, and the Democratic nominee wins 44 or 45 states, the state on the margin being Texas. Such suggests that the Democrat is piecing together the Carter 1976 and the Obama coalitions, which would be an unstable group of voters in 2020 or later.

[Anthony '58]

Trump will do better among blacks than any Republican candidate since Eisenhower, who got 30% of the black vote in 1956.

[Odin]

(06-06-2016, 03:03 PM)Anthony Wrote: Trump will do better among blacks than any Republican candidate since Eisenhower, who got 30% of the black vote in 1956.

You keep telling yourself that.

[pbrower2a]

(06-06-2016, 03:03 PM)Anthony Wrote: Trump will do better among blacks than any Republican candidate since Eisenhower, who got 30% of the black vote in 1956.

Blacks on the whole are astute enough to not stab Latinos or Asians in the back politically. Figuring that the black vote is going to be about as D as it ever is, the only way that Donald Trump wins by cutting the black vote (about 66%) is if the participation rate for blacks drops to about 30% nationwide, in which Trump barely wins because he picks up Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The black vote isn't going to fall that low unless Jim Crow not only returns to America but also becomes a national phenomenon... and Democrats in Virginia aren't going to let that happen in their state.

Even if 30% of all blacks voted for Trump in 2016 Hillary Clinton would win because she would win all states that the Republicans have not lost more than once after 1988, Colorado, and Nevada.

So how would a Republican get about 30% of the black vote? Run against a Democrat who has kissed up to the white racist vote with a Presidential nominee who has a temperament very similar to that of...

I love to compare Obama to Eisenhower, don't I? I think that historians will compare Obama more to Eisenhower than to any other 20th-century President.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump has said the vilest stuff ever about any large group of Hispanics by national origin. I can see Donald Trump getting more Hispanics out to vote, and in a larger proportion D. Does anyone think that Donald Trump causes Puerto Ricans or Cuban-Americans to think "He's not talking about me"?

Even if the Hispanic vote reached the level of non-college whites in level of participation and of blacks in partisan identification in the vote, Democrats would pick up only three states from 2012 -- but those three states are North Carolina (close in 2012), Arizona (on the margin of contest), and Texas. Hillary Clinton comes close to 400 electoral votes.

Don't expect white people to compensate for losses by Donald Trump among minorities. Donald Trump is likely to do about as well among non-college white people who see ethnic minorities as competition. For educated white people, the people that Donald Trump says nasty things about might be relatives by marriage (who are not dopers, rapists, robbers, etc.) or co-workers. This might be a poor year in which to extol the virtues, whatever they are, of Donald Trump for President at the office.

Hispanics are still heavily Catholic, so just imagine what parish priests have to say about the 2016 Presidential election. Blacks can at most swing only one state, and only if they vote like college-educated white people -- which isn't likely. The only state that the black vote can swing toward Hillary Clinton is North Carolina, the only state that Barack Obama lost by a small margin in 2012.

I'm guessing that under-educated white people are severely atomized in their voting, that they are heavily Protestant, and that they are more vulnerable to visceral appeals than to moral suasion or even economic self-interest. I can't see its participation rising any in 2016. It's R swing likely peaked with Obama as the Democratic nominee for President.

This should be familiar to us all: the 2012 Presidential election



Obama (D) 332
Romney ® 206

 

This is also the map that I get with any jiggling of the "Asian and other" vote for partisanship or level of participation. Because the "Asian and other" vote (the "other" is largely American Indians and Alaska natives) is heavily concentrated in states that can't swing much in 2016 (AK, AZ, CA, HI, MT, NV, NM, OK, OR, WA) there's just not much that anyone can do to jiggle the partisanship or participation of "Asians and others" to swing any state. No effect, no map.

I have other maps, though.


I can quickly dispense with jiggling the black vote because reducing its participation level nationwide to 28% (from 66%) would flip four states necessary for a Trump win. Those would be Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Colorado and Nevada would still go for Clinton. Getting the black vote to go 30% for Trump, which is probably about what Eisenhower got in the 1950s, would still not bring about a Trump win.





Trump 286
Clinton 252

which would happen if black participation in the election went down to just below 30% (which isn't going to happen, because such would depend upon tampering with electoral laws) or if Trump got 32% of the black vote (which isn't going to happen because Donald Trump isn't Dwight Eisenhower).  

If Hispanics voted with the partisan intensity and at the level of participation of blacks (93%D, 66% participation, then the 2016 map would flip only three states:



Clinton (D) 396
Romney ® 142

But the states to swing would be [size=15pt]North Carolina[/size], [size=12pt]Arizona[/size], and

[size=38pt]TEXAS [/size]

Highly unlikely.

[Odin]

Donald Trump's Hispanic voter 'doomsday'

[pbrower2a]

Two-way map (ignoring Johnson). Hillary Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump




30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more




I now assume that Gary Johnson will perform better than the typical third-party or independent nominee this year due to widespread discontent with one or both of the nominees of the two major parties. I can see the Johnson/Weld ticket winning much support from people who usually vote for both of the two main parties; even if this ticket does not win any electoral votes it could decide some states in ways that one might not otherwise expect in a two-way race. The 2016 election no longer like a pure two-way race, and I do not see it looking like a two-way race; both Clinton and Trump have political baggage that neither is likely to cast off before November.  I would not rule out the Reform Party endorsing Johnson/Weld.



Three-way plan: saturation suggests the raw percentage of votes for the likely winner (2 for 20-30%, 3 for 30-39%, 4 for 40-49%, 5 for 50-59%), Letter shows the party of the leader (T for a tie among the two leaders), the number following that letter the percentage number; then the Johnson number. No numbers will be shown for anyone with 50% or more of the likely vote in any state or district because one cannot lose with 50% or more of the vote in a three-way race.





White is for ties. Even leads in the twenties of 1% or more will be shown in the color of the winner.

Small states in area: CT: D5,6;4



Clinton (Democratic)
Trump (Republican)
Johnson (Libertarian)

To illustrate decisive leads,  a tie and a Libertarian lead look like I will show the unlikely scenario of a tie in North Dakota between Clinton and Trump (with Johnson getting 16) and a Libertarian lead in South Dakota in which Clinton is in second place with 44L, 32D, 22R .  In this case the second-place candidate is identified by party and raw number. Also preposterously suggesting  that Hillary Clinton  will get 52% of the vote in Nebraska, Gary Johnson will get 52% of the vote in Iowa,  and that Donald Trump will get  52% of the vote in Minnesota for illustrative purposes (not that I believe any of this possible)... the map below is an illustration and not a prediction of reality...

Margin-based plan. Partisan lead, then Johnson number. This should be easier to read. Colors based upon absolute totals for the leader.




White is for ties. Even leads in the twenties of 1% or more will be shown in the color of the leader.