Presidential election, 2016

[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.