Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 13, 2016 13:28:40 GMT
In fairness this was a statistical fluke. Trump carried Missouri by 19 points while Blunt only won by 3 points. Conversely Ohio was won by Trump with an 8.5 point margin while Portman won by 21 points. If these, and several other races, different results for Presidential and Senate races was a clear possibility. Even so those differences aren't huge compared to past patters (or rather lack of patterns) and you've probably picked two states where the two votes diverged more than most. There's clearly a growing tendency for congressional elections to ape Presidential voting patterns. Look back at 2008 you had Democrat Senators winning massively in states like Montana and South Dakota while the republicans won easily in Maine. Maybe this is a one-off but it looks to me like the voting patterns are starting to converge. OF course this may not be so much of an issue in 2018 when obviously there won't be a Presidential elecion on the same day so local and incumbency factors will carry more weight and of course in 2020 the Democrat defences are nearly all in solid blue states I don't disagree with any of that and there is no doubt that voting patterns have been converging for a long time. My only real point was the fact that every single state voted the same was a fluke that probably won't be repeated in the future. If you look ahead to 2020 a couple of states stand out as likely to split their tickets. Maine is the most obvious example, assuming that Susan Collins runs for re-election, and Colorado looks pretty likely IMO. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,415 
|
Post by iain on Nov 13, 2016 13:31:15 GMT
In fairness this was a statistical fluke. Trump carried Missouri by 19 points while Blunt only won by 3 points. Conversely Ohio was won by Trump with an 8.5 point margin while Portman won by 21 points. If these, and several other races, different results for Presidential and Senate races was a clear possibility. Even so those differences aren't huge compared to past patters (or rather lack of patterns) and you've probably picked two states where the two votes diverged more than most. There's clearly a growing tendency for congressional elections to ape Presidential voting patterns. Look back at 2008 you had Democrat Senators winning massively in states like Montana and South Dakota while the republicans won easily in Maine. Maybe this is a one-off but it looks to me like the voting patterns are starting to converge. OF course this may not be so much of an issue in 2018 when obviously there won't be a Presidential elecion on the same day so local and incumbency factors will carry more weight and of course in 2020 the Democrat defences are nearly all in solid blue states Though of course the Democrats won governorships in West Virginia and Montana, while losing Vermont. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,995
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 13, 2016 13:49:46 GMT
Some striking differences between Senate and Presidential voting patterns in some states despite the overall results being the same though.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 13, 2016 14:02:57 GMT
Even so those differences aren't huge compared to past patters (or rather lack of patterns) and you've probably picked two states where the two votes diverged more than most. There's clearly a growing tendency for congressional elections to ape Presidential voting patterns. Look back at 2008 you had Democrat Senators winning massively in states like Montana and South Dakota while the republicans won easily in Maine. Maybe this is a one-off but it looks to me like the voting patterns are starting to converge. OF course this may not be so much of an issue in 2018 when obviously there won't be a Presidential elecion on the same day so local and incumbency factors will carry more weight and of course in 2020 the Democrat defences are nearly all in solid blue states Though of course the Democrats won governorships in West Virginia and Montana, while losing Vermont. Governor's races still tend to be dominated by the candidates themselves and state, not national, issues. A West Virginia voter might well be convinced that a Democratic Senator will be a pawn for Obama/Clinton and Reid/Schumer but when it comes to the Governor of the state it is a lot harder to make that argument. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 13, 2016 15:06:36 GMT
Some of the stories starting to emerge from the Clinton campaign are hilarious. It has been claimed that they didn't bother polling Michigan for several months and when they finally did so a week before the election they discovered they were basically tied there, thus the last minute scramble. This is honestly the height of political malpractice, for a campaign so well resourced not to be checking their firewall states on a fairly regular basis is absolutely inexcusable. This would never have happened with the highly professional Obama campaign* who obsessively polled every state that was even close to being a battleground and then diverted resources accordingly. It looks increasingly clear that the blue wall collapsed through neglect as much as it did from enemy fire.
*Apparently on the morning of the 2012 election Jim Messina spoke to Obama and informed him that he would win 332-206, which was exactly what he did.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,995
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 13, 2016 18:16:27 GMT
More Sedan than Waterloo then.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,049
|
Post by jamie on Nov 13, 2016 21:44:57 GMT
God that was an awful result. Took a few days away from this forum (but not politics) to get used to the news Donald J Trump will be the next president of the United States of America. Here are my thoughts on the presidential polling/expectations, echoing a lot of what others have said.
National polls were within the expected possible error (2-3%) while state polls were way out in many cases. I think the biggest lesson to learn is that 'demographics are destiny'. During the primary, many of us here and elsewhere recognised that some state polling for the Democratic was way off what it should be and said we should adjust our expectations based on demographics. This accurately predicted many results, at least more so than the polls. Clearly, many of us, myself included, abandoned this thinking and took the polls as gospel.
The discrepancies between polling and actual results were not universal. As mentioned above nationally they were off but not unusually so. At the state level it varied widely. The polls were most off in the Rust Belt. This is the area where despite Trump's gains with the white working class, polls showed Clinton getting the same result as Obama. Clearly this was nonsense. There also appeared to be a late swing towards Trump in the educated white suburbs which helped him in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Hampshire in particular. Moving on to the New South, Clinton slightly underperformed her polls but nothing out of the ordinary. Virginia was as expected, North Carolina went reasonably well considering black voter suppression and Georgia swung towards her. Florida was close as expected but not in Clinton's favour. Black turnout, with the noted exception of NC, seemed to have held up across the South, in contrast to major urban areas in the Rust Belt where urban black turnout often plummeted (with Wisconsin at least somewhat being due to the voter suppression). The idea that black turnout would plummet without Obama seemed to be proved wrong in places where campaigning took place, but right where it didn't. Moving on to the Sun Belt, Clinton held up here as well. Arizona was close, Texas loss margin halved, Nevada decent win, New Mesico OK (considering Johnson) and California looking very good. Only really Colorado where she noticeably underperformed. Clearly, Hispanic turnout was actualised, as would have been expected in this race. Finally, Clinton performed as expected in safe Democratic areas, mix of marginally safe and marginally less safe results.
Overall, the results were as expected if we had looked at the national polls and demographic movements and applied them to states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 22:23:09 GMT
Got any evidence of this so called black voter suppression. Why would African Americans vote for another democrat, when their lives have not changed, even after one of their own didn't make any sufficient changes to their lives.
Again another leftie hoping demographic changes will lead them to victory, find solutions to people's problems and issues you win elections.
Stop talking about white privilege, gender neutrality and how globalisation is great. Those in the rust belt and northern England don't want to hear that rubbish and only has traction with under 30s and those in liberal East and West cost and metropolitan areas of the UK.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,291
|
Post by maxque on Nov 13, 2016 22:25:47 GMT
Got any evidence of this so called black voter suppression. North Carolina cut early voting in the black counties, but not in the other ones, pretty much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 22:28:43 GMT
Got any evidence of this so called black voter suppression. North Carolina cut early voting in the black counties, but not in the other ones, pretty much. just words, where is the evidence and was there early voting? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,291
|
Post by maxque on Nov 13, 2016 22:34:54 GMT
North Carolina cut early voting in the black counties, but not in the other ones, pretty much. just words, where is the evidence and was there early voting? There is tons of evidence in this very thread (use the search function at the top). I won't bother searching it, as, you clearly don't care for facts, you just want to push your spiel about "Left hates working class", without any regard to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 13, 2016 22:37:03 GMT
Wisconsin instituted a deliberately extremely restrictive law on proving identity in order to cast a vote. Turnout plummeted and it voted Republican in a Presidential election for the first time since 1984.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 22:56:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 23:30:36 GMT
Wisconsin instituted a deliberately extremely restrictive law on proving identity in order to cast a vote. Turnout plummeted and it voted Republican in a Presidential election for the first time since 1984. that is not voter suppression and I would support that policy in the UK. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,291
|
Post by maxque on Nov 13, 2016 23:34:27 GMT
Wisconsin instituted a deliberately extremely restrictive law on proving identity in order to cast a vote. Turnout plummeted and it voted Republican in a Presidential election for the first time since 1984. that is not voter suppression and I would support that policy in the UK. That's voter suppression when you make the process for getting an ID card (other than a driving licence or gun permit) extremely difficult and expensive, like they did. Before someone ask, the main issue is requiring you to show your birth certificate, which is very complicated and expensive to get if you are not born in Wisconsin (depending on your birth state, you may have to do a trip to your birth county). |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,291
|
Post by maxque on Nov 13, 2016 23:50:31 GMT
With how non-existent transit is in most of Wisconsin, the overwhelming majority of people will have drivers' licenses. The exceptions will usually be people such as college students, and the law does indeed make provision for them to vote with their college IDs and their tuition fee receipts. The main issue is inner city poor inhabitants, which are in large proportions minorities. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,995
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 13, 2016 23:50:58 GMT
This will, however, not be the case in inner city Milwaukee, the part of the state that the new rules were intended to target. Look the Republican Party are utter sh!tstains over this kind of thing and even pretty much brag about it. American politics is far more fundamentally unpleasant than British observers realise.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,291
|
Post by maxque on Nov 14, 2016 0:37:12 GMT
The main issue is inner city poor inhabitants, which are in large proportions minorities. Hispanic and Asian minorities have a higher rate of non-citizenship though, which means that these individuals are not entitled to vote (and given the scope for ignorance here, one would expect a fall in turnout with better enforcement). For instance, 29.4% of Hispanic residents of Milwaukee city were non-citizens at the last census. And there is a strong correlation between wages and citizenship status in minority communities in the U.S. – it is actually true that the more recent immigrants are doing the worse jobs. To some extent, simply enforcing the law should be expected to look like this, and there is not necessarily anything sinister going on. You're convinently forgetting the main victims of it, black people. And the process for people who became citizens is actually easier, they just need their citizenship certificate (which they got at their naturalization ceremony). The main issue is the US-born black people, again. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 14, 2016 0:39:04 GMT
Wisconsin instituted a deliberately extremely restrictive law on proving identity in order to cast a vote. Turnout plummeted and it voted Republican in a Presidential election for the first time since 1984. Given that Democratic turnout also plummeted in Minnesota and Michigan perhaps we should consider that the phenomenon might have had causes other that voter ID laws. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,995
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 14, 2016 0:50:19 GMT
Yes that's a fair point. But there's not much doubt of the malicious intent of the changes to the law in Wisconsin. America  |
|
