Verifying what Exit Polls say about voting Demographics

[kalm]

I want to like Sam, I really do. I was looking forward to his take on the topic at hand. What I got was millennials swung the election to trump because...Muslims.

Your brain is broken... if you really think that ^ is what he said distilled down



If you honestly don't think Trump getting into office is a whole scale knee jerk reaction
To the eight or ten points Sam Harris points out (Hilary being one of them)
then how exactly did Trump get elected..?

And exit polls already showed us it was NOT the economy

He starts out avoiding the muslin root cause and yes, attributes other causes throughout but he goes back several times to the muslins...he just can't seem to help himself.

I agree there were many causes INCLUDING the economy. To dismiss it entirely by saying "exit polls show it was not the economy" is as hyperbolic as me saying Harris's entire rant was only about muslims. Part of the economic factors that goes unrecognized is uncertainty. The jobless rate and the stock market is great right now, but long term employment remains uncertain for many americans as do health care costs, retirement savings, etc. Remember, the states that swung the election for Trump are at the heart of this uncertainty not to mention they weren't won by much.

I would still contend that Trump's victory was as at least as much a rejection of the establishment (the American people hate the establishment on both sides of the aisle) as it was a backlash to millenial social constructs (trigger warnings, safe spaces, BLM). Middle and old aged voters hate both the establishment and the millenials. If Harris's true argument is that Hillary represented both, then I agree with him.

Also see Houndawg's reply below.

[houndawg]

Sorry about that, for some reason, every time I type donks it changes to conks. I suspect CID..

Well that explains one of the problems.

I see....it appears that the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe....

[Ivytalk]

He gets it wrong from the jump.

The only thing this election was a repudiation of was Hillary Clinton. Period. If it weren't "her turn" the Donks would hold the Presidency.

Of course, based on the "new" DNC, they are racing towards another spectacular underperformance come November. Putin's turning of Trump is espionages equivalent of the first summiting of Mt. Everest.

Sorry about that, for some reason, every time I type donks it changes to conks. I suspect CID..

I suspect Ted Cruz.

[CAA Flagship]

Sorry about that, for some reason, every time I type donks it changes to conks. I suspect CID..

I suspect Ted Cruz.

[houndawg]

Good lord is he a one trick pony.

Some of what he said is true but more than anything it was because Hillary is an
Untrustworthy, preachy, harpy.

I KNEW you were going to be the first to be triggered by that

BTW he says numerous times that Trump's win was not due to any one factor

meh...partial credit. It was overwhelmingly Hillary. Like 95%

[kalm]

I KNEW you were going to be the first to be triggered by that

BTW he says numerous times that Trump's win was not due to any one factor

meh...partial credit. It was overwhelmingly Hillary. Like 95%

It was Hillary because...Benghazi!

- Sam Harris

[Chizzang]

meh...partial credit. It was overwhelmingly Hillary. Like 95%

It was Hillary because...Benghazi!

- Sam Harris

[Pwns]

Sam Harris nailed it. Guys like Bernie Sanders and Jimmy Carter are also saying the same thing BTW, but in a less explicit way. America is absolutely ripe for a politically-incorrect, nativist, economically-liberal candidate.

But neither party is going to nominate one because the donks will keep putting up SJWs and want to be able to brag about having the first openly quasi-gender-fluid bisexual hispanic woman in high office while republicans vote for more blue-blooded, country-club republicans because they're the nativist ones (at least pretending to be).

As I said, expect to be voting for more Gary Johnsons and Jill Steins in the future because of our system for nominating candidates.

[houndawg]

Sam Harris nailed it. Guys like Bernie Sanders and Jimmy Carter are also saying the same thing BTW, but in a less explicit way. America is absolutely ripe for a politically-incorrect, nativist, economically-liberal candidate.

But neither party is going to nominate one because the donks will keep putting up SJWs and want to be able to brag about having the first openly quasi-gender-fluid bisexual hispanic woman in high office while republicans vote for more blue-blooded, country-club republicans because they're the nativist ones (at least pretending to be).

As I said, expect to be voting for more Gary Johnsons and Jill Steins in the future because of our system for nominating candidates.

you're way late to the party...

[JohnStOnge]

Some more numbers:

There are 45 Congressional districts in States won by Trump and which are <50% White. Clinton was 42-3 in those 45 districts. The average outcome was Clinton by 37 percentage points.

And then there's Texas. There are 15 Congressional Districts in Texas which are <50% White. Clinton was 13-2 in them. The average outcome was Clinton by 27 percentage points.

Starting to get the picture? Texas is inevitably moving towards being reliably in the Democrat column during Presidential elections as California is now. That is UNLESS the Republicans find a way to change the underlying dynamic. But they sure as heck didn't make progress in that direction by nominating then rallying behind Trump.

[CID1990]

Some more numbers:

There are 45 Congressional districts in States won by Trump and which are <50% White. Clinton was 42-3 in those 45 districts. The average outcome was Clinton by 37 percentage points.

And then there's Texas. There are 15 Congressional Districts in Texas which are <50% White. Clinton was 13-2 in them. The average outcome was Clinton by 27 percentage points.

Starting to get the picture? Texas is inevitably moving towards being reliably in the Democrat column during Presidential elections as California is now. That is UNLESS the Republicans find a way to change the underlying dynamic. But they sure as heck didn't make progress in that direction by nominating then rallying behind Trump.

Electing Hillary Clinton would have had an equal effect on that shift, dude. It would have happened in different ways, but the end result would have been the same. You railing at Trump being President as somehow accelerating it is only founded in your own mind.

And right now, if dragging Team Brown along kicking and screaming into lower unemployment (and more employment opportunities) is NOT the way to "change the underlying dynamic" then your whole premise... every lengthy screed you have written since 2016, is moot.

[SDHornet]

Some more numbers:

There are 45 Congressional districts in States won by Trump and which are <50% White. Clinton was 42-3 in those 45 districts. The average outcome was Clinton by 37 percentage points.

And then there's Texas. There are 15 Congressional Districts in Texas which are <50% White. Clinton was 13-2 in them. The average outcome was Clinton by 27 percentage points.

Starting to get the picture? Texas is inevitably moving towards being reliably in the Democrat column during Presidential elections as California is now. That is UNLESS the Republicans find a way to change the underlying dynamic. But they sure as heck didn't make progress in that direction by nominating then rallying behind Trump.

Electing Hillary Clinton would have had an equal effect on that shift, dude. It would have happened in different ways, but the end result would have been the same. You railing at Trump being President as somehow accelerating it is only founded in your own mind.

And right now, if dragging Team Brown along kicking and screaming into lower unemployment (and more employment opportunities) is NOT the way to "change the underlying dynamic" then your whole premise... every lengthy screed you have written since 2016, is moot.

JSO is still struggling to comprehend the "it's the economy stupid" mantra that most folks will stick to if the economy stays strong.

[houndawg]

Some more numbers:

There are 45 Congressional districts in States won by Trump and which are <50% White. Clinton was 42-3 in those 45 districts. The average outcome was Clinton by 37 percentage points.

And then there's Texas. There are 15 Congressional Districts in Texas which are <50% White. Clinton was 13-2 in them. The average outcome was Clinton by 27 percentage points.

Starting to get the picture? Texas is inevitably moving towards being reliably in the Democrat column during Presidential elections as California is now. That is UNLESS the Republicans find a way to change the underlying dynamic. But they sure as heck didn't make progress in that direction by nominating then rallying behind Trump.

Electing Hillary Clinton would have had an equal effect on that shift, dude. It would have happened in different ways, but the end result would have been the same. You railing at Trump being President as somehow accelerating it is only founded in your own mind.

And right now, if dragging Team Brown along kicking and screaming into lower unemployment (and more employment opportunities) is NOT the way to "change the underlying dynamic" then your whole premise... every lengthy screed you have written since 2016, is moot.

Boring as shit too...

[JohnStOnge]

And right now, if dragging Team Brown along kicking and screaming into lower unemployment (and more employment opportunities) is NOT the way to "change the underlying dynamic" then your whole premise... every lengthy screed you have written since 2016, is moot.

I don't know if people will be sophisticated enough to realize it but there is obviously not an association between Trump being President and lower unemployment rates. Here is one graphic on that issue:



Obviously what's going on is a continuation of a trend established during the Obama Administration. It's fair to say there's no evidence that Trump has done anything to screw it up. But it's not fair to say that the current low unemployment rate among Blacks is due to Trump.

Same kind of thing with the overall unemployment rate, by the way.

I will concede, though, that there will be a lot of people who think that the fact that the lowest ever unemployment rate among Blacks occurred during Trump's Presidency means Trump caused it. So it may have some political effect.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW it's the same with all the economic stuff. Trump took over when all the economic trends were going in positive directions already. The big difference is that during the campaign he was dismissing all the indications of that. Saying the stats were fake. Saying the stock market was in a bubble. Etc.

Now that he's the President he says he inherited a mess, which is a lie, and all of a sudden all of the stats indicating positive trends are ABSOLUTELY reliable!

[JohnStOnge]

Another graphic below. It doesn't include 2017 but it makes the point. The unemployment rate for each ethnic group declined significantly during the Obama Administration. The idea that Trump is the reason for current low unemployment rates is absurd. And it's like that with everything. All of the economic stats were improving during 2016 while Trump was running for office. The big difference is, when he was running, he was saying that the economic stats showing that things were improving weren't reliable. Now that he's in office, he says the stats showing continuing improvement are ABSOLUTELY accurate! It's not unusual for politicians to do things like that. But it is what it is.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok another unemployment trend graph since the President is now acting as though he caused the female unemployment rate to be the lowest it's been in 18 years. As with the other unemployment rates, he didn't. Doesn't mean people will realize that. It's a lot easier to just say "The female unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 18 years" as though you caused it than it is to describe the data indicating that you didn't. But Trump claiming credit for stuff like this is like a rooster claiming credit for the sun rising.

You can go to the site I got the image from at http://www.macrotrends.net/2511/unemplo ... -men-women and put your cursor on the map to get numbers. It'll open showing 50 years but I clicked on the button to show 10 years.

[houndawg]

Some more numbers:

There are 45 Congressional districts in States won by Trump and which are <50% White. Clinton was 42-3 in those 45 districts. The average outcome was Clinton by 37 percentage points.

And then there's Texas. There are 15 Congressional Districts in Texas which are <50% White. Clinton was 13-2 in them. The average outcome was Clinton by 27 percentage points.

Starting to get the picture? Texas is inevitably moving towards being reliably in the Democrat column during Presidential elections as California is now. That is UNLESS the Republicans find a way to change the underlying dynamic. But they sure as heck didn't make progress in that direction by nominating then rallying behind Trump.

Electing Hillary Clinton would have had an equal effect on that shift, dude. It would have happened in different ways, but the end result would have been the same. You railing at Trump being President as somehow accelerating it is only founded in your own mind.

And right now, if dragging Team Brown along kicking and screaming into lower unemployment (and more employment opportunities) is NOT the way to "change the underlying dynamic" then your whole premise... every lengthy screed you have written since 2016, is moot.

Thanks, Obama.

[CID1990]

Electing Hillary Clinton would have had an equal effect on that shift, dude. It would have happened in different ways, but the end result would have been the same. You railing at Trump being President as somehow accelerating it is only founded in your own mind.

And right now, if dragging Team Brown along kicking and screaming into lower unemployment (and more employment opportunities) is NOT the way to "change the underlying dynamic" then your whole premise... every lengthy screed you have written since 2016, is moot.

Thanks, Obama.

It doesn't matter if that is true or not -

the real truth is that sitting Presidents get rewarded or punished for the state of the economy as it is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Thanks, Obama.

It doesn't matter if that is true or not -

the real truth is that sitting Presidents get rewarded or punished for the state of the economy as it is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say it mattered.

...just haven't got used to irony being dead forever now, I guess.

[JohnStOnge]

Thanks, Obama.

It doesn't matter if that is true or not -

the real truth is that sitting Presidents get rewarded or punished for the state of the economy as it is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes that is normally true but I am encouraged by the results of a recent poll indicating that more people credit Obama with the current positive nature of the economy than credit Trump:

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-tweets-po ... ama-777940

I like that because it's SO bad when Trump says "I inherited a mess." Nothing could be further from the truth. He inherited a situation in which all of the economic indicators were in well established positive trends. Also ISIS was obviously already in headlong decline. I didn't vote for Obama either time but he OBVIOUSLY inherited a much more difficult situation than Trump did. Trump inherited about as positive a situation as any new President could hope to inherit. In fact I don't know if I can think of a President inheriting as good a situation upon taking office in my lifetime except maybe H.W. Bush with the economy still booming and the Soviet Union in the process of collapsing.

[JohnStOnge]

Back to demographics. I happened to notice something when I was looking at census data. It's something that really brings home how important things like turnout, voter registration, and immigrants becoming citizens are. It has to do with Texas. Texas went by 9 percentage points for Trump in 2016. 53.5% to 43.5%. But look at the differences in percentage breakdown by race between people who voted in that election and Texas' population according to the Census Bureau:



I did some math and saw that if the voting by race percentages were what they are in the population and each race voted in the same percentages for each candidate as they did in the 2016 Presidential election Clinton would've won Texas by 3.7 percentage points. 49.4% to 45.7%. And Ms. Clinton would be President right now. It makes sense for Democrats to want to get as many Latinos as they can "in" as citizens, to get as many non White citizens as they can registered, and to get as many registered non White voters as they can out to vote.

It also makes sense for Republicans to try to impede such things.

[SDHornet]

Back to demographics. I happened to notice something when I was looking at census data. It's something that really brings home how important things like turnout, voter registration, and immigrants becoming citizens are. It has to do with Texas. Texas went by 9 percentage points for Trump in 2016. 53.5% to 43.5%. But look at the differences in percentage breakdown by race between people who voted in that election and Texas' population according to the Census Bureau:



I did some math and saw that if the voting by race percentages were what they are in the population and each race voted in the same percentages for each candidate as they did in the 2016 Presidential election Clinton would've won Texas by 3.7 percentage points. 49.4% to 45.7%. And Ms. Clinton would be President right now. It makes sense for Democrats to want to get as many Latinos as they can "in" as citizens, to get as many non White citizens as they can registered, and to get as many registered non White voters as they can out to vote.

It also makes sense for Republicans to try to impede such things.

Paging JSO.

Did the Democrats misread Hispanic voters in 2020? Judging from the election results, it certainly seems so. Data from exit polls and postelection surveys all suggest that there was a very substantial swing away from the Democrats relative to 2016 and it was not confined to Florida. Further work on voting patterns utilizing fine grained geographic election results and area demographics also indicates large swings, as much as 16 margin points nationally.

That’s a very large change. How did the Democrats miss the mark so badly on one of their key constituencies? One possibility is that they fundamentally misunderstood the nature of this voter group and what they really care about. Hispanics were lumped in with “people of color” and were assumed to embrace the activism around racial issues that dominated so much of the political scene in 2020, particularly in the summer. This was a flawed assumption. The reality of the Hispanic population is that they are, broadly speaking, an overwhelmingly working class, economically progressive, socially moderate constituency that cares above all, about jobs, the economy and health care.

For example, in the post-election wave of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group (VSG) panel survey, well over 70 percent of Hispanic voters rated jobs, the economy, health care and the coronavirus as issues that were “very important” to them. No other issues even came close to this level. Crime as an issue rated higher with these voters than immigration or racial equality, two issues that Democrats assumed would clear the path to big gains among Hispanic voters.

In this context, it is interesting to note that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement did not rate very highly among Hispanics. In the national exit poll, Hispanic voters were split close to evenly about BLM, 47 percent unfavorable to 49 percent favorable. This significantly trails not just black voters, but also white college graduates, who rated BLM 61 percent favorable to 35 percent unfavorable.

Consistent with this, Latino voters evinced little sympathy with the more radical demands that came to be associated with BLM. In VSG data, despite showing support for some specific policing reforms, Hispanics opposed defunding the police, decreasing the size of police forces and the scope of their work and reparations for the descendants of slaves by 2:1 or more.

https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/ ... d-hispanic



Team Brown representin'.