A study that agrees with me

[andy7171]

Just listen to Col. Troutman JSO, and listen hard...

phpBB [video]

[JohnStOnge]

So how does this square with the emerging consensus that it was previous Obama voters flipping to Trump?

I meant to get to this question yesterday. I think there is some evidence that, to the extent that Obama voters flipped to Trump, a factor in that was who the Democratic candidate was. I say that because of the Seltzer and Company poll results you can read at http://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/i ... pOEK78Q/v0.

First, because we must live with the misconception whereby people think the polls were wildly off, let me say that the subject poll point estimate was Clinton by 3 in the overall popular vote. She won the overall popular vote by 2.1, so this poll was pretty darned close. Second, Seltzer and Company is one of only 6 polls given an A+ rating by the 538 pollster ratings (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/).

The poll was taken November 4 - 6, 2017.

And here's the deal: That poll included the following question:

Hypothetically, if the general election were held today, and the candidates were [Donald Trump for the
Republicans] and [Barack Obama if he were allowed to run for a third term for the Democrats], for whom
would you vote?

Respondents picked Obama by 53% to 41%. That suggests that, if Obama had been able to run again, he'd have beaten Trump way worse than he beat either McCain or Romney.

The same poll respondents who favored Clinton by 46% to 43% said that if Obama could run again they'd favor him by 53% to 41%. I think that strongly suggests that the identity of the Democratic candidate was a huge factor.

I can anticipate some questions. I like to answer questions I anticipate but I won't because I know you guys don't like that. If you ask them I've got the answers ready. BTW if you want to read a summary of the Seltzer & Company poll results you can see an article on it at https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ional-poll.

[JohnStOnge]

Is your wife still part of the LA RNC?

No. She resigned from the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee prior to the election due to the Republican Party nominating Trump. And she changed her voter registration from Republican to independent. She said she would not be part of a Party that would nominate somebody like that. And she is clearly at peace with that decision.

I'm frankly very proud of her. There are an awful lot of Republicans who threw integrity under the bus during 2016. She did not.

[JohnStOnge]

Just listen to Col. Troutman JSO, and listen hard...

phpBB [video]

You know, Andy, it's NOT over. Well, I think that it IS over in one sense. By that I mean that the Republican Party has destroyed its credibility and is continuing to dig its own grave deeper and deeper as Republican members of Congress refuse to stand up and repudiate this guy.

As I've said many times the future from the Republican Party standpoint was already bleak. What's going on now is making it much more so. Any credibility the Republican Party had left after they did the unthinkable by nominating Trump is rapidly being eliminated by the way they are responding to ...or not responding to...his obvious incompetence and corrupt behavior now.

[JohnStOnge]

Just keep believing the polls don't mean anything even though the overall popular vote polls were extremely close.

[kalm]

Sounds extremely inconclusive. This paragraph doesn't exactly jive with your narrative...



So it wasn't the economy, stupid, but it was economic fatalism?

Kalm, we disagree a lot but I think you are intellectually honest. And in that regard I think you need to look at the over arching theme of the article. And I think that theme is pretty much summarized by this statement from it:

Polling is a notoriously clumsy instrument for understanding people’s lives, and provides only a sketch of who they are. But it’s useful for debunking myths and narratives—particularly the ubiquitous idea that economic anxiety drove white working-class voters to support Trump

You can also click on the link to the study report itself and see this statement:

Overall, the model demonstrates that besides partisanship, fears about immigrants and cultural displacement were more powerful factors than economic concerns in predicting support for Trump among white working-class voters. Moreover, the effects of economic concerns were complex—with economic fatalism predicting support for Trump, but economic hardship predicting support for Clinton.

Whether you choose to agree with the conclusions of the study or not, they are clearly at odds with the "it was the economy stupid" paradigm.

BTW never considered the cultural displacement thing before I saw the report because that's not in exit polls. But exit polling results are CERTAINLY consistent with the statement about immigrants. Exit polling showed that was CLEARLY a motivating factor that strongly favored Trump.

I think Americans have a strong sense of fairness. When they see immigrants being payed illegally and evading the system, it pisses them off. When they see or hear about welfare abuses, it pisses them off. Those are both economic issues at their core.

But yes, I'm sure cultural displacement plays a role as well. Although that's also related to economics.

It's tough to escape economics.

[JohnStOnge]

But Kalm, we have direct questions. People were asked what they thought the most important issue was. Those who said they thought the most important issue was the economy voted by a solid majority for the Democratic candidate for President in 2016. Clinton.

Contrast that to 2012. Then, the majority of people who said they thought the most important issue was the economy voted for the Republican. Romney.

In the face of that kind of evidence how can you POSSIBLY continue to argue that what made the difference for the Republicans in 2016 was the economy? And I'll add the fact that there was an extremely credible poll by Seltzer & Company just prior to the election that showed that if Obama could have run again he'd have blown Trump out?

It wasn't the economy.

[houndawg]

So how does this square with the emerging consensus that it was previous Obama voters flipping to Trump?

I meant to get to this question yesterday. I think there is some evidence that, to the extent that Obama voters flipped to Trump, a factor in that was who the Democratic candidate was. I say that because of the Seltzer and Company poll results you can read at http://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/i ... pOEK78Q/v0.

First, because we must live with the misconception whereby people think the polls were wildly off, let me say that the subject poll point estimate was Clinton by 3 in the overall popular vote. She won the overall popular vote by 2.1, so this poll was pretty darned close. Second, Seltzer and Company is one of only 6 polls given an A+ rating by the 538 pollster ratings (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/).

The poll was taken November 4 - 6, 2017.

And here's the deal: That poll included the following question:

Hypothetically, if the general election were held today, and the candidates were [Donald Trump for the
Republicans] and [Barack Obama if he were allowed to run for a third term for the Democrats], for whom
would you vote?

Respondents picked Obama by 53% to 41%. That suggests that, if Obama had been able to run again, he'd have beaten Trump way worse than he beat either McCain or Romney.

The same poll respondents who favored Clinton by 46% to 43% said that if Obama could run again they'd favor him by 53% to 41%. I think that strongly suggests that the identity of the Democratic candidate was a huge factor.

I can anticipate some questions. I like to answer questions I anticipate but I won't because I know you guys don't like that. If you ask them I've got the answers ready. BTW if you want to read a summary of the Seltzer & Company poll results you can see an article on it at https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ional-poll.

The number of voters switching from Clinton to Trump was minuscule and irrelevant. It was the lefty voters that stayed home or went third party that made the difference. The DNC botched the most winnable national election we've ever had and doubled down on their horseshit when they selected Perez as their new leader. This crowd is fully capable of fucking up the '18 too - in fact I'll bet right now that the election will be underwhelming compared to expectations of the conks.

[Ivytalk]

I meant to get to this question yesterday. I think there is some evidence that, to the extent that Obama voters flipped to Trump, a factor in that was who the Democratic candidate was. I say that because of the Seltzer and Company poll results you can read at http://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/i ... pOEK78Q/v0.

First, because we must live with the misconception whereby people think the polls were wildly off, let me say that the subject poll point estimate was Clinton by 3 in the overall popular vote. She won the overall popular vote by 2.1, so this poll was pretty darned close. Second, Seltzer and Company is one of only 6 polls given an A+ rating by the 538 pollster ratings (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/).

The poll was taken November 4 - 6, 2017.

And here's the deal: That poll included the following question:



Respondents picked Obama by 53% to 41%. That suggests that, if Obama had been able to run again, he'd have beaten Trump way worse than he beat either McCain or Romney.

The same poll respondents who favored Clinton by 46% to 43% said that if Obama could run again they'd favor him by 53% to 41%. I think that strongly suggests that the identity of the Democratic candidate was a huge factor.

I can anticipate some questions. I like to answer questions I anticipate but I won't because I know you guys don't like that. If you ask them I've got the answers ready. BTW if you want to read a summary of the Seltzer & Company poll results you can see an article on it at https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ional-poll.

The number of voters switching from Clinton to Trump was minuscule and irrelevant. It was the lefty voters that stayed home or went third party that made the difference. The DNC botched the most winnable national election we've ever had and doubled down on their horseshit when they selected Perez as their new leader. This crowd is fully capable of **** up the '18 too - in fact I'll bet right now that the election will be underwhelming compared to expectations of the conks.

The "conventional wisdom" among the MSM and fellow-traveling pantywaists like Analjelly is that the GOP is well
on its way to losing control of the House next year. There's a long time (in politics) between now and then. Uncle Houndy may be on to something.

[Ibanez]

But Kalm, we have direct questions. People were asked what they thought the most important issue was. Those who said they thought the most important issue was the economy voted by a solid majority for the Democratic candidate for President in 2016. Clinton.

Contrast that to 2012. Then, the majority of people who said they thought the most important issue was the economy voted for the Republican. Romney.

In the face of that kind of evidence how can you POSSIBLY continue to argue that what made the difference for the Republicans in 2016 was the economy? And I'll add the fact that there was an extremely credible poll by Seltzer & Company just prior to the election that showed that if Obama could have run again he'd have blown Trump out?

It wasn't the economy.

People lie.

[Pwns]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/opin ... party.html

Here's some analysis that disagrees with JSO.

The graph won't display correctly for some reason, but the the red line is Trump's margins of victory in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The bars represent the number of Bernie Sanders voters who went for Trump in the GE.

So while a lot of the things JSO says about the national-level demographics of Trump and Hillary voters is right, when you look at crucial states that have gone mostly blue over the last 3 decades, it's hard to say that economic anxiety and Trump's protectionist rhetoric in the campaign didn't play a role in helping him win these states.

[houndawg]

The number of voters switching from Clinton to Trump was minuscule and irrelevant. It was the lefty voters that stayed home or went third party that made the difference. The DNC botched the most winnable national election we've ever had and doubled down on their horseshit when they selected Perez as their new leader. This crowd is fully capable of **** up the '18 too - in fact I'll bet right now that the election will be underwhelming compared to expectations of the conks.

The "conventional wisdom" among the MSM and fellow-traveling pantywaists like Analjelly is that the GOP is well
on its way to losing control of the House next year. There's a long time (in politics) between now and then. Uncle Houndy may be on to something.

The conks are lucky the donks are too stupid to get a clue from the Michigan primary.

[kalm]

The "conventional wisdom" among the MSM and fellow-traveling pantywaists like Analjelly is that the GOP is well
on its way to losing control of the House next year. There's a long time (in politics) between now and then. Uncle Houndy may be on to something.

The conks are lucky the donks are too stupid to get a clue from the Michigan primary.

[JohnStOnge]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/opin ... party.html

Here's some analysis that disagrees with JSO.

The graph won't display correctly for some reason, but the the red line is Trump's margins of victory in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The bars represent the number of Bernie Sanders voters who went for Trump in the GE.

So while a lot of the things JSO says about the national-level demographics of Trump and Hillary voters is right, when you look at crucial states that have gone mostly blue over the last 3 decades, it's hard to say that economic anxiety and Trump's protectionist rhetoric in the campaign didn't play a role in helping him win these states.

To make sense of that you'd have to have some perspective with respect to the number of Bernie Sanders voters who voted for Clinton during the general election. And I suspect the overwhelming majority of people who went for Bernie Sanders during the Democratic Primaries voted for Clinton in the General election.

[JohnStOnge]

And, again, Hillary Clinton won among voters who considered the economy to be the most important issue in all three of the States Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

That's the big thing with respect to this thread. The economy as an issue was a net advantage for Clinton nationally and it was a net advantage for Clinton in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

[UNI88]

And, again, Hillary Clinton won among voters who considered the economy to be the most important issue in all three of the States Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

That's the big thing with respect to this thread. The economy as an issue was a net advantage for Clinton nationally and it was a net advantage for Clinton in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

John is it possible that it wasn't as strong of an advantage as it should have been or was expected to be in those or other states? That Hillary's cozy relationships with Wall St, support of TPP, etc. didn't hurt her. At their core, those are economic issues.

[JohnStOnge]

And, again, Hillary Clinton won among voters who considered the economy to be the most important issue in all three of the States Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

That's the big thing with respect to this thread. The economy as an issue was a net advantage for Clinton nationally and it was a net advantage for Clinton in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

John is it possible that it wasn't as strong of an advantage as it should have been or was expected to be in those or other states? That Hillary's cozy relationships with Wall St, support of TPP, etc. didn't hurt her. At their core, those are economic issues.

Unfortunately I can't make a State by State comparison based on exit polling from 2012 and 2016. However, nationally, the economy issue favored the Republican in 2012.

In 2012, nationally, those who said the economy was the most important issue voted for Romney by 51 to 47%. In 2016, those who said the economy was the most important issue favored Clinton by 51 to 42%.

That, alone, tells you that the idea that Trump won because of the economy is total nonsense. That wasn't it.

[BDKJMU]

John is it possible that it wasn't as strong of an advantage as it should have been or was expected to be in those or other states? That Hillary's cozy relationships with Wall St, support of TPP, etc. didn't hurt her. At their core, those are economic issues.

Unfortunately I can't make a State by State comparison based on exit polling from 2012 and 2016. However, nationally, the economy issue favored the Republican in 2012.

In 2012, nationally, those who said the economy was the most important issue voted for Romney by 51 to 47%. In 2016, those who said the economy was the most important issue favored Clinton by 51 to 42%.

That, alone, tells you that the idea that Trump won because of the economy is total nonsense. That wasn't it.

That alone, tells you you still don't get it. Nationally it doesn't matter what people thought. What mattered was what people thought about he economy in FL, PA, OH, Mich, and Wis. States that Obama won in 2012 that Trump flipped.

[JohnStOnge]

Unfortunately I can't make a State by State comparison based on exit polling from 2012 and 2016. However, nationally, the economy issue favored the Republican in 2012.

In 2012, nationally, those who said the economy was the most important issue voted for Romney by 51 to 47%. In 2016, those who said the economy was the most important issue favored Clinton by 51 to 42%.

That, alone, tells you that the idea that Trump won because of the economy is total nonsense. That wasn't it.

That alone, tells you you still don't get it. Nationally it doesn't matter what people thought. What mattered was what people thought about he economy in FL, PA, OH, Mich, and Wis. States that Obama won in 2012 that Trump flipped.

No, that's not what happened. Yes, Trump those States flipped in terms of who got the electoral votes (though Ohio is the only one among them where Trump got a majority of the vote; which bears upon the issue of people opting to go third party rather than vote for either of the major party candidates). But it wasn't because of the economy. Clinton won among people who thought the economy was the most important issue in all of those States. Not just in terms of getting more than Trump. She got the overall majority among those people in all of those.

Now, the on line exit polling for 2012 I can find doesn't break things down by State. But there is no reason to think that the situation was better for Obama in those States among people concerned about the economy then.

It wasn't the economy. That's was not a net advantage for Trump. If you want a hint at what the net advantage for Trump was look at things like questions on immigration and terrorism. Also look at the vote among White Evangelical Christians. It was cultural issues and what the liberals call xenophobia. And that's what the exit polls in all of the States you listed indicate.