The Audacity of Hopelessness

[PhDeac]

OK. Yet again. This time from a different source than the one posted a page or so back. Here are counties that flipped from Obama to Trump and from Romney to Clinton. This does not take into account the massive number of counties that did not flip but where Clinton's percentage take dropped from the take Obama took. And if you wish to continue to argue that Clinton voters stayed home, you should be asking yourself "why"?

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/50203...d-for-obama-and-trump-heres-where-in-3-charts

He did.

If you're right, then surely you have data.

Republican voting patterns stayed more or less the same from 2012 with white women voting for Trump more and Obama coalition voters voting less overall. You're basing your analysis off of recollection, anecdotes, and speculation. You haven't done the work.

My claim is that in terms of the aggregate counts per state that went blue in 2012 and red in 2016, voter turnout was down significantly amongst Obama coalition voters and in Obama coalition areas, whereas white women (primarily suburban, or as you put it, exurban) voted in larger than anticipated numbers for Trump.

I'm not sure where you're getting numbers like 10-20 percentage point drops or what they refer to, but when we're talking about state aggregate figures, which influence electoral vote allocation, then significant drops in urban area voter turnout absolutely affects national election outcomes. I've posted about this in depth on here prior to your return to the boards. Your move.

You're right and I agree with your last paragraph, though. It's Clinton's and the DNC's fault 100%+ for losing this election. Had you paid attention to the boards during the election you might be able to paint with a less broad brush in describing who folks attribute blame to on the boards.

 

[jhmd2000]

Pretty sure if you spend hours combing through dozens of pages you'll see JHMD is correct. My guess is JHMD doesn't care enough to bother but you sound like you do. Good luck getting to the bottom of it.

It's insane, right? I'm the one flailing to explain his party's defeat? That's perhaps the most undepheatedest-ass-shit I've ever read, and it concluded with an allegation of someone else projecting! It's like a Butthurt Buffett!

And to think I had a genuine apprehension that Dems might learn from this loss. So much for that.

 

[DeacMan]

If you're right, then surely you have data.

Republican voting patterns stayed more or less the same from 2012 with white women voting for Trump more and Obama coalition voters voting less overall. You're basing your analysis off of recollection, anecdotes, and speculation. You haven't done the work.

My claim is that in terms of the aggregate counts per state that went blue in 2012 and red in 2016, voter turnout was down significantly amongst Obama coalition voters and in Obama coalition areas, whereas white women (primarily suburban, or as you put it, exurban) voted in larger than anticipated numbers for Trump.

I'm not sure where you're getting numbers like 10-20 percentage point drops or what they refer to, but when we're talking about state aggregate figures, which influence electoral vote allocation, then significant drops in urban area voter turnout absolutely affects national election outcomes. I've posted about this in depth on here prior to your return to the boards. Your move.

You're right and I agree with your last paragraph, though. It's Clinton's and the DNC's fault 100%+ for losing this election. Had you paid attention to the boards during the election you might be able to paint with a less broad brush in describing who folks attribute blame to on the boards.

Oh, there have definitely been some on this Board, and many in the media, who have looked at all sundry of reasons she lost without blaming her. And I'm not painting with a broad brush. I'm addressing people who play the sound bite game. You don't appear to be one of them.

On urban turnout, that may well be true.

I did go dig in on rural and ex-urban and the notion of lower turnout simply does not hold. You can look at any number of counties in various key states and the data is alarming for Clinton. Gore, Kerry and Obama may have pulled 45% more or less and then Clinton pulls 25%. That's what I mean by big drops. And it is not explained by looking at turnout. Those are Obama voters who turned Trump. And it was real. My Aunt step Uncle live in rural Ohio. She's a lifelong educator and a Democrat. He hails from coal country in Kentucky and has never once voted for a GOP candidate in any election until this year. I know both voted for Trump. Their county gave Clinton 34% of the vote. In 2012 it gave Obama 48%. Roughly 29,000 votes were cast in that county in each election. So Obama takes almost 14,000 votes and Clinton takes just under 10,000. That's a big swing. And it is not explained by "turnout". And it was a story repeated over and over and over. Clinton lost counties in Wisconsin that have not voted GOP in over 50 years. That is not explained by "turnout".

And it's stuff like this that goes a long way towards explaining how states went from +2 for Obama and +8.5 for Trump.

 

[Strickland33]

OK. Yet again. This time from a different source than the one posted a page or so back. Here are counties that flipped from Obama to Trump and from Romney to Clinton. This does not take into account the massive number of counties that did not flip but where Clinton's percentage take dropped from the take Obama took. And if you wish to continue to argue that Clinton voters stayed home, you should be asking yourself "why"?

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502032052/lots-of-people-voted-for-obama-and-trump-heres-where-in-3-charts

I was going to either cite that article or this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/upshot/how-did-trump-win-over-so-many-obama-voters.html?_r=0

Both say the same thing without any evidence of individual voters switching from Obama to Trump. They conflate individual voter preference with county aggregates, which is fine, but I don't think it proves the point that you're trying to make.

Again, counties flipping from blue to red doesn't mean that voters went from Obama to Trump. There are a lot of plausible alternative explanations. Like Obama, Trump may have increased turnout among a population that typically doesn't vote. Clinton may have lost the voters that Obama gained in 2008 and held onto in 2012, who returned to not voting in the presidential election. Voter suppression measures in urban areas in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania may have played a part, but perhaps confidence in the electoral outcome (influenced by the mass worship of the Clinton campaign in the MSM and misleading statistical analysis coming from the likes of 538) might've inspired Obama coalition voters to feel more comfortable abstaining or voting third party because they were confident that Clinton had it in the big

Surely there is a data to support your point, but I'm just not seeing it.

I've asked why quite a bit and we've talked about the fatal combination of arrogance and ignorance of the Clinton campaign and the DNC on here quite a bit. You have me confused with somebody else. And they didn't stay home. All indications are that turnout was down, but that more problematic was the trend that voters abstained from voting in the presidential election and voted for down ballot candidates and ballot initiatives instead. We know why, though I'm not sure what there is to be done in hindsight. Ellison to DNC chair seems like the most rational move to prevent it from happening again.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

I would love to see some examples of people on here who have stated that Clinton lost because of the hacking.

I'm guessing there are a lot of examples that are readily accessible given the extent JHMD is continuing to beat the horse.

Specific posts from posters on here would be great instead of just generalizations that every Democrat/Liberal is outraged and thinks Clinton only lost because of the hacks.

If there are a lot out there that I have just glossed over then I'll apologize to JHMD and he can go on about his mission to continue to prod people about it.

He was cracking a joke from the end of pretty much every Scooby Doo episode. And people on here have definitely said she lost in part because of the hacking. RJ on page 2 of that thread (I won't go through anymore): "Why not let an expansionist KGB dictator help determine the outcome of our elections?" "There's no way to justify turning over an American election to Putin. But bob and the GOP have no problem with doing so."

 

[Strickland33]

Oh, there have definitely been some on this Board, and many in the media, who have looked at all sundry of reasons she lost without blaming her. And I'm not painting with a broad brush. I'm addressing people who play the sound bite game. You don't appear to be one of them.

On urban turnout, that may well be true.

I did go dig in on rural and ex-urban and the notion of lower turnout simply does not hold. You can look at any number of counties in various key states and the data is alarming for Clinton. Gore, Kerry and Obama may have pulled 45% more or less and then Clinton pulls 25%. That's what I mean by big drops. And it is not explained by looking at turnout. Those are Obama voters who turned Trump. And it was real. My Aunt step Uncle live in rural Ohio. She's a lifelong educator and a Democrat. He hails from coal country in Kentucky and has never once voted for a GOP candidate in any election until this year. I know both voted for Trump. Their county gave Clinton 34% of the vote. In 2012 it gave Obama 48%. Roughly 29,000 votes were cast in that county in each election. So Obama takes almost 14,000 votes and Clinton takes just under 10,000. That's a big swing. And it is not explained by "turnout". And it was a story repeated over and over and over. Clinton lost counties in Wisconsin that have not voted GOP in over 50 years. That is not explained by "turnout".

And it's stuff like this that goes a long way towards explaining how states went from +2 for Obama and +8.5 for Trump.

Do you believe that those counties (or the aggregate of such counties) swung the election, though? That was your initial claim and that's what I'm not seeing in the data. A lot of these counties - like the 29k population county that you cited - are extremely small. Even 2012 urban voter turnout numbers, which were already down significantly from 2008, would've negated the gains that Trump appeared to make in "a number of counties" (though, thank you for being specific with the county in Ohio).

ETA: And I'm only intent on arguing this point because there are stakes in assigning causality to a phenomenon. It seems like there are plausible, competing alternative explanations for why Trump won this election. Your claim is one of these and you've made it quite well. (In the interest of replicability, a friend of mine who does data visualization has come to similar conclusions on the basis of urban/rural turnout data in Minnesota, where he's from). Rather than attributing causality to things we can't prove in actual data, I think it's prudent to either collect better data or stop making causal propositions in the first place. Since I can't do the former, I've been trying to do more of the latter.

 

[jhmd2000]

He was cracking a joke from the end of pretty much every Scooby Doo episode. And people on here have definitely said she lost in part because of the hacking. RJ on page 2 of that thread (I won't go through anymore): "Why not let an expansionist KGB dictator help determine the outcome of our elections?" "There's no way to justify turning over an American election to Putin. But bob and the GOP have no problem with doing so."

Let him go, Bob. The man is obviously still grieving. If it makes him feel better to kill the messenger, I'm here for him.

Take a moment to examine the mental bearing of a man who was moved to keyboard aggression over a reference to Scoobie Doo. The Tunnels is a place of healing, 27. We're hear for you.

 

[DeacMan]

I was going to either cite that article or this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/upshot/how-did-trump-win-over-so-many-obama-voters.html?_r=0

Both say the same thing without any evidence of individual voters switching from Obama to Trump. They conflate individual voter preference with county aggregates, which is fine, but I don't think it proves the point that you're trying to make.

Again, counties flipping from blue to red doesn't mean that voters went from Obama to Trump. There are a lot of plausible alternative explanations. Like Obama, Trump may have increased turnout among a population that typically doesn't vote. Clinton may have lost the voters that Obama gained in 2008 and held onto in 2012, who returned to not voting in the presidential election. Voter suppression measures in urban areas in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania may have played a part, but perhaps confidence in the electoral outcome (influenced by the mass worship of the Clinton campaign in the MSM and misleading statistical analysis coming from the likes of 538) might've inspired Obama coalition voters to feel more comfortable abstaining or voting third party because they were confident that Clinton had it in the big

Surely there is a data to support your point, but I'm just not seeing it.

I've asked why quite a bit and we've talked about the fatal combination of arrogance and ignorance of the Clinton campaign and the DNC on here quite a bit. You have me confused with somebody else. And they didn't stay home. All indications are that turnout was down, but that more problematic was the trend that voters abstained from voting in the presidential election and voted for down ballot candidates and ballot initiatives instead. We know why, though I'm not sure what there is to be done in hindsight. Ellison to DNC chair seems like the most rational move to prevent it from happening again.

Le sigh. If you think voter turnout in X county in rural Ohio doesn't move from one election to the next, that Clinton takes a far lower percentage of the vote than her Democratic predecessors, and that this is not evidence of individuals flipping from D to R - then I have a bridge in the desert I'd like to sell you. Never mind that this happened in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of counties that do not have large numbers of voters. Of course I can't provide you with "proof". But it defies any other rational explanation. When a county only produces 30,000 voters and a candidate drops 4,000 votes relative to others in her party it is not logical to suggest "well all their prior voters stayed home and new voters simply emerged".

But if that's how you want to draw a conclusion, go for it.

I'm not going to comment again on Ellison - who is my rep. in Congress. He is absolutely all about trying to up voter turnout. So that is a plus. But he is a risk in terms of being able to forge a meaningful connection with rural and ex-urban voters.

 

[simosfrostyone]

I'm not going to comment again on Ellison - who is my rep. in Congress. He is absolutely all about trying to up voter turnout. So that is a plus. But he is a risk in terms of being able to forge a meaningful connection with rural and ex-urban voters.

Understatement of the year.

 

[Strickland33]

Le sigh. If you think voter turnout in X county in rural Ohio doesn't move from one election to the next, that Clinton takes a far lower percentage of the vote than her Democratic predecessors, and that this is not evidence of individuals flipping from D to R - then I have a bridge in the desert I'd like to sell you. Never mind that this happened in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of counties that do not have large numbers of voters. Of course I can't provide you with "proof". But it defies any other rational explanation. When a county only produces 30,000 voters and a candidate drops 4,000 votes relative to others in her party it is not logical to suggest "well all their prior voters stayed home and new voters simply emerged".

But if that's how you want to draw a conclusion, go for it.

I'm not going to comment again on Ellison - who is my rep. in Congress. He is absolutely all about trying to up voter turnout. So that is a plus. But he is a risk in terms of being able to forge a meaningful connection with rural and ex-urban voters.

Le sigh all you want. I'm saying that it's stupid to talk about causality when you can't actually prove a variable is causal. You can't provide me with proof? [Your words] So, quit trying to prove something. That's all I'm trying to say. You articulated it better than I could.

I tend to agree with your last paragraphs and I'm with you on this one to a point. Ex-urban voters (who is this demographic exactly? are we talking about new suburbanites or "exurbs" as outer ring suburbs in metropolitan statistical areas? - the distinction matters to your claim, I think) probably will not be interested in Ellison's message. This population of educated, white upper middle class+ suburban voters overwhelmingly voted for Trump and probably will benefit most from the corporate kleptocracy that we're about to drown in as a country.

Where I disagree is in relation to the second demographic and I do so for precisely the reasons that you have posted about above with your anecdote about your aunt and Obama counties flipping to Trump. If anything, then Obama and Trump have proven, rural voters, particularly poor rural voters will vote for candidates who have messages about change that poor rural voters can identify with. I don't see this population as a "demographics problem" moving forward because a true progressive candidate would be able to do well with a message that emphasizes economic justice and redistribution. That's one of many reasons that I was and remain a Sanders supporter and am so high on the prospects of Ellison being DNC chair.

 

[DeacMan]

EVERY US intelligence agency has said there was direct Russian interference in our election and it was led directly by Putin. It's not in dispute by the people who know. Even McConnell and Ryan have set-up committees because of this. None of these experts are enough for you.

Was this THE reason Hillary lost? No, but it did have impact. It was on the news nearly every day.

She was a terrible candidate. She made a ton of mistakes, but the unprecedented actions by a foreign leader and his government apparatus did impact our election.

This is like your statement that Trump isn't beholden to donors, yet as avalon showed, so far 6 people who donated a total of $12M have been appointed to major positions in the Trump Administration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ampaign-and-the-party/?utm_term=.0bda9e9c09c5

So, yes, Trump has definitively proven he is beholden to donors and has started paying them back.

There are days where I just have to shake my head about how you sometimes just don't grasp very simple concepts. But let's try this again.

- 27 asked if another poster had proof anyone here was claiming Russian interference cost Hillary the election.

- I pointed him to a 37 page thread about Russian interference in the election.

- I told him I had not studied it.

- And I both pointed him to this thread and told him I had not studied it so he would understand I was not sure, but thought perhaps, said 37 page thread might be instructive to his ask of the other poster.

That's it. Nothing more. Why you are whirling on way outside the bounds of that line of logic is way beyond me. I've voiced no particular opinion about Russian interference nor do I care to be told whatever argument you are making or experts you are citing to make a point to me that is not remotely relative to my initial post is "not enough for me".

In short, you are talking to yourself. I hope you have convinced yourself well.

 

[Strickland33]

I think there was more than a little crossover going both ways. Most of the Pub folks I know voted Trump but a few establishment types did vote for Clinton. Similarly, I think there was some crossover from former Obama voters to Trump - folks who went for his populist message, especially in the Rust Belt. Just look at the Bobs. Which crossover was greater I don't know, but I bet it varied significantly by state - more crossover for Trump in the Rust Belt and more for Clinton in states like GA and TX.

But yes, the bigger issue for Clinton was younger folks and African Americans staying home. In 2008, Obama at the end of the day was able to seal the deal with the PUMAs. Clinton was unable to do the same thing to the same extent with disaffected more pro Bernie young folks this year, as evidenced by the light turnout.

I think people are just trying to argue this point. You keep referring to approval ratings, which I think lots of other folks find fairly irrelevant.

I missed these before, but these are also great posts. Just like yours (DeacMan), cville's explanation, I think, is also both strong and plausible in this case.

 

[DeacMan]

Le sigh all you want. I'm saying that it's stupid to talk about causality when you can't actually prove a variable is causal. You can't provide me with proof? [Your words] So, quit trying to prove something. That's all I'm trying to say. You articulated it better than I could.

I tend to agree with your last paragraphs and I'm with you on this one to a point. Ex-urban voters (who is this demographic exactly? are we talking about new suburbanites or "exurbs" as outer ring suburbs in metropolitan statistical areas? - the distinction matters to your claim, I think) probably will not be interested in Ellison's message. This population of educated, white upper middle class+ suburban voters overwhelmingly voted for Trump and probably will benefit most from the corporate kleptocracy that we're about to drown in as a country.

Where I disagree is in relation to the second demographic and I do so for precisely the reasons that you have posted about above with your anecdote about your aunt and Obama counties flipping to Trump. If anything, then Obama and Trump have proven, rural voters, particularly poor rural voters will vote for candidates who have messages about change that poor rural voters can identify with. I don't see this population as a "demographics problem" moving forward because a true progressive candidate would be able to do well with a message that emphasizes economic justice and redistribution. That's one of many reasons that I was and remain a Sanders supporter and am so high on the prospects of Ellison being DNC chair.

We'll just agree to disagree. It is harder for you to prove people did not flip than it is to look at the math and conclude they did.

I'd also note I'm all but convinced your last paragraph is totally bogus relative to the county where my relatives live.

 

[TownieDeac]

It's insane, right? I'm the one flailing to explain his party's defeat? That's perhaps the most undepheatedest-ass-shit I've ever read, and it concluded with an allegation of someone else projecting! It's like a Butthurt Buffett!

And to think I had a genuine apprehension that Dems might learn from this loss. So much for that.

If you really thought Dems would completely re-evaluate their platform or soul search because their shitty candidate got beaten by a snake oil cult of personality candidate, of course you were going to be disappointed.

The only thing that needs examining is the messages. Dems gotta dumb it down.

 

[Strickland33]

We'll just agree to disagree. And I'm all but convinced your last paragraph is totally bogus relative to the county where my relatives live.

That's fine, but if you're going to assert that x caused y, then you should probably have data on x that disproves alternative explanations. Im saying that your explanation is plausible, but you're not providing any new data (or analysis based on this data) and not proving anything and you're responding with le sigh, agree to disagree, etc. You're not agreeing to disagree. You're standing by a conclusion that you have no data to support in the way that you are trying to support it. It's poor form, bad rhetoric, and the type of statistical interpretation/analysis that gives stats teachers ulcers.

And as to the latter, your own maps show that this isn't the case. I'm not sure that the mastermind of DNC electoral strategy will matter if the message is good. It didn't for Dean when he laid the groundwork for electing Obama. But, sure, #anecdotes

Not sure if this was a ninja edit, but I'll respond to part of this, too:

We'll just agree to disagree. It is harder for you to prove people did not flip than it is to look at the math and conclude they did.

I'd also note I'm all but convinced your last paragraph is totally bogus relative to the county where my relatives live.

What is this math that you're referring to?

And I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm going by available statistics on voter demographics and suggesting an alternative explanation to yours, neither of which can possibly be causal.

 

[jhmd2000]

If you really thought Dems would completely re-evaluate their platform or soul search because their shitty candidate got beaten by a snake oil cult of personality candidate, of course you were going to be disappointed.

The only thing that needs examining is the messages. Dems gotta dumb it down.

If you think that (cf. feel), you need to get used to these types of results.

 

[TownieDeac]

If you think that (cf. feel), you need to get used to these types of results.

I will. Every (other) 4-8 years.

 

[jhmd2000]

If you think that the only reason that Pubs and Undecideds voted for Trump (or stayed home) rather than voting for Hillary Clinton was that her message was just too smart for their simple minds to grasp, you've got the self-awareness of Anthony Weiner.

 

[TownieDeac]

If you think that the only reason that Pubs and Undecideds voted for Trump (or stayed home) rather than voting for Hillary Clinton was that her message was just too smart for their simple minds to grasp, you've got the self-awareness of Anthony Weiner.

Phew!

Luckily I don't.

 

[RJKarl]

There are days where I just have to shake my head about how you sometimes just don't grasp very simple concepts. But let's try this again.

- 27 asked if another poster had proof anyone here was claiming Russian interference cost Hillary the election.

- I pointed him to a 37 page thread about Russian interference in the election.

- I told him I had not studied it.

- And I both pointed him to this thread and told him I had not studied it so he would understand I was not sure, but thought perhaps, said 37 page thread might be instructive to his ask of the other poster.

That's it. Nothing more. Why you are whirling on way outside the bounds of that line of logic is way beyond me. I've voiced no particular opinion about Russian interference nor do I care to be told whatever argument you are making or experts you are citing to make a point to me that is not remotely relative to my initial post is "not enough for me".

In short, you are talking to yourself. I hope you have convinced yourself well.

Let's see. You have said Reagan was hit with more vitriol and personal attacks. Then, a huge majority of posters disagreed and you changed the subject.

You also said Trump wasn't beholden to anyone. Then avalon posted (and I reposted) that six people who donated a total of $12M have been appointed to Cabinet or similar level posts. Again, you became silent on the issue when proven wrong.

Then you said, "Oh, there have definitely been some on this Board, and many in the media, who have looked at all sundry of reasons she lost without blaming her. "

I can't think of any poster,who supported Hillary, who hasn't blamed her and her campaign for this failure.