The Audacity of Hopelessness

[myDeaconmyhand]

His message does not have to be the same or similar to Obama's to reach the same voters. He's not running the same campaign. He's not running against the same opponent. He's not remotely the same person as Obama. So I'm not sure I understand the logic you are trying to bring here...

There is no philosophical overlap between Trump and Obama, which is why the small percentage flip is meaningless. Hillary ran on Obama's platform and yet many Obama voters didn't vote for her. Either those voters decided they didn't want that same platform, or those voters simply disliked Hillary so much they chose to vote against a platform they supported for 8 years.

 

[jhmd2000]

There is no philosophical overlap between Trump and Obama, which is why the small percentage flip is meaningless. Hillary ran on Obama's platform and yet many Obama voters didn't vote for her. Either those voters decided they didn't want that same platform, and/or those voters simply disliked Hillary so much they chose to vote against a platform they supported for 8 years.

You were one word short.

 

[DeacMan]

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:



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.

Got it. Since no one asked every voter whether and who they voted for in 2012 we can't possibly draw any rational conclusions from data that shows similar turnout in county after rural and ex-urban county and vastly different voting outcomes. Your approach involves a lot more variables than mine to be proven as causal. First, we have to have a bunch of voters stay home who voted largely for Obama. Then a bunch of new voters have to show up and break heavily for Trump. And then, third and most oddly, the overall turnout has to remain similar. Suffice to say the odds of all three of those things happening over and over and over in these counties are much lower than a lot of prior voters who also happen to fit into similar demographic buckets simply choosing to flip their vote.

Again, you can choose to believe in the less likely scenario. I'm going with the more obvious one.

 

[Strickland33]

Got it. Since no one asked every voter whether and who they voted for in 2012 we can't possibly draw any rational conclusions from data that shows similar turnout in county after rural and ex-urban county and vastly different voting outcomes. Your approach involves a lot more variables than mine to be proven as causal. First, we have to have a bunch of voters stay home who voted largely for Obama. Then a bunch of new voters have to show up and break heavily for Trump. And then, third and most oddly, the overall turnout has to remain similar. Suffice to say the odds of all three of those things happening over and over and over in these counties are much lower than a lot of prior voters who also happen to fit into similar demographic buckets simply choosing to flip their vote.

Again, you can choose to believe in the less likely scenario. I'm going with the more obvious one.

Just know that your #feelings are just as valid as anybody else's when there's no data. I think we agree on this, but feelings are feelings.

I'm sure you agree with this, too, but I believe that we absolutely should collect that sort of data that you alluded to above because we should be making decisions and crafting strategy that are more, not less influenced by data (and good data, rather than lots of bad exit polling data). We should absolutely use models with more complexity than models with less complexity when causality is concerned and with these models comes a greater nuance in terms of discussing causality.

(There's another reason why the Clinton campaign lost in the way that it did and another good reason to blame Clinton and the DNC for their own and our misfortune.)

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Similar voter turnout is all well and good, but you can't assume the exact same people voted in both elections. Many Obama coalition voters stayed home, many establishment Republicans stayed home, and a large percentage of Trump voters didn't vote in the 2012 election.

 

[Milhouse]

deacman and rj going at it

 

[Strickland33]

Similar voter turnout is all well and good, but you can't assume the exact same people voted in both elections. Many Obama coalition voters stayed home, many establishment Republicans stayed home, and a large percentage of Trump voters didn't vote in the 2012 election.

TITCR. Again, there are competing alternative explanations, many of which are very plausible, but none of which can be proven the way that DeacMan is trying to prove his. You can twist these data any number of ways, but proving anything is tough when you have data of this type. We should be a lot more skeptical of these data (and subsequent analyses) after the election that we had, not less.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I've been vocally against Hillary this entire campaign, so I'm not sure why DeacMan is trying to explain to me why she lost. My only point of argument here is that Trump didn't strategically adopt some element of Obama's platform to convince a small percentage of Obama voters to vote Trump. That didn't happen. Any voter with a brain that still agrees and believes in the national Democratic platform, neo-liberal or socialist, wouldn't have voted for Trump. People that support Obamas politics and voted for Trump are stupid hypocrites.

 

[DeacMan]

There is no philosophical overlap between Trump and Obama, which is why the small percentage flip is meaningless. Hillary ran on Obama's platform and yet many Obama voters didn't vote for her. Either those voters decided they didn't want that same platform, or those voters simply disliked Hillary so much they chose to vote against a platform they supported for 8 years.

OK. At least you are acknowledging people who voted for Obama didn't vote for Clinton. And you've correctly noted Trump and Obama are super different. But then you go on to say any "small flip is meaningless" and the only explanations A or B. Point not conceded because the flips were big on a macro scale and the reasons for them could be for a whole range of factors. 22 counties in Wisconsin alone flipped from blue to red in this past election. That is really meaningful. And we have a lot of different variables between 2012 and 2016. Four different personalities. A platform on one side that is significant different from 2012 to 2016. Changes in the fortunes of voters. Etc. All of those things can contribute to the outcome. Some of the voters may not even like Trump as much as they like Obama but still think they should vote for Trump.

I'd hazard there's some DNC data wank running around rural Wisconsin right now trying to reach some sort of conclusion though.

 

[Strickland33]

We don't know the extent to which a flip was meaningful. Perhaps expanding access to voting, rather than suppressing it, changes the story? It's hard to prove that one, too, but it's equally plausible. You have your mind made up, which is not the same as being right.

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

 

[DeacMan]

I've been vocally against Hillary this entire campaign, so I'm not sure why DeacMan is trying to explain to me why she lost. My only point of argument here is that Trump didn't strategically adopt some element of Obama's platform to convince a small percentage of Obama voters to vote Trump. That didn't happen. Any voter with a brain that still agrees and believes in the national Democratic platform, neo-liberal or socialist, wouldn't have voted for Trump. People that support Obamas politics and voted for Trump are stupid hypocrites.

We agree Trump did not adopt Obama's platform.

The last two sentences of the above post presume to understand what motivates large blocks of voters. I'm not sure they are accurate or take into account a host of factors that can explain behaviors.

 

[DeacMan]

We don't know the extent to which a flip was meaningful. Perhaps expanding access to voting, rather than suppressing it, changes the story? It's hard to prove that one, too, but it's equally plausible. You have your mind made up, which is not the same as being right.

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

There is a host of detailed analysis about why voter "suppression" as a theory to explain the outcome of the election is a big time reach.

Right back at you with the question you are raising.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

The flip is meaningless because Hillary lost soo many votes in those counties and states. You're talking about counties where Trump only out performed Romney by 20K and Hillary underperformed Obama by 80K.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Which is why all these "this is why the Democrats lost" posts are bullshit. Hillary lost because she is Hillary and she ran a shitty campaign. If Obama could have had a third term he would have destroyed Trump with Hillary's platform. Anti-PC didn't win the election, building a stupid fucking wall didn't win the election, tough talk about trade with China didn't win the election. Not being Hillary Clinton won the election.

 

[cville deac]

I've been vocally against Hillary this entire campaign, so I'm not sure why DeacMan is trying to explain to me why she lost. My only point of argument here is that Trump didn't strategically adopt some element of Obama's platform to convince a small percentage of Obama voters to vote Trump. That didn't happen. Any voter with a brain that still agrees and believes in the national Democratic platform, neo-liberal or socialist, wouldn't have voted for Trump. People that support Obamas politics and voted for Trump are stupid hypocrites.

Is this how you explain the Bobs?

 

[Strickland33]

There is a host of detailed analysis about why voter "suppression" as a theory to explain the outcome of the election is a big time reach.

Right back at you with the question you are raising.

Can you provide a link to the host of detailed analyses? Thanks in advance.

Feelings =\= fact

ETA: Here's a statistician's take on the election and lessons that we should all take to heart:

http://andrewgelman.com/2016/12/08/19-things-learned-2016-election/

and some thoughtful follow up.

http://andrewgelman.com/2016/12/09/5-things-learned-2016-election/

If you take the time to read the links, then you'll find that pretty much everybody's perspective is represented on here with the following caveat:

17. Beware of stories that explain too much.

After the election, which shocked the news media, the pollsters, and even the Clinton and Trump campaigns, my colleague Thomas Basboll wrote that “social science and democracy are incompatible. The social sciences conduct an undemocratic inquiry into society. Democracy is an unscientific way of governing it.” (http://secondlanguage.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-liberal-arts-of-being-ruled.html)

Maybe so. But Basboll could’ve written this a few days before the election. Had the election gone as predicted, with Clinton getting the expected 52 percent of the two-party vote rather than the awkwardly distributed 51% that was not enough for her to win in the Electoral College, it still would’ve been true that half of American voters had refused to vote for her. So there’s something off about these sweeping election reviews: even when you agree with the sentiments, it’s not clear why it makes sense to tie it to any particular election outcome.

The Republicans have done well in political strategy, tactics, timing, and have had a bit of luck too. One party right now controls the presidency, both houses of Congress, most of the governorships, and soon the Supreme Court. But when it comes to opinions and votes, we’re a 50/50 nation. So we have to be wary of explanations of Trump’s tactical victory that explain too much.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Is this how you explain the Bobs?

BSF is a special snowflake, he hates Hillary and he is a populist issue voter, so this election was the perfect storm for him. Take Hillary out of the equation, and replace Trump with a traditional Republican that compromises on trade and immigration (like normal), and BSF probably votes for the Democrat.

 

[cville deac]

Which is why all these "this is why the Democrats lost" posts are bullshit. Hillary lost because she is Hillary and she ran a shitty campaign. If Obama could have had a third term he would have destroyed Trump with Hillary's platform. Anti-PC didn't win the election, building a stupid fucking wall didn't win the election, tough talk about trade with China didn't win the election. Not being Hillary Clinton won the election.

I don't think it's that simple. For example, she wins if Ted Cruz is the Pub nominee in what would have been a more normal red/blue map. But Trump broadened the map from the beginning with his potential appeal to the Rust Belt states, a few of which he succeeded in flipping. His populist message in what was a change year contributed to his winning. So did his not walking and talking like a normal politician in a change year. And things like her email scandal, Russian hacking, ACA rate increases, Comey, PC and transgender issues probably all played small parts as well. And Clinton and her surrogates are blaming some of these external things, particularly Comey and the Russians, for her losing and not taking much of any responsibility themselves. But first and foremost she was a shite candidate, she bungled the emails issue from the beginning, and their strategy down the stretch was tone deaf and poor. Brooklyn merits a lot more blame than they and most Dem party members are currently assigning.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

There is a unique political segment in Europe that BSF would fit right in - Socially and fiscally liberal, trade protectionist, anti-immigration, very isolationist, very pro-Israel and untrusting of Islamic countries. I had a few conversations with people from England and France who fit that exact profile, and they believe all of the torture reports coming from Allepo about Assads regime is propoganda from ISIS and Al-Qeada

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

BSF is a special snowflake, he hates Hillary and he is a populist issue voter, so this election was the perfect storm for him. Take Hillary out of the equation, and replace Trump with a traditional Republican that compromises on trade and immigration (like normal), and BSF probably votes for the Democrat.

There is some truth in this.