U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-12-2017, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,602 posts, read 33,591,161 times
Reputation: 51713

Advertisements

The white vote only increased 1%.

The black vote decreased 7%.

Hispanic turnout did not significantly increase or decrease nationwide. It decreased a lot in Florida but increased in other places to make up for the decrease.

The story:

Hillary stung by unexpected ‘supporters’

The actual report (short with data chart):

Who Voted in 2016? | Center for Immigration Studies
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2017, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
71,711 posts, read 83,289,352 times
Reputation: 41539
this to me isn't a surprise. On the White side if you want to call it that, people either loved Trump or they couldn't be bothered voting and on the Black side I think many of us figured the turn out would not be early as good as it was when Obama ran. In fact the black turnout in 2012 was lower than 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2017, 02:48 PM
 
3,341 posts, read 4,309,394 times
Reputation: 2205
Looks like we are retelling the same story we have been since early Novembers- it all came down to Dane Co in Wisconsin, Wayne Co in Michigan, and Philly (with a sprinkling of Pittsburg) in Pennsylvania. I've read other reports that minority third party voting increased. Now I wonder if that was really the case in terms of total votes or if the decrease in minority voting simply increased the percentage of third party voters (not the actual number.)


That drop in Hispanic #s in Florida is really staggering. I still remember the Clinton Camp crowing about Sanders having no support among minorities. And the 'Bernie turned me white' response meme on social media. I would guess this shows minorities are more likely to vote for someone as opposed to simply voting against someone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2017, 04:12 PM
 
44,404 posts, read 17,725,965 times
Reputation: 18679
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpeatie View Post
Looks like we are retelling the same story we have been since early Novembers- it all came down to Dane Co in Wisconsin, Wayne Co in Michigan, and Philly (with a sprinkling of Pittsburg) in Pennsylvania.....
How silly. Those states would not have mattered one iota if Hillary had not also managed to lose numerous key battleground states like North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, etc. Millions of votes that should have been hers, all of a sudden were not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2017, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,235 posts, read 11,481,170 times
Reputation: 4305
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
The white vote only increased 1%.

The black vote decreased 7%.

Hispanic turnout did not significantly increase or decrease nationwide. It decreased a lot in Florida but increased in other places to make up for the decrease.

The story:

Hillary stung by unexpected ‘supporters’

The actual report (short with data chart):

Who Voted in 2016? | Center for Immigration Studies
have addressed this in another thread, so i will just copy and past
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
But again, thats not really true.

in 2008 black people are 13 of the people voting
We are talking about a 1% drop and that could be a statistical error.


13% of 131 million is 17.03 million(16.17 Obama black voters)
13% of 129 million is 16.77 million (15.59 Obama black voters)
12% of 136 million is 17.8 million (15.66 Clinton Black voters)

We are talking about 500,000 voters here spread across 50 states when comparing to 2008, and a rise of about 70,000 when comparing to 2012.

the 7% drop your article is talking about is in percentage of participation compared to registered voters.

That s a horrible number to use because .....

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Yes, it does make it a flaw. here, I will help you out ... from the same site

America hits new landmark: 200 million registered voters - POLITICO

add this post about voter registriation with the other about the actual number of people voting and you have your reason for why your argument is flawed.

In short, you are trying to argue that Barack Obama created this unprecedented number of voters that will never be duplicated

That just isnt true. They may not have voted for Clinton, but they did vote and at the same percentage of the population as they did the last 2 elections (1% could be a statistical flaw, your own like actually has the MoE as high as 5%), and that number is now 800,000 than when Barack Obama first won in 2008

Thats part one of why what you said is flawed.

Part 2 is voter registration,which is calculated as percentage of the eligible population, not registered voters.

the link says in 2008, there were only 146 million registered voters, which is only a 20 million increase from 1992.

in less than 8 years, we added 54 million people.

Thats not a population increase, its simply states allowing people to register to vote online or when they get their license. Most of those new voters simple never registered to vote before.

Here is a second link if you still disagree
2016g - United States Elections Project

so for black people to keep up with 2008 levels, the number of black votes should have increased by 760,000.

If you go back and look at the original numbers i posted(and you can check my math because im not the best at it), Black people over performed the Obama 2008 to 2016 projections by about 40,000.


so yes, in short, looking at percentage of registered voters who turned out to vote makes no sense as the numbers are not equipped to adequately reflect the information you are trying to convey.

It if further flawed by the fact that black people actually did keep up as a percentage of the overall population when it came to voting.

again, im fine with you checking my math, it was my worst subject in school, but I dont think im so far off that it would make you right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2017, 11:37 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,235 posts, read 11,481,170 times
Reputation: 4305
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
How silly. Those states would not have mattered one iota if Hillary had not also managed to lose numerous key battleground states like North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, etc. Millions of votes that should have been hers, all of a sudden were not.
Did you really just argue that Hillary Clinton should have won every battle ground state ?????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2017, 05:45 AM
 
3,341 posts, read 4,309,394 times
Reputation: 2205
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
How silly. Those states would not have mattered one iota if Hillary had not also managed to lose numerous key battleground states like North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, etc. Millions of votes that should have been hers, all of a sudden were not.

Those states matter most because they are a Democrats clearest path to an electoral college win. It would seem more prudent to find 100-150k votes in those three states combined than to mill for another 500k each in several of several other swing states.


Also- I think Ohio is going to return to being the R stronghold it previously was. NC is trending more and more swingy. And no one can ever be certain about Florida since it has some many voters moving in and out of the state as well as high growth. It was Obamas tightest win in 2012 and Hillary's closest loss outside of the three I mentioned earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2017, 09:25 AM
 
44,404 posts, read 17,725,965 times
Reputation: 18679
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Did you really just argue that Hillary Clinton should have won every battle ground state ?????
Nope. I argued at how silly your argument was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2017, 09:26 AM
 
44,404 posts, read 17,725,965 times
Reputation: 18679
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpeatie View Post
Those states matter most because they are a Democrats clearest path to an electoral college win. ....
Well Hillary Clinton didn't think so. She didn't bother to campaign in those states at all.

I'd say she probably knows a little more about what matters to her campaign than most here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2017, 03:16 AM
 
78,084 posts, read 33,277,428 times
Reputation: 15606
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpeatie View Post
Looks like we are retelling the same story we have been since early Novembers- it all came down to Dane Co in Wisconsin, Wayne Co in Michigan, and Philly (with a sprinkling of Pittsburg) in Pennsylvania. I've read other reports that minority third party voting increased. Now I wonder if that was really the case in terms of total votes or if the decrease in minority voting simply increased the percentage of third party voters (not the actual number.)


That drop in Hispanic #s in Florida is really staggering. I still remember the Clinton Camp crowing about Sanders having no support among minorities. And the 'Bernie turned me white' response meme on social media. I would guess this shows minorities are more likely to vote for someone as opposed to simply voting against someone.
Yes, this is just noting what many here have noted since the election. Trump didn't win because of a growing number supporting him but rather because groups that were expected to vote (D) refused to do so.

The odd thing is the (D) leadership absolutely refuses to acknowledge this and make any changes to get these people back. They think Trump is all they need. They are going to be dissapointed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top