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.
I'm not sure how great that poll really is since it is dependent on self-reporting. I will say the only noticeable move was a drop in AA voting that had already been noted. But if it dropped as precipitously as that poll suggest Clinton would have been blown out not lost a series of squeakers. In Florida and NC the loss of 10% of the AA vote should have given Trump victories more in line with Ohio, not a simple 1.2 point loss in Fl and a 3 point loss in NC.
And the big question for Dems is if another candidate would better motivate AA voters or if a better campaign would have gotten more AA voters to the polls in the Rust Belt. And what would push up Hispanic voting? With a 1% increase in white voters and 5-6% decrease in AA voters (Hispanics holding steady) the R candidate still lost the popular vote and won the 3 states needed for victory by 120k votes combined. The bad news for Rs and possibly the country is that that shows the Dems quickest path to a win would be courting their base for the remaining votes. Its what Bush did in 04 and Obama in 12.
While I'm still not entirely sold on this survey/news story, it does raise some interesting questions. Even with the spike among white voters their share of the electorate declined 1%. What does that do for a Republican party that is almost entirely dependent on white voters?
I love reading posts like this.
If liberals would spend less time focusing on how demographics will save them, and more time on developing a message and delivering on sound policy, they might actually start winning elections. Doesn't look like there's a danger of that happening anytime soon.
A few years ago, when I first started posting here, the OP repeatedly posted the opinion that in order to maintain long term success, the Republican Party must diversify its base. During the Trump campaign he changed his tune and is now convinced that the Pubs will rule ad infinatum by running up the score with white blue collar voters, despite the fact that that's the demographic group that's statistically dropping like a rock. With them, he's convinced that the GOP will control everything but Acela and the Left Coast. He mentions more electoral votes coming to the Sunbelt but never mentions that that increase is fueled by increase in minority population, which slowly undermines the R control in those states.
If the GOP continues to be overly dependent on white non-college voters, and continues to use angry Trumpian dog whistles to drum up support in that fading demographic, they risk doing long term damage to themselves with the growing demographics. That's the truth. As Howard Schnellenberger said once about the success of his football team, "the only variable is time."
If liberals would spend less time focusing on how demographics will save them, and more time on developing a message and delivering on sound policy, they might actually start winning elections. Doesn't look like there's a danger of that happening anytime soon.
Hmm... so should Republicans also focus on a broader message or hone in on all the low population states that are overrepresented in the electoral college and Senate?
And I don't suppose Team Trumps successful use of micro targeting made any use of demographics...
Exit polling , they are all basically the same. so you can pick anyone from Wash Post, CNN, Fox and you will get the same numbes I did, give or take a percent or 2.
the first set of numbers are the number of all who voted in total,number of black people who voted in total, , number of black people who voted for Obama and Clinton.
the second set in the second post come from the links. They are the number of registered voters in 1992, 2008, 2016 and the number of eligible voters from 1992, 2008 and 2016.
My point is simple, the actual number of people eligible to vote(people over 18 and not in prison) has only grown by 17 million since 2008
the number of people registered to vote has grown by 50 million. Registration is artificial, so calculating the turnout percentage based on that is a flawed argument.
A few years ago, when I first started posting here, the OP repeatedly posted the opinion that in order to maintain long term success, the Republican Party must diversify its base. During the Trump campaign he changed his tune and is now convinced that the Pubs will rule ad infinatum by running up the score with white blue collar voters, despite the fact that that's the demographic group that's statistically dropping like a rock. With them, he's convinced that the GOP will control everything but Acela and the Left Coast. He mentions more electoral votes coming to the Sunbelt but never mentions that that increase is fueled by increase in minority population, which slowly undermines the R control in those states.
Red wall held. The Rust belt is hardly diversifying. You need to win something besides the Acela Belt plus West Coast as that will be 6-12 fewer ECS soon. Yes, the South will hold red, as the margins overwhelm any diversification.
I pointed out the Rust Belt turn via articles last summer.
Red wall held. The Rust belt is hardly diversifying. You need to win something besides the Acela Belt plus West Coast as that will be 6-12 fewer ECS soon. Yes, the South will hold red, as the margins overwhelm any diversification.
I pointed out the Rust Belt turn via articles last summer.
I'm afraid the left is going to cling to the myth of the "Blue Wall" until the cows come hope. What they don't get is that middle Americans aren't interested in the extremist left wing agenda the Democrats have championed and continue to push.
I'm afraid the left is going to cling to the myth of the "Blue Wall" until the cows come hope. What they don't get is that middle Americans aren't interested in the extremist left wing agenda the Democrats have championed and continue to push.
The Dems left mainstream America, and that is what made the Blue Wall crumble.
Rust belt is NOT as radically left as the Acela Belt. Since the DNC never leaves the ACELA Belt, they have no way to know.
The Dems left mainstream America, and that is what made the Blue Wall crumble.
Rust belt is NOT as radically left as the Acela Belt. Since the DNC never leaves the ACELA Belt, they have no way to know.
Exactly right. I live in the Acela belt, but I'm from the Midwest. I think I have a pretty good idea of what drives people in both areas. While the Acela Belt is definitely more liberal, the Dems don't have the lock on it they think they do. Even here in deep blue Maryland, the extremism of the Democrats is turning off a lot of their natural supporters.
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.
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.
I voted for Obama, but couldn't stand to vote for Hilary, regardless of why it meant to others.
