I don't think this sentiment is actually true. There can be decreased turnout AND vote switching.
"In 2012, 21 percent of Wisconsin voters told exit pollsters that they or a family member belonged to a union. They broke for Barack Obama by 33 percentage points.
This year, just as many voters said they were in union households — and Clinton won them by just 10 points. The numbers and the swoon were similar in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania."
Actually, the number of people who switched from Obama to Trump is very small. The much bigger number is the number of people who voted for Obama then stayed home. Wisconsin had the lowest voter turnout in 20 years. Trump had fewer votes than Romney did.
You are confusing the interpretation of those exit polls. Shifts in exit polls are not necessarily caused by people changing their votes. It can happen by shifting the composition of the electorate. And to the extent that Clinton lost some Obama votes to Trump, Trump also lost some Romney votes to Clinton, so it virtually cancels each other out.
If you want to look at Wisconsin: Trump won Wisconsin by 27000 votes. In Milwaukee county alone, 60000 fewer people voted. Clinton won 66 to 29, while Obama had won 67 to 31. So Clinton actually had a bigger margin in Milwaukee county. But she still had 43000 fewer votes than Obama. Had Milwaukee turned out at the same rate as 2012 and Clinton wins WI easily.
2018 is a really tough map for democrats in the senate ... and it's also tough to flip so many House seats in one year with the way districts are drawn up.
So if you're pissed off about this election and want to do something about it, put your energy into getting people to turn out for state and local elections in 2 years. A ton of republican-held governor's are either term-limited or up for reelection in 2018. That (combined with state-legislatures) are how to start pushing back against Trump and the Republican legislature in a meaningful way.
I think you missed the part where the same percentage makeup of the electorate were union members. So the turnout was lower overall, the turnout among union households by deduction was also proportionately lower, but now more Trumpy.
I don't think this sentiment is actually true. There can be decreased turnout AND vote switching.
"In 2012, 21 percent of Wisconsin voters told exit pollsters that they or a family member belonged to a union. They broke for Barack Obama by 33 percentage points.
This year, just as many voters said they were in union households — and Clinton won them by just 10 points. The numbers and the swoon were similar in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania."
Actually, the number of people who switched from Obama to Trump is very small. The much bigger number is the number of people who voted for Obama then stayed home. Wisconsin had the lowest voter turnout in 20 years. Trump had fewer votes than Romney did.
You are confusing the interpretation of those exit polls. Shifts in exit polls are not necessarily caused by people changing their votes. It can happen by shifting the composition of the electorate. And to the extent that Clinton lost some Obama votes to Trump, Trump also lost some Romney votes to Clinton, so it virtually cancels each other out.
If you want to look at Wisconsin: Trump won Wisconsin by 27000 votes. In Milwaukee county alone, 60000 fewer people voted. Clinton won 66 to 29, while Obama had won 67 to 31. So Clinton actually had a bigger margin in Milwaukee county. But she still had 43000 fewer votes than Obama. Had Milwaukee turned out at the same rate as 2012 and Clinton wins WI easily.
I think you missed the part where the same percentage makeup of the electorate were union members. So the turnout was lower overall, the turnout among union households by deduction was also proportionately lower, but now more Trumpy.
I don't think this sentiment is actually true. There can be decreased turnout AND vote switching.
"In 2012, 21 percent of Wisconsin voters told exit pollsters that they or a family member belonged to a union. They broke for Barack Obama by 33 percentage points.
This year, just as many voters said they were in union households — and Clinton won them by just 10 points. The numbers and the swoon were similar in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania."
Actually, the number of people who switched from Obama to Trump is very small. The much bigger number is the number of people who voted for Obama then stayed home. Wisconsin had the lowest voter turnout in 20 years. Trump had fewer votes than Romney did.
You are confusing the interpretation of those exit polls. Shifts in exit polls are not necessarily caused by people changing their votes. It can happen by shifting the composition of the electorate. And to the extent that Clinton lost some Obama votes to Trump, Trump also lost some Romney votes to Clinton, so it virtually cancels each other out.
If you want to look at Wisconsin: Trump won Wisconsin by 27000 votes. In Milwaukee county alone, 60000 fewer people voted. Clinton won 66 to 29, while Obama had won 67 to 31. So Clinton actually had a bigger margin in Milwaukee county. But she still had 43000 fewer votes than Obama. Had Milwaukee turned out at the same rate as 2012 and Clinton wins WI easily.
Meanwhile going by the national exit polls that guy cites Obama pulled 59% of people with income under $50k, and 59% of union households, while Clinton pulled 52% and 51%.
A little salt for the wound, it looks like she's not only going to win the popular vote but it's by a not-insignificant margin, only the 4th closest popular post-war vote margin:
All that mostly-empty land matters, though, this isn't likely to change (why would Republicans who now will control all aspects of the federal government and who control most state governments as well change a system that gives them a natural advantage just because Democrats cluster together?)
Trump has already hired some of the biggest corporate lobbyist which is something he rallied against. He is also now saying he won't repeal and replace obamacare just amend it. Which is what I like but SO DID CLINTON, and he went after he for that position. Didn't take a week for his promises to come up empty
Yeah, not only did he appoint a major lobbyist who is a climate change denier to lead the EPA transition, he selected a Verizon lobbyist to head the FCC transition. Good bye net neutrality.
This cannot be made good. It's a shameful, shameful day.
Sadly, I think the election will only be the first in a series of shameful days over the next four years. Unless Trump really is as bad as he seems and plunges us into nuclear war with his toxic blend of stupidity and arrogance.
The real travesty here is that congress has a 10-25% approval rating yet 80-90% of them get re-elected.
If anything makes you shake your head at how stupid of a society is it should be this. really think about that. We re-elect 90% of the guys the entire country almost universally agrees suck at their jobs.
This cannot be made good. It's a shameful, shameful day.
Sadly, I think the election will only be the first in a series of shameful days over the next four years. Unless Trump really is as bad as he seems and plunges us into nuclear war with his toxic blend of stupidity and arrogance.
Comments
You are confusing the interpretation of those exit polls. Shifts in exit polls are not necessarily caused by people changing their votes. It can happen by shifting the composition of the electorate. And to the extent that Clinton lost some Obama votes to Trump, Trump also lost some Romney votes to Clinton, so it virtually cancels each other out.
If you want to look at Wisconsin: Trump won Wisconsin by 27000 votes. In Milwaukee county alone, 60000 fewer people voted. Clinton won 66 to 29, while Obama had won 67 to 31. So Clinton actually had a bigger margin in Milwaukee county. But she still had 43000 fewer votes than Obama. Had Milwaukee turned out at the same rate as 2012 and Clinton wins WI easily.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18053715/ns/politics/t/maryland-sidesteps-electoral-college/
Oh damn, I never usually get suckered by those reposts but I guess my heart went before my head. Thought it was breaking news!
You are confusing the interpretation of those exit polls. Shifts in exit polls are not necessarily caused by people changing their votes. It can happen by shifting the composition of the electorate. And to the extent that Clinton lost some Obama votes to Trump, Trump also lost some Romney votes to Clinton, so it virtually cancels each other out.
If you want to look at Wisconsin: Trump won Wisconsin by 27000 votes. In Milwaukee county alone, 60000 fewer people voted. Clinton won 66 to 29, while Obama had won 67 to 31. So Clinton actually had a bigger margin in Milwaukee county. But she still had 43000 fewer votes than Obama. Had Milwaukee turned out at the same rate as 2012 and Clinton wins WI easily.
My point was more about exit polls in general.
There was no realignment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/10/2016-was-an-ordinary-election-not-a-realignment/
If anything makes you shake your head at how stupid of a society is it should be this. really think about that. We re-elect 90% of the guys the entire country almost universally agrees suck at their jobs.
EDIT: this article says its 15% and 95%
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/11/facebook-posts/congress-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/
If people really want change they need to start with the damn lawmakers themselves. Not the president.