Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / New Clinton vs. Trump projection
on: Today at 12:25:28 pm
This is based on data from the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll referenced here:http://cookpolitical.com/story/9588
As compared to Obama in 2012, Clinton does a net of fourteen points better with whites, so using fivethirtyeight's nifty demographic electoral calculator located here:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
I assumed that Clinton's percentage will increase by ten points among college eduated whites, and by three points among non college educated whites, which should come out to about a seven point increase overall since college educated whites are projected to be a larger share of the overall electorate. So Clinton wins college educated whites with 54 percent of the vote (Romney won them with 56 percent in 2012), while Trump wins non college educated whites with 59 percent of the vote (Romney got 62 percent).
Clinton did ten points worse net with blacks, so I dropped her to 88 percent of the black vote, as compared to Obama's 93 percent.
Clinton does four points better net with Hispanics, so I bumped her to 73 percent of the vote as compared to Obama's 71 percent.
I assumed Asians/other also move four points net toward Clinton, giving her 69 percent of their votes as opposed to Obama's 67 percent.
I copied and pasted the numbers below. Apologies for the formatting; first number is Clinton percentage, second is Trump.
So Hillary wins 396-142, flipping North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska 2nd district, and Arizona from 2012.
I have to admit that I think this is overly optimistic for Hillary, especially among college educated whites. But if she really does only lose whites by 6 percent overall, she'd almost certainly have to win the college educated white vote decisively.
Another potential wildcard is turnout. I assumed that all groups would turn out at the same rate as they did in 2012. This could prove to be very wrong; Hispanic turnout in particular is likely to surge, and possibly also non college educated white voters. Black turnout could be down a bit with Obama off the ballot. But for now, I'm leaving them as is, at least until we get a better sense of how turnout is likely to change this year.
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Trump is - and always has been - the best hope for the GOP in November
on: May 05, 2016, 05:18:02 pm
The first is ROCK SOLID. This is the group responsible for overcoming the Sanders insurgency and seeing Clinton through to the nomination, and they will show up for Clinton in November. They represent a solid 35% of the electorate. Actually, they are growing, due to changing demographics.
but Trump will win over plenty of truck drivers, steelworkers, auto workers, prison guards, etc. who are registered Democrats but not ideologically married to Democratic orthodoxy.
Yeah because they were going to vote for the black socialist
Exactly. It's really hard to visualize how anyone who voted for Obama twice switches to Trump.
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: A moment of reflection
on: May 05, 2016, 03:04:03 pm
Politically, I really don't think Trump is that worse than Cruz or Rubio. However, it is still a giant WTF a real-life troll became a major party presumptive presidential nominee.
He is. There is a very serious difference between being a religious conservative and deliberately and extensively using racism and xenophobia for political means. Cruz, were he to win, would present a temporary, but short-lived, set-back to progress. Trump, if he wins, would through the world back for decades, if not centuries.
Agreed. This is as bad as if Pat Buchanan in 1996 or George Wallace in 1972 had succeeded in winning their party's nominations. On the left, the nearest equivalent would be Jesse Jackson in 1988 or Al Sharpton in 2004.
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: A moment of reflection
on: May 05, 2016, 02:50:49 pm
Also, Al, winning with 40 percent of the vote is not a landslide by any reasonable definition. Even if you go by margin of victory (13 percent over his nearest competitor), he is winning by a narrower margin than Clinton is on the Democratic side, and narrower than the vast majority of nominees have won their primaries by. Obviously that will widen some, but I highly doubt he can catch McCain's 47 percent nationally in 2008 and thus will have the lowest percentage of the primary popular vote for any GOP nominee in the modern era (since 1972, when primaries became the, ahem, primary determinant of the nominee).
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: So the Lichtman Test so far
on: May 04, 2016, 10:38:47 am
My understanding of key 2 is that the losing candidate has to receive at least 1/3 of the delegate votes at the convention itself (as opposed to just winning at least 1/3 of the pledged delegates in the primaries). If Sanders drops out after June 7, therefore, this key could still be turned for the Dems and give them the required 8 keys to win, if many of his delegates end up actually voting for Clinton at the convention.
Or maybe we need an additional scale for someone as unpopular as Trump....he counts as double false for key 13.
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: A quick and dirty proof that Perot didn't cost Bush the 1992 election
on: April 30, 2016, 12:46:51 pm
Nader in 2000 actually produces a negative correlation with Republican trend, which surprised me. But Nader's support was much lower than Perot's nationally, so I would expect the results to be less reliable for candidates with a smaller spread of support between states.
The value of R is: -0.119.
Explanation of results
As you have probably already noticed, the output of this calculator is... verbose. Although most of the information provided below is self-explanatory, there are a few things worth noting. First, the five text boxes spread across the middle of the page represent the calculations that would be required if you were to calculate the R value in stages. Second, there is more than one way to calculate the R value, but these are all mathematically equivalent, so you shouldn't worry if you don't recognize the equation used here. Third, in the "Result Details & Calculations" box, you'll find what we've called a cross-check value, which is the R value calculated using an algorithm supplied by the Meta Numerics statistical library. This should be identical to the value that we've calculated.
Note: If you want to calculate a P value from your R score, we have a calculator here (before clicking, remember to note your r score and record any calculation details you require).
X Values (Nader percentage)
Y Values (Republican trend)
Result Details & Calculation
∑ = 157.88
Mean = 3.096
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 211.469
∑ = 113.31
Mean = 2.222
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2213.189
X and Y Combined
N = 51
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = -81.393
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = -81.393 / √((211.469)(2213.189)) = -0.119
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = -0.119 Key
X: X Values
Y: Y Values
Mx: Mean of X Values
My: Mean of Y Values
X - Mx & Y - My: Deviation scores
(X - Mx)2 & (Y - My)2: Deviation Squared
(X - Mx)(Y - My): Product of Deviation Scores
The value of R is -0.119. Although technically a negative correlation, the relationship between your variables is only weak (nb. the nearer the value is to zero, the weaker the relationship).
The value of R2, the coefficient of determination, is 0.0142.
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Have Clinton and Trump been household names longer than any other nominees?
on: April 30, 2016, 12:05:04 pm
Trump's affair with Marla Maples in the early 90's was pretty well known to the larger public and got a lot of play in the press. He was definitely a celebrity in the 1980's as well for his real estate empire and casinos.
So yes, having a Presidential election between two candidates who have each been known to most Americans for at least 24 years is probably unprecedented in American history.
The only one that would come close, if we look just at the family names as opposed to the candidates themselves, would be Bush vs. Gore in 2000 since they both had well known fathers, but you are right that most Americans wouldn't have known much of George W. himself before 1994, or Al before 1988. And Gore Sr. wasn't that much of a household name either.
About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Why IS Atlas Overwhelmingly Flooded With Democrats?
on: April 27, 2016, 10:50:25 am
I'm guessing the demographic of "forum posters" skews Democratic regardless of the site content, just because regular internet users tend to be younger and more urban.
This. Atlas has always leaned left, though the skew wasn't as heavy back in the earliest days (2001-2005). It seemed to take a left turn around 2006 or so when several of the more intellectual pro-Bush neocon posters stopped posting regularly, along with a decent influx of more hardcore liberals around then.
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island bellwethers
on: April 26, 2016, 06:11:14 pm
Counties that have voted for the winning candidate in each primary since 1992.
Dems since 1996 (no 1992 county data on Atlas unfortunately)--
GOP since 2000 (no 1996 data but I doubt Dole lost a county)--
Dems since 1996 (no 1992 county data on Atlas unfortunately)
Kent and New Castle
GOP since 1992--
All three counties (Kent, New Castle, Sussex)
All EXCEPT Garrett and Somerset
Dems since 1996 (no 1992 data but I doubt Tsonagas lost a county)--
All five counties (Bristol, Kent, Newport, Providence, and Washington)
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Could Gary Hart have at least made the '84 summer/fall race competitive?
on: April 24, 2016, 05:34:13 pm
Competitive as to actually threathen Reagan?
No. Me might not even outperform Mondale. Hart was a bit of empty suit. If Reagan was able to humiliate Mondale as a political dinosaur, he would have easily destroy Hart as a shallow amateur.
The irony is that Mondale was both an out of date New Dealer, whilst also being 'youthful and inexperienced' in the words of Gipper.
If Mondale ( a rather average pol) could take apart Hart with three words (Where's the Beef) it doesn't say much for Harts skill
The "youthful and inexperienced" line was a joke, given that Mondale was clearly neither.
But it did work, didn't it?
If Mondale was able to own Hart with "where's the beef?", imagine what would Reagan do.
Yes, because it deflected the age issue away from Reagan, but not as an attack on Mondale. It was a classic example of Reagan's charm getting him off the hook and enabling him to not answer honestly about an important issue, which he was a master of.
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / New york primary bellwether counties
on: April 19, 2016, 01:47:05 pm
Dems since 1992:
The following counties are the only ones that haven't voted for the winner every year.
The following counties are the only ones that haven't voted for the winner each time since 1992:
Not many interesting New York primaries recently, unfortunately.