Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 19, 2017, 11:07:25 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 436
1  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: Fremont Voting Booth: February 2017 Regional Election on: Today at 08:52:19 pm
[1] Harry S Truman of North Dakota
Liberal Democracy Party - Labor Party

[1] Tirnam of California
Liberal Democracy Party - Labor Party
[2] Dr_Novella of California
Ecosocialist Party - Labor Party
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Next DNC Chair: Perez campaign claims to have 180 of 224 votes to win on: February 16, 2017, 07:42:04 pm
There's a difference between "we need to be unified" and "we need to present an entirely centrist vision of our party". Right now it feels like the only power progressives have is the voting base and not any of the institutions.

This is because progressives are naturally inept at organizing and wielding the reins of power in institutions. It's a very common and universal phenomenon in American politics: the Right organizes, unites and controls; the Left splinters, divides and whines.
3  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-6? Can Democrat Jon Ossoff win in the special election? on: February 15, 2017, 06:28:23 pm
I could see them pulling it off if they ran exclusively on "slow this chaos down!" Or "let's send a message!" and not as an ideological liberal. That'd be similar to how Scott Brown pulled off his win

Ossoff is just not the right candidate to pull off a upset he a C list recruit at best. Holcomb was the one to to potentially make this a race. If we had Holcomb in GA-6 and Schweitzer running in MT-AL that would show national Ds are serious. So far recruiting shows their saving their energy for 2018.

Oh, from what I've seen from Ossoff so far, I'm not impressed. He's just running a one-note "I hate Trump" campaign it seems like, and he comes across as an ideologue to me. Dems need a Holcomb or a Gottheimer-like pol for this district. Not some 30 year old filmmaker.

To be fair, Taylor Bennett ran in the 2015 special for HD 80 (Romney got 55% there in '12; district is entirely within GA-6) on a one-note campaign of, effectively, "I oppose these bigoted 'religious freedom' laws", and won 55-45.
4  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-6? Can Democrat Jon Ossoff win in the special election? on: February 15, 2017, 06:25:37 pm
I'm hearing that DCCC isn't likely to get involved unless this gets whittled down to one declared Democratic candidate in the very near future. The run-off is a guarantee, but don't expect DCCC support prior to that with multiple Democratic candidates; it'll speak volumes about the organizational efficacy of local and state Democrats in the area to unite behind a candidate or not, and that will affect DCCC's decision. If they can't get involved before the run-off, they likely won't get involved after the fact.

The biggest challenge with this district is "The Discrepancy". It has existed since at least 2008, and likely even before that. These voters are exactly the types who are amenable to a Democratic presidential candidate but do not want local Democratic representatives or even House/Senate types. I've always maintained that for local races, it makes sense: these are exactly the types of people you'd stereotype as being NIMBYs who want a socially-responsible figurehead as President, but "muh low [property] taxes" mean they vote GOP in all other races.

There are dozens of precincts in the district and the adjacent areas where Obama's margin outperformed the aggregate D's by 10-20 points in 2008; some where Obama won by nearly 20 points but the average Republican carried by high single-digits or more. Many of these precincts were among some of the biggest swingers in GA to Romney in 2012. This was also on display in 2016:

Stooksbury got 38% (D was 35% in 2012) and Clinton got 47% (Obama was 37% in 2012). Only about one-third of the Clinton improvement "flowed" down-ballot. I've put that in quotes for a reason. When you look at the demographic shifts in the area, you basically walk away with the understanding that the only thing that flowed downballot was demographic shift; one-third of Clinton's improvement was attributable to demography and two-thirds was attributable to independents and Republicans who crossed party lines to vote for her. Virtually none of the Romney-Clinton voters defected in any other race.

You then have to contend with the fact that this is a special election. That's obviously going to give the Republicans a slight advantage/margin improvement right off the bat in any situation. Can that single disadvantage be reduced or eliminated? Sure - but it just means that it's going to take that much more work to short-circuit the natural dynamic of the race. This is also one of the wealthiest (the wealthiest?) CD in Georgia, which means that turnout for a special will be relatively high. That might sound good, but when you're working as a Democrat against the natural lean of a district, you're probably going to want the baseline turnout in a special to be as low as possible, so that any set number of pro-Dem voters that you do mobilize have a larger impact on the margin.

All in all, I don't see Ossoff being able to do much better than 40-42% - and that's assuming he runs a great campaign.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How do you think the Fox News Anchors/Analysts Voted? on: February 15, 2017, 04:48:06 pm
100% voted for Clinton, for job security. Just like 100% of comedians voted for Trump.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton won non-evangelical white voters 49%-43% on: February 15, 2017, 04:46:14 pm
The reason that minorities don't vote Republican has nothing to do with the GOP being too religious.

I didn't say that.  It has to do with the GOP being seen as hostile to diversity and multiculturalism.  Otherwise, more affluent minorities would be more accepting of conservatism, and they aren't.  If we won minority college graduates at the clip that we win White college graduates, we'd be sittin' pretty, IMO.

I would tend to agree. Even winning 30-40% of minorities while taking 60% of the white vote would put the GOP in a strong political position, to execute a center-right agenda with a mandate.

The issue, of course, is that the GOP isn't going to be winning 60% of whites (arguably, it hasn't yet) while winning 30-40% of non-whites. I'm not saying there couldn't potentially be a one-off where it happens, but it wouldn't become a multi-election trend or a sustainable political climate. The recent expansion of the white vote in the GOP is being fueled predominantly by racial polarization; if the share of the Democratic Party that is non-white decreases, so does the racial polarization in the country and so does the white share of voters who are going GOP.

The messages from/perceptions of the parties shift just enough (especially in relation to one another) that a meaningful number of those "Mondale/Dukakis/Clinton/Kerry/Obama" voters above see no valuable and distinct difference between the two parties on the issues currently lighting fires under their asses, and likewise begin to revert to voting behaviors that more closely align with the larger disparities between the two parties as it relates to their beliefs.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What would a 10 point national victory look like for a democrat in 2020? on: February 14, 2017, 01:13:11 am
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Is Running -Anymore proof needed to confirm Politico as tabloid garbage? on: February 12, 2017, 08:42:57 pm
Statements like this make me wonder if most political commentators even see candidates are real people at the end of the day.  

Hillary Clinton has a method of operating that's been on display for the better part of the past 30 years.  She can't reinvent herself now, and she won't...because its Hillary Clinton.

To be fair, Hillary Clinton has reinvented herself every time she has sought an office (whether on her own behalf or her husband's) and largely gotten away with it: the firebrand feminist in 1992; the toned-down, conservative housewife in 1996; the upstate Yankee in 2000; the blue dog, gun-loving populist in 2008; and the...whatever you want to call it in 2016. Considering that she herself effectively has won the presidency twice, I'd say it worked.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Libertarian ticket cost Trump the popular vote. on: February 11, 2017, 07:24:03 pm
Haven't read the article (namely, because I don't want to give Washington Examiner any revenue), but according to the quote:

Governor Weld said that Johnson-Weld internal polling showed that 75 percent of their voters would have voted for Donald Trump had they not been in the race. The Libertarian ticket received nearly 4.5 million total votes in the election.

It's a stretch to claim with certainty that Trump would have won the popular vote. He lost by 2,868,000 according to Atlas. Seventy-five percent of Johnson's total is 3,367,000, giving Trump a lead of approximately 500,000 votes if you give him all of those voters and give none to Clinton. However, it's not implausible at all to speculate that Clinton would have got at least 11% of Johnson's vote to pull even. Everyday Libertarians tend to vastly underestimate the amount of their support at the ballot that doesn't come from a position of informed ideological purity, or even from right-of-center.

Their estimates of what percentage of the Libertarian vote Trump would have received isn't out of line at all with recent elections (in more normal elections, it's a general 75/25 split when pushing Libertarians to pick a major party). In such a "normal" scenario, Trump would only close the popular vote by 2.2 million votes or so, and would still lose. You would have needed for all of the usual GOP-supporting Libertarian types to have turned out for Trump regardless, while at the same time, the vast majority of the non-GOP Libertarian voters would have needed to either stay home or vote for an alternative third party.

This doesn't jive with the nature of the race: Johnson's totals were inflated by disgust for Trump much more so than for Clinton. All of those supposedly principled upper-middle class suburbanite GOP voters who turn out in high numbers would have had to make a genuinely principled choice (stay home, vote for Clinton, or vote for Trump) in the absence of Johnson. Based on how this year's Libertarian coalition was built, I think it'd be a much less difficult decision on average for the non-GOP Libertarian supporters to back Clinton in sufficient numbers to maintain her PV lead than for Trump to coast to victory.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Presidential results by legislative district on: February 11, 2017, 06:47:34 pm
I've got a blank lower chamber map template here (13100 x 5625 pixels) that anybody can feel free to use for mapping these results. I've already mapped out the actual state house election results for those contests in the same thread. I've started working on a state senate version, but I've yet to get the template ready.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Surprise, surprise (CO): Latinos much more Dem than exit polls showed on: February 11, 2017, 01:13:45 am
Heaviest Hispanic precincts≠Hispanics as a whole. Hispanics vote differently when they're around different people.

Look at the 2012 #s for comparison.

Also, the most Hispanic precinct in that scatterplot is closer to 20% DJT than 14%.

It didn't look at just majority-Latino precincts...? It's not a case of "the most heavily Latino precincts were 80%+ Clinton therefore the Latino vote in CO was 80%+ Clinton", unless I'm missing something here.

Why does everyone always use this technique? It doesn't prove anything other than how Hispanics in downtown Denver voted. Even then, the modeling assumes a high degree of linearity at the upper levels that I'm not sure is really born out by the data they're presenting.

Elaborate, please.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Surprise, surprise (CO): Latinos much more Dem than exit polls showed on: February 10, 2017, 10:06:57 pm
Clinton beat Trump by 70 points in Colorado, according to Harvard statistician: exit polls showed anemic 37-point win for Clinton among CO Latinos

I have no reason to believe that similar discrepancies don't exist in many other states as well. I know some analysis has been done in other places: feel free to link to any other state analyses.

Turning to Colorado, we reviewed the official voting data for more than 2,500 voting precincts across 17 counties, representing almost 90 percent of the state population.

Looking at voting precincts is an ideal way to infer vote choice patterns by racial demographic groups, and it has been regularly used in social science research.


In 2012, when Colorado delivered a 5-point win for Democrat Barack Obama, many pundits noted that the Hispanic vote provided the critical edge with about 80 percent of the vote.

In 2014, when Republican Senator Cory Gardner recorded a surprise win in Colorado, analysts pointed to lower rates of Hispanic voter turnout and a 10-point drop in the Democratic vote share for Senator Mark Udall to help explain the result.

Since Clinton carried the state by 5 points, roughly the same margin as Obama in 2012, it would seem at odds with the national narrative that Trump improved GOP support among Hispanics.


The official precinct data, as reported by each county registrar office, suggests that turnout was higher in the most heavily Hispanic precincts across Colorado, and Clinton carried over 80 percent of the vote.

Next, we reviewed the total number of votes cast across all 2,500 precincts in our dataset. In most of the majority-Hispanic precincts across the state, more votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012.


Our analysis indicates that Clinton won 83 percent of the Hispanic vote in Colorado to 14 percent for Trump [exit polls for CO claimed 67-30].  This trend is very clear in the scatter plot, which maps every precinct, what percent of the vote went for Clinton or Trump and what percent of all voters were Hispanic.

13  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Georgia's Very Own Megathread! on: February 10, 2017, 03:40:24 am
So, Democrats win Atlanta area (more and more) and sort of Black Belt going from south-west part of the state to central-east. Plus Savannah. And almost nothing more?

Not to mention that the Black Belt is increasingly becoming weaker and weaker. It almost vanished (or did, in many places) in the center of the state in this election.

See my animated mega-GIF for 2002-2016 presidential/gubernatorial results by precinct.

14  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Georgia's Very Own Megathread! on: February 10, 2017, 03:10:55 am
My presidential county-by-county GIF has been updated with 2016 (one slow and one fast)!

15  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Maps of Federal Courts by Party of Appointment on: February 09, 2017, 02:32:40 am

16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ruline Steininger Dead at 103. on: February 08, 2017, 05:13:13 pm
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Northern Strategy Explained on: February 08, 2017, 05:08:05 pm
Immigration.  While the GOP has been the party of immigration restriction since the 19th century, the rhetoric is clearly different.  Take the issue of Islamic immigration.  During the 2000s much of the opposition to Islamic immigration came from "America is a Christian country, Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays!"  In 2017 the argument against Islamic immigration is that Muslims are a threat to secularism, to women's rights, and to gay rights.  An irreligious man who typically votes Democrat will ignore the former argument but might be worried about the latter.

Transgender bathrooms.  Trump said that transgender people can use whatever bathrooms they want.  I think it's safe to say that the majority of Republicans along with many Democrats and independents, disagree with Trump (see Houston).   Compare this with how Republicans reacted to the legalization of SSM in Massachusetts in 2004.  Republicans made gay marriage a central campaign issue and it probably got Bush reelected.  Furthermore, in 2004 the Republicans used social issues to appeal to minorities and immigrants.  This is a significant change.

I disagree with this part. Sure, America is becoming more secular in a formal and broader sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean that individual beliefs - whether the motivation still is overtly religious or not - aren't rooted in them. With that being said, your average Trump Democrat doesn't fit the demographic profile to be swayed by an argument of, essentially, "you're a noble social warrior: you don't want those Muslims taking away our hard-fought social progressive values, do you?". This was a clever act of concern-trolling by Trump and the GOP during the campaign, but I highly doubt it had any real effect. Short of Bill Maher, the only place you saw this argument being used by the masses was in right-wing blog comment sections. If they were motivated by a message rooted effectively in religious bigotry, then it's coming from the same place and striking the same chords as it did 10-15 years ago. If it didn't get them then, then it wouldn't have gotten them now, and especially in a less naturally potent context.

Which brings me to this: there are still religious people in the Democratic Party. Hard to believe for some, I know! But the fact is that there were and are plenty of people who have been voting Democratic for years that could have just as easily voted for Bush due to his gay marriage-bashing in 2004, but had different priorities and therefore voted for Kerry (and/or Obama). Sixty percent of the country opposed gay marriage in 2004; Kerry got 48% of the vote. You can't just pretend those people didn't (or don't) exist. Nevertheless, the types that eluded Bush in 2004 - of all years - weren't likely to be swayed by an even further leftist message rooting along those lines 10-15 years later...because any message ranting and raving against other religious groups is ultimately only going to be potent if it's coming from an evangelical or far-right position, which Trump didn't use (at least bluntly).

My main point here is that the people who would be susceptible to this kind of message would have been susceptible in 2004; if they didn't fall then, they didn't fall in 2016...or at least for this reason. It doesn't appear that the loss in 2016 was caused by a return to 2004 voting habits (look at where we fumbled).

However, the people who are more likely to be in that religious Democratic category are also more likely to be in a situation where their economic fortunes have faltered. While the country as an aggregate continues to improve, there are obviously rather large subsets of the population that have only seen their fortunes consistently decline since 2008. If you break apart the country into two groups - those who have improved or are holding steady for the past decade versus those who are sinking - I think the trend becomes clear. I think there is considerable overlap between the types who might harbor anti-Muslim sentiment (or pro-religious sentiment) and those who are hurting financially.

Trump embodied the agent of change in a world where they're only hurting more from year to year, and he said the right things to grab these otherwise pretty reliable Democrats - who up until now have been more than willing to overlook their religious concerns for economic ones. Because of that, I don't think 2016 was a "change election" for them in a real sense: they were still voting what they considered to be best for their wallets and pocketbooks. It just happened to involve voting for another party this time.

Additionally, Democrats have to realize that we've likely had a lot of GOP voters "on loan" for the past couple of elections. Obama was able to cut heavily into specific segments of the prior-GOP coalition and use it to (mostly his own) advantage in both 2008 and 2012. Sure, there are sizable chunks of this group that still remain with us - especially in suburban areas - but when you look at the Midwest in particular (2004-2016), it's pretty clear that enough of them reverted in places where it mattered.

It's easy to understand why Democrats assumed they had the upper hand, because generally, if you can lock down specific segments of voters for multiple elections, they tend to stay with you. However, this may have been more of an issue relating specifically to Obama as an individual and the caliber of GOP candidates he faced.

So in short: these religious voters didn't defect to the GOP because Trump sold them a socially-progressive message of religious bigotry. They would be more likely to respond to a Bush-era one if anything - because that is the root of such sentiment - but the real root of their behavior is locked in their economic fortunes. They defected because they felt Trump was the better economic choice in a world where the status quo has seen their fortunes consistently decline, and they're tired of it. Additionally, Democrats were too generous in their assumption that many of these voters (and others) were locked into our column after the wins in 2008 and 2012, failing to realize that a sizable chunk of Obama voters were in fact more likely to vote for GOP candidates - as they had been doing prior to his arrival - than they could have imagined.
18  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: A fair and just foreign policy: the dfwlibertylover plan on: February 07, 2017, 10:25:12 pm
Question: did you use military force to drone Yankee into submission, preventing him from running again? Usually it's Yankee that is doing the droning, so I'm completely perplexed at what happened here.
19  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Labor Winter Convention 2017 -Welcome to Baltimore on: February 07, 2017, 01:56:38 am
x AG
20  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: 2016 White Vote by County Project on: February 06, 2017, 11:03:44 pm
^^^ FYI, the white vote in ATL proper is immensely Democratic: we're talking anywhere from 70-80% Democratic. It's the non-ATL Fulton whites that drag the number down. Only about one-third of whites in Fulton County live in the city limits.

There's a huge gulf in the voting patterns of whites in the city limits versus remainder of the county. You're basically looking at non-ATL Fulton whites as a whole being comparable to the surrounding metro (25-30% D); when combined with ATL proper whites, it gives you an approximately 40-45% D white population.
21  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Monroe County, FL (The Keys) on: February 06, 2017, 07:49:48 pm
Counties like this are the epitome of why I take such issue with wealthier LGBT types: there are a lot more of them in the GOP in the upper income brackets than some people realize, as well as a substantial portion that only vote Democratic because of LGBT issues in particular (and would totally be Republican otherwise). The fact that Trump largely excluded LGBTs in his fearmongering - unlike recent GOP nominees - presumably played a role there within these demographics, which are over-represented in Monroe by a considerable amount.

I know I'm not necessarily using data here to back up my claims, but I guarantee you the fact that Monroe is a kitschy, somewhat wealthier and eccentric enclave for gay men in particular plays a role in all of this.
22  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: 2016 White Vote by County Project on: February 06, 2017, 07:44:48 pm
The margins were pretty close in all of these, and I suspect that Clinton won the White vote in the city proper for all of these cases, but the other suburbs in the county put Trump over the edge.

Per this model, Trump won the White Vote in Marion County, IN by 3.2%, Wayne County, MI by 0.4%, and Fulton County, GA by 2.5%.

I'm curious as to what number you have for Clayton County, GA: looks like it's in the 30s on your map. I had 50% in 2012. I'm thinking we both may be a bit off of what was the case in each of these elections. The problem with counties like Clayton (in general; at least with my map) is that the white share of the vote/population is so small that even small changes in non-white vote share can dramatically affect the white Democratic percentage. The great thing about GA specifically - and I think I mentioned it before - is the Georgia's voter turnout by race and by county stats from the SoS, if you haven't already checked it out and/or used it in your figures.

On the other hand, if there was to be a large swing among whites to Trump in any metro ATL county, then Clayton would probably be the most likely culprit.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which state do Democrats have a better chance of carrying: NC or GA? on: February 06, 2017, 07:27:42 pm
No - Georgia is obviously total fool's gold for the Democrats and we should continue to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into uber swing-state NC!

Dem % in GA, Compared to NC:

2000: -0.22
2004: -2.24
-----Begin Half-Billion Dollar Dem Investment in NC-----
2008: -2.80
2012: -2.96
2016: -0.28

NC Election Results
GA Election Results

Truly inspiring!

"Trend" is effectively meaningless outside of Atlas nerd analysis, though.

But if we are gonna look at it, then look at the trend of the trend: NC is spent. NC's 2012 trend beat GA by a measly 0.2 points and in 2016, NC got stomped by GA. This is with NC getting tons of investment and money, and GA getting none.

All that money can buy there has been bought already. Time to invest in GA!

24  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: GA-GOV 2018: Jason Carter mulling another run on: February 06, 2017, 01:20:14 am
Must be preparing for another run - very high-energy!

25  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / 2016 White Vote by County Project on: February 05, 2017, 08:24:49 pm
^^^ That's very cool! You should really make your own thread here with the map since it's a separate project. That way, it'll get the attention it deserves.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 436

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines