Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 17, 2017, 11:13:18 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 434
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Two Counties Gave HRC her ENTIRE PV Plurality on: January 15, 2017, 02:44:20 pm
Zero Counties Gave Trump his ENTIRE PV Plurality, Because He Didn't Win the PV and Is Therefore an Illegitimate President
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rep. John Lewis "I do not consider the president-elect to be legitimate" on: January 13, 2017, 10:03:04 pm
Good, good. It begins.
3  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: January 2017 Fremont Special Election on: January 13, 2017, 09:58:18 pm
FOR GOVERNOR
ONE (1) Governor to be elected.

[1] Harry S Truman
Labor Party - North Dakota

FOR ASSEMBLY
THREE (3) Members to be elected.

[1] simossad
Labor Party - Minnesota

[2] Write-In: TDAS04

[3] RFayette
Federalist Party - California

[4] 1184AZ
Federalist Party - Washington
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does Trump's rise prove the tea party was about race? on: January 12, 2017, 02:47:33 am
From my experience, most Tea Partiers just hated blacks who were democrats

They love Herman Cain type blacks

-Indeed. Look at Ben Carson's vote patterns in the Georgia primary. Very rural, not Black-belt focused. Same type of people who voted for Trump.

Arguing that you can't be racist because you voted for a black man to represent your political cause is like arguing that you can't be racist because you hired black house-servants rear your kids.
5  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: Swearing in of New Officeholders on: January 12, 2017, 01:57:15 am
I hereby resign as Fremont Senator, and am terribly sorry that I have been completely unresponsive in the role for some time. I wouldn't have ran if I had known it was going to be like this.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Guess That Datapoint on: January 11, 2017, 12:23:08 am
Looks like nobody has guessed correctly thus far. The answer is "the combined results of the largest county in every state*"

* Minus DC & AK



Who's next?
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Guess That Datapoint on: January 09, 2017, 07:24:12 am
The biggest cities?

You're getting warmer.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Guess That Datapoint on: January 08, 2017, 01:01:37 am
No correct guess thus far. A hint: these are results from a physical jurisdiction, albeit not necessarily one that is contiguous.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Atlanta's Precinct Map and surrounding area on: January 08, 2017, 12:42:25 am
Anyone with knowledge of the area want to compare to the income map?  At least from a glance, it doesn't so much look to be wealthy suburban Republicans defecting to Clinton as much as Atlanta being even more diverse than it was four years ago...

I'd argue that the map as scaled is misleading: the handful of precincts that are showing >$250k really make it harder to determine income's effects in the election. It's Atlanta, not New York: a lot of people here who have $150k household incomes are going to be considerably better off than a household making $300k in a larger city. There's a lot of relative affluence in the $100-200k range, and that's probably where the shifts - at least in nominal terms - would be the largest and most influential. Perhaps a different color scheme - since I don't think you can actually filter down the range of incomes on the map - would show it more accurately.

The areas of "expansion" for Democrats throughout the metro in this election and prior are happening largely along interstates and major highways, and follow a very predictable pattern of minority movement that has been occurring for a long time. However, many of these areas would never be Democratic enough on their own to move without some substantial swings among white voters there, regardless of income. You'll see the precursor for the 2016 map by precinct in the 2008 map (below), but the explosion of R-to-D precincts in this election can't be explained by minority demographics alone.

If you take a gander at the swings by county for the metro, you'll notice that the heaviest swings were in areas in the far northeast (and outside) of the OP's map: Forsyth, Cherokee, Gwinnett.

While Gwinnett has a substantial minority population - much of it Latino and Asian - Forsyth and Cherokee do not, and much like Gwinnett, a lot of it is Latino/Asian, meaning that it is nowhere nearly as Democratic as much of the inner metro minority population and simultaneously not as likely to vote in full force. With that being said, Latino turnout among registered voters in Georgia this cycle improved substantially, with Latino turnout being higher than black voter turnout in many counties.

Here's my animated GIF of presidential/gubernatorial results by precinct from 2002-2016. You can get an up-close and personal view of the metro if you open in new tab/zoom in:

10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Guess That Datapoint on: January 08, 2017, 12:16:43 am
West Coast

Nope
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Guess That Datapoint on: January 07, 2017, 11:59:25 pm
The premise: post results from the 2016 election (compared against a previous year) without telling what jurisdiction it covers.

Here's the first one:

Quote
Clinton won by 3 points more than Obama did in 2012, while receiving an effectively identical share of the vote. Approximately three million more voters showed up in 2016: a 15% increase in turnout compared to 2012 (was 6% nationally). The number of third-party votes quadrupled compared to 2012 - slightly higher than the national increase (3.45x).

12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Democrats wanted to hand a second term to Trump on a silver platter... on: January 05, 2017, 10:54:16 am
Cuomo.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats and Democrat voters of 2016, what would cause you to vote Trump? on: January 05, 2017, 10:48:52 am
Cuomo.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Alaska 2016 on: January 05, 2017, 05:23:04 am
I'm very upset that AK didn't continue its recent trajectory; prior to this election, it was the only state to have swung Democratic in the past 3 elections. However, its swing to Trump this time was statistically insignificant (0.74 points), and especially so when compared to its swing to Democrats in the previous three elections (7.54 in 2012, 4.02 in 2008 & 5.40 in 2004).
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: What would the 2012 results have looked like if Democrats won 59% of whites? on: January 03, 2017, 06:38:40 am
My gut says everything but WY, OK & WV.

I could see the latter two actually flipping, but at the same time, I could see a very inelastic LA of all places be a GOP holdout even in a 500+ EV win. In a normal election, UT would be very close one way or another. ID & AL would be fairly close as well: probably low single-digit Dem wins.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Most recent election in which counties voted for the opposite party on: January 03, 2017, 06:31:07 am
Obviously based off of the 2016 presidential election.

Full-size image

17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Not Even Obama Could Have Defeated Trump in 2016 on: January 01, 2017, 06:40:39 pm
Obama's popularity at the time of the election wouldn't have been the same.

The notion of Trump (and Clinton, for that matter) being President certainly helped, yes, but Obama's approval being on a steady climb during the final year was likely due to the fact that he wasn't running again and he would soon be leaving office.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why does Georiga take so long to count their votes? on: December 31, 2016, 05:49:14 pm
To answer OP's question, Metro Atlanta vote tends to report before the rural "downstate" vote.  This is in contrast with northern states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where rural votes are counted relatively quickly and very Democratic inner-city precincts take the longest to report.  With Clinton performing very well in Metro Atlanta this year, more raw votes were needed out of South Georgia to show that she wasn't going to win the state.  

The rural areas of South Georgia are notoriously slow-voting, and the large numbers of counties (159, second only to Texas) also means that it takes longer for votes to be counted.  

This isn't necessarily true. You are right about the broader premise - that the metro was substantially more Democratic this time around, and that led to the delay in the call - but the way in which you've said Georgia tends to report is not the case.

The distribution of counted votes within the first 90 minutes of so of the polls closing are disproportionately from rural Georgia, and of that, disproportionately from South Georgia - it's a small area in terms of population so it's never a huge chunk once votes really start coming in, but South GA is almost always over-represented in the first couple of hours of counting.

Like I said above, ATL proper is on a one-hour delay, so your most Democratic 5% of the state doesn't begin trickling in until an hour after the polls close at minimum, and are always among the last precincts to fully report. Fulton, Dekalb and usually one other urban county are always the last three to finish counting. The heavily Democratic and populated counties always take the longest to fully report. The metro/suburban areas aren't necessarily quick nor slow to report - and can vary considerably in terms of when each individual one wraps up the count - but they are usually not among the first.

This is why if you watch GA's GOP margins from 7 PM on, it consistently shrinks as the night progresses (and usually continues to do so for days afterward). Almost always, the GOP is leading in GA by anywhere from 15 to 25 points for the first 60-90 minutes (because it's South GA/rural GA reporting), and then it begins to creep downward rapidly (partial returns from urban counties), slows a bit (partial/full returns from suburban counties), and then continues to dwindle slowly over the remainder of the evening (remaining returns from urban/suburban counties).

By and large/in the aggregate, Georgia reports in a way comparable to population distribution: smaller and more rural counties report first, suburban counties follow, and then most populated/urban counties are last to finish.

In fact, I believe if HRC had matched Obama's 2012 performance in Non-Atlanta Georgia, Trump would have won the state with <1%.  Had she matched his 2008 performance, she would have won it.

If you take these boundaries - the metro from 2016, the rest of the state from 2012, and use the statewide third-party vote from 2016 - then Trump still wins by 125,000 votes.



Trump 49.4% 2,014,778
Clinton 46.3% 1,889,561
Other 4.3% 174,378
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why does Georiga take so long to count their votes? on: December 31, 2016, 05:16:25 pm
One reason is ATL proper: I forget which, but either the polls there do not close until one hour after the state's do, or they cannot begin counting the votes there until 8 PM.

Georgia requires that its candidates, including slates of Presidential electors, be elected with 50% of the vote.  If Trump did not get 50% of the vote, the race would go to a December runoff.

Also, no. The presidential is the only contest that does not require 50%+1 for a runoff (see: 1992, 1996).
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: '00/'16 & '04/'16 Winners by County on: December 30, 2016, 10:41:43 pm
Could you do Gore next?

Added to OP.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / '00/'16 & '04/'16 Winners by County on: December 26, 2016, 08:15:06 pm
99 Bush-Clinton counties
190 Kerry-Trump counties




States w/ Most Kerry-Trump Counties:

IA: 26
MN: 17
TN/WI: 15
AR: 13
KY: 11

States w/ Most Bush-Clinton Counties:
CA: 11
TX: 11
GA: 10
VA: 9
NC: 7




115 Bush-Clinton counties
298 Gore-Trump counties





States w/ Most Gore-Trump Counties:

TN: 33
IA: 25
AR: 24
MI: 16
IL: 18

States w/ Most Bush-Clinton Counties:
VA: 14
CA: 13
CO: 11
GA: 9
NC: 8
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Dear Exit Polls, Trump didn't improve among Latinos. on: December 18, 2016, 02:52:40 am
Exit polls showed that among both Latinos and non-whites as a whole, non-college graduates were slightly more Democratic than college graduates. It's within the margin of error. Not sure how it stacks up compared to 2012 since we don't have that data (or 2008 even, I don't think), but I find it hard to believe that there were huge swings among non-white, non-college graduates to Trump.

I also think that the exit polls - perfectly capable of being off by as much as the difference between 2012 & 2016 Latino numbers - are slightly underestimating Latino support for Clinton this cycle. With that being said, I believe there was a slight shift to Trump, but in all likelihood, it was motivated by a surge in previously-apathetic college-educated Latinos who are second and third generation Americans, who insist that "people need to come into this country legally" (even though a good number of them wouldn't be here if that had always the case). If you live in an area with a fairly prominent and/or established Latino community, then you know exactly the type I'm talking about here.

Quote
Non-white women, no degree: 81/16 Clinton
Non-white women, degree: 77/18 Clinton
Non-white men, no degree: 69/25 Clinton
Non-white men, degree: 67/27 Clinton

Latino women, no degree: 70/25 Clinton
Latino women, degree: 66/27 Clinton
Latino men, no degree: 62/33 Clinton
Latino men, degree: 63/31 Clinton
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Joe Biden entered the race, who would have won the Democratic nomination? on: December 18, 2016, 02:19:14 am
I think it would have been close enough between all three for nobody now to be able to say with absolute certainty who would have won.

As much as some Bernie supporters don't want to admit, there was a less-than-insignificant coalition of Sanders voters who were simply "anti-Hillary" and were registering their voices as such. You also had people for whom Biden's personality and approach to issues were more in line with what they actually wanted.

And as much as some Hillary supporters don't want to admit, there was a less-than-significant coalition of Clinton voters who were simply kneejerk "pro-establishment" types and/or wanted a simple continuation of the trends because they didn't want anything to change for poorer people that might upset their own unearned prosperity. Biden would have been a much better choice as VP for the past eight years to embody that for them.

Do you think Sanders would have won WV in a three-way matchup? Oklahoma? Michigan? Would Clinton have won Ohio? Pennsylvania? Delaware?

Start adding in a variety of other coalitions - the Rust Belt types who crossed over to vote for Trump that might have otherwise stayed in the Democratic primary and voted for Biden, those who genuinely just didn't want a woman as President, unions in general, establishment types who thought Hillary was a flawed candidate but better than Bernie - and it snowballs really quickly from there.

I think he would have easily drawn enough support to put Sanders in the lead in a vacuum, but he would have pulled enough from Sanders as well to make it either a very close two-way race between Clinton/Sanders where nobody could secure a majority of delegates, or a genuine three-way contest.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Democrats try to nominate a Latino/a nominee in 2020? on: December 12, 2016, 06:28:33 am
We should obviously nominate whoever connects best with the American public, regardless of whatever immutable characteristic: something we got right in 2008 but got wrong in 2016.
25  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: December 2016 House Election on: December 11, 2016, 11:55:31 pm
[1] Cashew
[2] Southern Gothic
[3] Wolfentoad
[4] Peebs
[5] NeverAgain
[6] Siren
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 434


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines