FiveThirtyEight Demographic Calculator Revisited: Can you make Trump win?

[Gustaf]

I don't think Hispanic turnout is going to drop 8%.

But I appreciate muon2 putting together a potential Trump win.

Yeah, I don't see Hispanic turnout dropping at all from 2012, let alone 8%. That is just totally at odds with all of the available evidence.

These are the percentages of the voter eligible population that voted since 1980 according to Dr. Michael McDonalds US Elections Project:

1980   54.2      1982   42
1984   55.2      1986   38.1
1988   52.8      1990   38.4
1992   58.1      1994   41.1
1996   51.7      1998   38.1
2000   54.2      2002   39.5
2004   60.1      2006   40.4
2008   61.6      2010   41
2012   58.2      2014   35.9

The last three presidential elections have been historically high in the era since suffrage was lowered to 18. Swings of 5-6% up or down are not unusual. 1988 had uninspiring candidates after two terms of a highly motivating president. 1996 had a Dem president fighting off scandal charges vs an uninspiring Pub nominee. Neither of those cycles had any major economic or other crisis (eg 9/11 for 2004) to move voters to the polls, which is also true this cycle.

I used an 8% Hispanic drop as something between a 5% white drop and 10% black drop. If I drop the Hispanics only 4%, less than the population as a whole, Trump still wins on the calculator assuming he takes 70% of non-college educated whites.

You assume this is a temporary blip. But to me it looks more like increased polarization or whatever has created a permanently higher level of turnout. 2012 for example wasn't super inspiring and still saw massive turnout.

[Ljube]

I don't think Hispanic turnout is going to drop 8%.

But I appreciate muon2 putting together a potential Trump win.

Yeah, I don't see Hispanic turnout dropping at all from 2012, let alone 8%. That is just totally at odds with all of the available evidence.

These are the percentages of the voter eligible population that voted since 1980 according to Dr. Michael McDonalds US Elections Project:

1980   54.2      1982   42
1984   55.2      1986   38.1
1988   52.8      1990   38.4
1992   58.1      1994   41.1
1996   51.7      1998   38.1
2000   54.2      2002   39.5
2004   60.1      2006   40.4
2008   61.6      2010   41
2012   58.2      2014   35.9

The last three presidential elections have been historically high in the era since suffrage was lowered to 18. Swings of 5-6% up or down are not unusual. 1988 had uninspiring candidates after two terms of a highly motivating president. 1996 had a Dem president fighting off scandal charges vs an uninspiring Pub nominee. Neither of those cycles had any major economic or other crisis (eg 9/11 for 2004) to move voters to the polls, which is also true this cycle.

I used an 8% Hispanic drop as something between a 5% white drop and 10% black drop. If I drop the Hispanics only 4%, less than the population as a whole, Trump still wins on the calculator assuming he takes 70% of non-college educated whites.

You assume this is a temporary blip. But to me it looks more like increased polarization or whatever has created a permanently higher level of turnout. 2012 for example wasn't super inspiring and still saw massive turnout.

Not as massive as 2008. Plus people get tired of voting, particularly when there is no crisis/problem.

[muon2]

I don't think Hispanic turnout is going to drop 8%.

But I appreciate muon2 putting together a potential Trump win.

Yeah, I don't see Hispanic turnout dropping at all from 2012, let alone 8%. That is just totally at odds with all of the available evidence.

These are the percentages of the voter eligible population that voted since 1980 according to Dr. Michael McDonalds US Elections Project:

1980   54.2      1982   42
1984   55.2      1986   38.1
1988   52.8      1990   38.4
1992   58.1      1994   41.1
1996   51.7      1998   38.1
2000   54.2      2002   39.5
2004   60.1      2006   40.4
2008   61.6      2010   41
2012   58.2      2014   35.9

The last three presidential elections have been historically high in the era since suffrage was lowered to 18. Swings of 5-6% up or down are not unusual. 1988 had uninspiring candidates after two terms of a highly motivating president. 1996 had a Dem president fighting off scandal charges vs an uninspiring Pub nominee. Neither of those cycles had any major economic or other crisis (eg 9/11 for 2004) to move voters to the polls, which is also true this cycle.

I used an 8% Hispanic drop as something between a 5% white drop and 10% black drop. If I drop the Hispanics only 4%, less than the population as a whole, Trump still wins on the calculator assuming he takes 70% of non-college educated whites.

You assume this is a temporary blip. But to me it looks more like increased polarization or whatever has created a permanently higher level of turnout. 2012 for example wasn't super inspiring and still saw massive turnout.

It wasn't polarization but record turnout by the black population. I assume that without Obama the black turnout falls dramatically. I put it 2% above non-college educated whites instead of 7% above as it was in 2012.

The other driver of turnout recently has been the youth vote 18-30. Millennials were a big part in Obama's coalition. Neither Clinton nor Trump have done well at appealing to this demographic, so I think they also drop dramatically in turnout.

[Nyvin]

I don't think Hispanic turnout is going to drop 8%.

But I appreciate muon2 putting together a potential Trump win.

Yeah, I don't see Hispanic turnout dropping at all from 2012, let alone 8%. That is just totally at odds with all of the available evidence.

These are the percentages of the voter eligible population that voted since 1980 according to Dr. Michael McDonalds US Elections Project:

1980   54.2      1982   42
1984   55.2      1986   38.1
1988   52.8      1990   38.4
1992   58.1      1994   41.1
1996   51.7      1998   38.1
2000   54.2      2002   39.5
2004   60.1      2006   40.4
2008   61.6      2010   41
2012   58.2      2014   35.9

The last three presidential elections have been historically high in the era since suffrage was lowered to 18. Swings of 5-6% up or down are not unusual. 1988 had uninspiring candidates after two terms of a highly motivating president. 1996 had a Dem president fighting off scandal charges vs an uninspiring Pub nominee. Neither of those cycles had any major economic or other crisis (eg 9/11 for 2004) to move voters to the polls, which is also true this cycle.

I used an 8% Hispanic drop as something between a 5% white drop and 10% black drop. If I drop the Hispanics only 4%, less than the population as a whole, Trump still wins on the calculator assuming he takes 70% of non-college educated whites.

You assume this is a temporary blip. But to me it looks more like increased polarization or whatever has created a permanently higher level of turnout. 2012 for example wasn't super inspiring and still saw massive turnout.

It wasn't polarization but record turnout by the black population. I assume that without Obama the black turnout falls dramatically. I put it 2% above non-college educated whites instead of 7% above as it was in 2012.

The other driver of turnout recently has been the youth vote 18-30. Millennials were a big part in Obama's coalition. Neither Clinton nor Trump have done well at appealing to this demographic, so I think they also drop dramatically in turnout.

Black turnout has been rising consistently since the 2000 election,  the drop in 2012 was really the only exception (although some sources have it going up from 2008 to 2012).   I believe proportionally the turnout stayed relatively the same in 2010 and 2014, which doesn't bode well for the "Obama-Centric" AA turnout theory. 



The youth vote didn't really "spike" much in 2008, and certainly not in 2012...that's largely a myth.  It's been fairly consistent with national turnout overall.   2004 had larger youth turnout than 2012.

[BuckeyeNut]

I don't know if people are doing this, but remember to account for Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and the increasing number of voter ID suppression laws that have been passed since in calculating the black and latinx vote.

[Virginiá]

It wasn't polarization but record turnout by the black population. I assume that without Obama the black turnout falls dramatically. I put it 2% above non-college educated whites instead of 7% above as it was in 2012.

The other driver of turnout recently has been the youth vote 18-30. Millennials were a big part in Obama's coalition. Neither Clinton nor Trump have done well at appealing to this demographic, so I think they also drop dramatically in turnout.

Black turnout has been rising consistently since the 2000 election,  the drop in 2012 was really the only exception (although some sources have it going up from 2008 to 2012).   I believe proportionally the turnout stayed relatively the same in 2010 and 2014, which doesn't bode well for the "Obama-Centric" AA turnout theory. 



The youth vote didn't really "spike" much in 2008, and certainly not in 2012...that's largely a myth.  It's been fairly consistent with national turnout overall.   2004 had larger youth turnout than 2012.

Was going to post similar graphs, but you beat me to it!

However, I don't think those numbers are correct. Most other sources have black turnout rising higher in 2012 than 2008. I don't know why there are so many discrepancies about turnout rates among demographics but as I understand it, it went something like 64% - 65% (2008) ==> 66% - 67% (2012).

Either way, black turnout was already on the rise and it continued to stay elevated even during the midterms (relative towards traditional midterm turnout, of course). Youth vote was also not high-turnout as many believe in 2012. It could go lower, but if going by historical trends, not by much.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I had too much fun, broke the simulator, and accidentally caused the Hillary-pocalypse.

CE White: 100% Turnout, 98% Clinton
NCE White: 100% Turnout, 98% Trump
Black: 100% Turnout, 99% Clinton
Hispanic/Latino: 100% Turnout, 98% Clinton
Asian/Other: 100% Turnout, 98% Clinton
Total: 62.3% Clinton, 36% Trump
Districts of NE and ME were changed in compliance to PVI of each one.

[This account no longer in use.]

Done.

Donald J. Trump: 48.6%, 275 EV
Hillary Clinton: 49.7%, 263 EV

[BuckeyeNut]

Done.

Donald J. Trump: 48.6%, 275 EV
Hillary Clinton: 49.7%, 263 EV

What demographics did you use?

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Trump: 293 EV
Clinton: 245 EV

College-educated whites: 58% R, 77% turnout (2% GOP swing)
Whites without a degree: 65% R, 66% turnout (3% GOP swing)
Blacks: 84% D, 56% turnout (9% GOP swing)
Hispanics/Latinos: 85% D, 60% turnout (14% Dem swing)
Asian/Other: 64% D, 49% turnout (3% GOP swing)

[The Other Castro]

I've been messing around with these to try and find the National PV thresholds at which certain states flip Dem or GOP. This obviously isn't completely accurate since it doesn't take into account the Mormon effect in Utah, and I may not have adjusted all demographic sliders at a completely even rate:

Michigan: 50% GOP
Colorado/Minnesota: 49.8% GOP
Virginia: 49.4% GOP
Pennsylvania: 49.2% Dem
Wisconsin: 49.3% Dem
Florida: 49.4% Dem
New Hampshire: 49.8% Dem
Iowa: 50.6% Dem
Ohio: 51.3% Dem
↓------------------------------- ↑ 2012 Map = Starting Point
North Carolina: 52.4% Dem
Arizona: 54.5% Dem
Georgia: 55.6% Dem
Texas: 55.7% Dem
Indiana: 57% Dem
Missouri: 57.1% Dem
Alaska: 57.3% Dem
South Carolina: 57.6% Dem
Mississippi: 57.8% Dem

[Asian Nazi]

The calculator is deeply flawed.  Whites from different cultural regions vote totally differently from one another.  Ditto with different Hispanic and Asian ethnic groups.  Even the blacks have different voting patterns based on region.  The uniform racial swing promoted by this calculator produces totally implausible results and renders it basically worthless.

[LLR]

The calculator is deeply flawed.  Whites from different cultural regions vote totally differently from one another.  Ditto with different Hispanic and Asian ethnic groups.  Even the blacks have different voting patterns based on region.  The uniform racial swing promoted by this calculator produces totally implausible results and renders it basically worthless.

Actually, they do factor in region. Scroll down the page and you will see stuff about that.

[Asian Nazi]

The calculator is deeply flawed.  Whites from different cultural regions vote totally differently from one another.  Ditto with different Hispanic and Asian ethnic groups.  Even the blacks have different voting patterns based on region.  The uniform racial swing promoted by this calculator produces totally implausible results and renders it basically worthless.

Actually, they do factor in region. Scroll down the page and you will see stuff about that.

No they don't?  Unless we're looking at totally different pages, all I see is a % breakdown by state.

[AmericanNation]

The Surge of working class whites has a tipping point of about 65%-to-66%, that makes Trump plausible/possible.
He may not see that type of turn out and support nationally, but it is very plausible in the rust belt.
OH and Florida are the obvious important states in any election.
IA, WI, PA go next. 
VA - whatev
MI, MN are going to be interesting to see if Trump is the real deal.   

zero out educated whites 50/50

Give Dems 99% of black & Latino vote with lower than Obama turnout. 

Interresting landslide

Kind of what the map will look like at least at some point in the campaign.

[RaphaelDLG]

If the exercise is to make Trump win and be somewhat realistic, then I think it is something like this

My Demographics
College-Educated Whites: 54% Trump, 74% Turnout (Turnout and R share is down a bit)
Non-College-Educated Whites: 69% Trump, 61% Turnout (big surge for Trump with his base, he loves the uneducated)
Blacks: 90% Clinton, 61% Turnout (This go back to pre-Obama levels)
Hispanic: 79% Clinton, 53% Turnout (a bit worse than Romney but not too bad)
Asians/Other: 75% Clinton, 51% Turnout (a bit worse than Romney but not too bad)

Businessman Donald Trump (R-NY) - 49.1%, 273 EV's
S.O.S. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - 49.1%, 265 EV's

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

[RaphaelDLG]

Yeah, I would bet against Trump winning much of the upper Midwest, but either way they'll be much too much Latino swing and surge for him to win w/o it

[Nyvin]

If the exercise is to make Trump win and be somewhat realistic, then I think it is something like this

My Demographics
College-Educated Whites: 54% Trump, 74% Turnout (Turnout and R share is down a bit)
Non-College-Educated Whites: 69% Trump, 61% Turnout (big surge for Trump with his base, he loves the uneducated)
Blacks: 90% Clinton, 61% Turnout (This go back to pre-Obama levels)
Hispanic: 79% Clinton, 53% Turnout (a bit worse than Romney but not too bad)
Asians/Other: 75% Clinton, 51% Turnout (a bit worse than Romney but not too bad)

Businessman Donald Trump (R-NY) - 49.1%, 273 EV's
S.O.S. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - 49.1%, 265 EV's

This is by far the most realistic map in this thread.   Although when I put the numbers listed into the calculator Florida still goes Democratic (although barely),   which means this election outcome would almost be an exact repeat of 2000 with a few states swapped around (ie...it all comes down to Florida and the result isn't known for days, maybe weeks).

Also Trump really does poll terribly in Wisconsin, and I'm not that confident of his chances in NH either.   Neither state is a good match for him.

[standwrand]

These are interesting because most reasonable Trump win scenarios have Trump winning the EV but not the PV. I wonder if he could actually pull that off in Nov?

[Likely Voter]

I made an error in my original post, so I fixed it. I had to reduce Clinton's share of the Latino vote a bit (although pushing Trump's share of whites up a bit also worked). However, this new map creates a 2000 like repeat with Clinton winning the popular vote but losing the EV, all due to Florida essentially being tied. Trump also wins NH and WI with less than 50%, Clinton wins PA w/ less than 50%.

Demographics
College-Educated Whites: 54% Trump, 74% Turnout (Turnout and R share is down a bit)
Non-College-Educated Whites: 69% Trump, 61% Turnout (big surge for Trump with his base, he loves the uneducated)
Blacks: 90% Clinton, 61% Turnout (This go back to pre-Obama levels)
Hispanic: 76% Clinton, 52% Turnout (a bit worse than Romney but not too bad)
Asians/Other: 75% Clinton, 51% Turnout (a bit worse than Romney but not too bad)

Businessman Donald Trump (R-NY) - 48.6%, 273 EV's
S.O.S. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - 49.6%, 265 EV's

[Ronnie]

These are interesting because most reasonable Trump win scenarios have Trump winning the EV but not the PV. I wonder if he could actually pull that off in Nov?

Considering almost every scenario of Trump winning the EC and losing the PV involves him winning New Hampshire, I would say it's very unlikely.  The angry women in the state are going to turn out in droves for Hillary.

[MT Treasurer]

These are interesting because most reasonable Trump win scenarios have Trump winning the EV but not the PV. I wonder if he could actually pull that off in Nov?

Trump is exactly the kind of Republican candidate who could win the electoral college while losing the popular vote by a point or so.

[Mike Thick]

The map you get by flipping all the vote percentages.

[/]

This is the map you get if the percentage of the vote each party receives for each demographic stays the same but each demographic's turnout is reversed (i.e. 66% becomes 34%, etc.)

(boring)

[Mike Thick]

And when you flip both turnout and votes: