What's the Matter with Kansas: Mission Hills, Kansas, went for Hillary

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mission Hills, Kansas, of What's the Matter With Kansas fame, went for GWB over Gore 71-25. All of its precincts went for HRC in the 2016 general election, sometimes by overwhelming margins.
https://rynerohla.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/16-KS-Inverted.png

As Thomas Frank said it back in mid-2004 in What's the Matter With Kansas:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, carry Mission Hills they sure did. And campaign lucre they sure received.

And Hillary did just poorly enough among the Democratic base to lose the EC narrowly, but decisively.

[Vosem]

They also did 5 points better in popular-vote margin compared to 2004. And, while Kerry did do better than Hillary in the Electoral College, he needed a much greater universal swing (2.11% for Kerry compared to 0.79% for Clinton) to win the election.

Point being, I don't think you can honestly say that Democrats did better in the 2004 presidential election than 2016. Note that, even though Kerry actually did better in a popular vote head-to-head, Clinton beats him in an electoral college hypothetical:

Red is where Hillary '16 was stronger than Kerry '04; blue is the reverse. Note that Kerry was slightly stronger nationally but Clinton still wins in the EC, 297-241.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Vosem, did you post in the wrong thread? This post has nothing to do with Kerry or the 2004 election.

[Vosem]

Vosem, did you post in the wrong thread? This post has nothing to do with Kerry or the 2004 election.

I was under the impression you were comparing modern Democrats to Democrats in 2004; saying that at that time Democrats had a goal of winning over voters in places like Mission Hills, that this has since been done, and that this has left the party weaker overall. I don't think the final part of that analysis holds up.

It seems like you intended the thread to have a broader purpose than just pointing out an interesting observation...

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Vosem, did you post in the wrong thread? This post has nothing to do with Kerry or the 2004 election.

I was under the impression you were comparing modern Democrats to Democrats in 2004; saying that at that time Democrats had a goal of winning over voters in places like Mission Hills, that this has since been done, and that this has left the party weaker overall. I don't think the final part of that analysis holds up.

It seems like you intended the thread to have a broader purpose than just pointing out an interesting observation...

-Oh; now I see what you mean, though that wasn't quite my thought process here. I just thought the Dem Party today is generally weak, not weaker than in 04. There's simply no way the Democrats are weaker nationwide (thoúgh they are in some areas) than in 04. The proper comparison of 2016 should be with 2000,as circumstances were more similar to 2016 for the parties in 00 than in 04. Frank was writing in mid-04, and he had the 00, but not 04, presidential results to work with. Yes; the GOP has a stronger position on all levels of government today than in 2001, including in the margin of EC win.

[uti2]

Vosem, did you post in the wrong thread? This post has nothing to do with Kerry or the 2004 election.

I was under the impression you were comparing modern Democrats to Democrats in 2004; saying that at that time Democrats had a goal of winning over voters in places like Mission Hills, that this has since been done, and that this has left the party weaker overall. I don't think the final part of that analysis holds up.

It seems like you intended the thread to have a broader purpose than just pointing out an interesting observation...

-Oh; now I see what you mean, though that wasn't quite my thought process here. I just thought the Dem Party today is generally weak, not weaker than in 04. There's simply no way the Democrats are weaker nationwide (thoúgh they are in some areas) than in 04. The proper comparison of 2016 should be with 2000,as circumstances were more similar to 2016 for the parties in 00 than in 04. Frank was writing in mid-04, and he had the 00, but not 04, presidential results to work with. Yes; the GOP has a stronger position on all levels of government today than in 2001, including in the margin of EC win.

And you can thank Hillary's scheme of courting republicans for that. Imagine if Al Gore had been on the campaign trail praising Dennis Hastert and the GOP, that's basically what Hillary did.

[Kantakouzenos]

Pursuing a relatively inflexible Demographic instead of the one that has been the parties base since forever was a pretty big mistake.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Pursuing a relatively inflexible Demographic instead of the one that has been the parties base since forever was a pretty big mistake.

-Clearly, culturally liberal nominally Republican elites were very much a flexible demographic. But college Whites as a whole are not.

[RINO Tom]

Pursuing a relatively inflexible Demographic instead of the one that has been the parties base since forever was a pretty big mistake.

-Clearly, culturally liberal nominally Republican elites were very much a flexible demographic. But college Whites as a whole are not.

In the 2016 Presidential election, absolutely.  I think it remains to be seen if that trend will continue or hit a wall, and I think it would be very wise of Democrats not to bank on continued gains among the affluent.  I am not a crystal ball-type guy, but my anecdotal evidence - I am probably from a family you would consider "culturally liberal" and "elite," and most of my close friends fit this description, along with many of the people I work with every day - says these people have zero desire to become Democrats anytime soon and see both parties as having ed up their nominations in 2016.  I could absolutely be wrong, but the fabled "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" folks I know do not perceive this "shift" of Democrats becoming this "affluent Whites" party is TOTALLY lost on anyone I have ever met outside of the one and only Atlas.

For every comment about how Trump is such a terrible nominee and the GOP has lost its mind, there are two about how the Democrats almost nominated a socialist and probably will next time.  Just saying.

[Goldwater]

They also did 5 points better in popular-vote margin compared to 2004. And, while Kerry did do better than Hillary in the Electoral College, he needed a much greater universal swing (2.11% for Kerry compared to 0.79% for Clinton) to win the election.

Point being, I don't think you can honestly say that Democrats did better in the 2004 presidential election than 2016. Note that, even though Kerry actually did better in a popular vote head-to-head, Clinton beats him in an electoral college hypothetical:

Red is where Hillary '16 was stronger than Kerry '04; blue is the reverse. Note that Kerry was slightly stronger nationally but Clinton still wins in the EC, 297-241.

Interesting.  Hillary generally improved in states with megacities (I guess the main exceptions being MI, PA and WA if you consider the cities therein big).

In what world is Philadelphia not considered a big city? It's the 5th largest city in the country, FFS.

[Vosem]

Vosem, did you post in the wrong thread? This post has nothing to do with Kerry or the 2004 election.

I was under the impression you were comparing modern Democrats to Democrats in 2004; saying that at that time Democrats had a goal of winning over voters in places like Mission Hills, that this has since been done, and that this has left the party weaker overall. I don't think the final part of that analysis holds up.

It seems like you intended the thread to have a broader purpose than just pointing out an interesting observation...

-Oh; now I see what you mean, though that wasn't quite my thought process here. I just thought the Dem Party today is generally weak, not weaker than in 04. There's simply no way the Democrats are weaker nationwide (thoúgh they are in some areas) than in 04. The proper comparison of 2016 should be with 2000,as circumstances were more similar to 2016 for the parties in 00 than in 04. Frank was writing in mid-04, and he had the 00, but not 04, presidential results to work with. Yes; the GOP has a stronger position on all levels of government today than in 2001, including in the margin of EC win.

The GOP is stronger on all levels of government today than in 2001, but it seems to me like their presidential coalition is weaker now than it was then. While both Bush and Trump were elected without majorities, Trump's opponents seem much more deep-set (Bush entered office with >60 approvals; Trump entered office with >40 approvals) and only with Trump is the sum total of the opposition coalition a landslide. This isn't necessarily incapacitating (while we don't have opinion polling from that era, Wilson likely entered office in a similar position, and he was very successful in implementing his agenda and getting reelected), but it doesn't seem to be a position of strength.

Vosem, did you post in the wrong thread? This post has nothing to do with Kerry or the 2004 election.

I was under the impression you were comparing modern Democrats to Democrats in 2004; saying that at that time Democrats had a goal of winning over voters in places like Mission Hills, that this has since been done, and that this has left the party weaker overall. I don't think the final part of that analysis holds up.

It seems like you intended the thread to have a broader purpose than just pointing out an interesting observation...

-Oh; now I see what you mean, though that wasn't quite my thought process here. I just thought the Dem Party today is generally weak, not weaker than in 04. There's simply no way the Democrats are weaker nationwide (thoúgh they are in some areas) than in 04. The proper comparison of 2016 should be with 2000,as circumstances were more similar to 2016 for the parties in 00 than in 04. Frank was writing in mid-04, and he had the 00, but not 04, presidential results to work with. Yes; the GOP has a stronger position on all levels of government today than in 2001, including in the margin of EC win.

And you can thank Hillary's scheme of courting republicans for that. Imagine if Al Gore had been on the campaign trail praising Dennis Hastert and the GOP, that's basically what Hillary did.

2016 was generally a very pro-establishment, pro-incumbent year, with incumbent congressmen and state legislators being reelected in even higher-than-typical numbers. There was little change in the states compared to 2014, so inasmuch as a culprit exists, it is in Barack Obama's utter failure to sell his agenda to the midterm electorate. Hillary certainly didn't help to fix the problem, but she didn't cause or exacerbate it, either.

Pursuing a relatively inflexible Demographic instead of the one that has been the parties base since forever was a pretty big mistake.

-Clearly, culturally liberal nominally Republican elites were very much a flexible demographic. But college Whites as a whole are not.

Is this true? Most of the Trump improvement towards the end was with college whites who had supported Hillary for most of the race; it would stand to reason that the Trump supporters who made up their minds last would be the ones to be quickest to disapproval of Trump. On the other hand, these are in many cases people who have never voted Democratic, and it may be that they aren't capable of doing so even against a Republican President they hate. This is one where we'll have to see more data; both sides have a valid point.

[uti2]

2016 was generally a very pro-establishment, pro-incumbent year, with incumbent congressmen and state legislators being reelected in even higher-than-typical numbers. There was little change in the states compared to 2014, so inasmuch as a culprit exists, it is in Barack Obama's utter failure to sell his agenda to the midterm electorate. Hillary certainly didn't help to fix the problem, but she didn't cause or exacerbate it, either.

Normally Dems operate by running on their traditional economic platform and they perform better in General Elections than mid-terms. Hillary did not run on the traditional dem platform, she ran on an anti-trump pro-paul ryan platform.

The gist of this election was shaping up to be 2000 style for the races held, Hillary gave republicans downballot the cover they needed, unlike Al Gore.

[NOVA Green]

Pursuing a relatively inflexible Demographic instead of the one that has been the parties base since forever was a pretty big mistake.

-Clearly, culturally liberal nominally Republican elites were very much a flexible demographic. But college Whites as a whole are not.

In the 2016 Presidential election, absolutely.  I think it remains to be seen if that trend will continue or hit a wall, and I think it would be very wise of Democrats not to bank on continued gains among the affluent.  I am not a crystal ball-type guy, but my anecdotal evidence - I am probably from a family you would consider "culturally liberal" and "elite," and most of my close friends fit this description, along with many of the people I work with every day - says these people have zero desire to become Democrats anytime soon and see both parties as having ed up their nominations in 2016.  I could absolutely be wrong, but the fabled "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" folks I know do not perceive this "shift" of Democrats becoming this "affluent Whites" party is TOTALLY lost on anyone I have ever met outside of the one and only Atlas.

For every comment about how Trump is such a terrible nominee and the GOP has lost its mind, there are two about how the Democrats almost nominated a socialist and probably will next time.  Just saying.

I would more than happy to make the trade-off.... for every (1) Upper-Income Republican-Leaning voter that went Clinton in '16 after voting for Romney in '12 there are (3) Working-Class and Middle-Income Obama '12 voters that wrote in third Party Candidates in '16, that would have welcomed an opportunity to vote Bernie as the GE candidate in '16..... there are even a few Trump voters in my extended family and close friends that voted Obama in '08 and '12 that backed Bernie during the primaries....

Additionally, there are a lot more of us working Americans than there are wealthy Americans, so even if we simply look at it simply on a from a narrow electoral calculation, the math is pretty clear....

Pandering to the interest of wealthy white voters might be good for raising a giant War Chest, but it doesn't play very well at the ballot box.

I am not particularly interested "in the desire of the wealthy to become Democrats".... The Democratic Party has been losing its base for decades because of a myopic focus on what the wealthy think, and Bill Clinton started the process of dragging the party so far to the Right, that many of the "Third Wave" politicians forgot even what the Party stood for.

The "Left" of the Democratic Party is really and has always been the base of the Democratic Party for decades, and the only reason that Trump is now President, is because somewhere along the line, Democratic Presidential candidates forgot that as part of a triangulation concept that Bill Clinton invented back when he was smoking weed in College.