Did Trump set a new trend in the Rust Belt?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:31:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Did Trump set a new trend in the Rust Belt?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Did Trump set a new trend in the Rust Belt?  (Read 1783 times)
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 24, 2017, 08:52:39 AM »

Will they become legitimate swing states now??
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2017, 08:54:32 AM »

it would've happened eventually, but yes
Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 407
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2017, 08:57:27 AM »

The idea that states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were safe democrat states, was never true.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2017, 09:04:53 AM »

They were always swing states, it's just funny how their characterizations have changed.  In 2012, they were too cosmopolitan and enlightened to vote for a barbaric and Southernized GOP; now they're "WWC" wastelands stuck in the 1950s, toiling away complaining about NAFTA.  Same states both times, of course, and Trump kept most of the traditional coalition in tact in all of those states ... he added voters, but he didn't lose them like everyone is claiming:

SUBURBS:
MI: Trump 53%-42%
OH: Trump 57%-37%
WI: Trump 55%-39%

TOP INCOME BRACKET
MI: Trump 51%-43%
OH: Trump 57%-39%
WI: Trump 50%-44%

WHITE COLLEGE GRADS:
MI: Trump 51%-43%
OH: Trump 59%-34%
WI: Clinton 53%-41%

There were obviously some unusual trends in this election, but Trump (largely) dominated traditional GOP demographics in these states, as WELL as adding new voters who hadn't voted Republican in the past ... so maybe, just maybe, this was less of a realignment and more of a case of the Democrats nominating a God-awful nominee who couldn't excite the party's own voters, much less attract enough new ones.
Logged
TheSaint250
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,067


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: 5.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2017, 10:43:56 AM »

I think he accelerated it. People like Rubio and Cruz would've had to rely on other states (CO, VA, etc.) to bring them to victory
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2017, 12:03:42 PM »

If anything, he accelerated an existing trend. If he started a new one, it would be pretty hard to tell by just one election. However, let's keep something in mind here - just a little over 8 years ago, Obama won some of the rustbelt/GL states (MN, WI, MI, PA) by pretty overwhelmingly margins. Almost 14 points in WI, a whopping 16+ points in Michigan and 10 points in PA/MN.

Guess what happened ~8 years later? The Republican just barely eeked out a win in all but 1 of those, and came close in Minnesota. His wins were so tiny that a whole smörgĺsbord of different circumstances could have swung them the other way. Perhaps if Clinton had campaigned more in those states. Or even more, if African American turnout didn't implode in WI/MI.

The point is, Trump has a lot less room to fall than Obama did, so it's very possible that Trump's gains are as temporary as Obama's were. It's quite possible that while Trump has (or had?) a small chance to lock in those gains, his constant scandal and ineffectiveness as a president may again forfeit them to the other party. Obama helped save the auto industry in some of these places, pushed stimulus to help the recovery, pushed to expand Medicaid and expand insurance coverage, and he still lost them. Do you think Trump can match that? Instead, what may be more likely is that Trump, as is the case for all Republicans since the late 60s, gets unlucky and hit with an economic contraction some time during his 1st term, gets labeled as a bogeyman who tried to take away everyone's insurance (or succeeds?) and a guy whose incompetence and lack of ethics resulted in 4 years of nothing but scandal. That is hardly the kind of administration you want to run if you're looking to solidify your coalition.
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,234
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2017, 01:13:24 PM »


They were always swing states, it's just funny how their characterizations have changed.  In 2012, they were too cosmopolitan and enlightened to vote for a barbaric and Southernized GOP; now they're "WWC" wastelands stuck in the 1950s, toiling away complaining about NAFTA.  Same states both times, of course, and Trump kept most of the traditional coalition in tact in all of those states ... he added voters, but he didn't lose them like everyone is claiming:

SUBURBS:
MI: Trump 53%-42%
OH: Trump 57%-37%
WI: Trump 55%-39%

TOP INCOME BRACKET
MI: Trump 51%-43%
OH: Trump 57%-39%
WI: Trump 50%-44%

WHITE COLLEGE GRADS:
MI: Trump 51%-43%
OH: Trump 59%-34%
WI: Clinton 53%-41%

There were obviously some unusual trends in this election, but Trump (largely) dominated traditional GOP demographics in these states, as WELL as adding new voters who hadn't voted Republican in the past ... so maybe, just maybe, this was less of a realignment and more of a case of the Democrats nominating a God-awful nominee who couldn't excite the party's own voters, much less attract enough new ones.
This.

I'm always skeptical of trends in the Rust Belt. It always seems to shift toward the party out of power. That being said, Hillary Clinton was a uniquely poor fit for it, so who who knows if this is the new normal, or just a one-off. The Rust Belt as a whole is a pretty elastic region.
Logged
Light Yagami
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2017, 11:51:19 PM »

They were always swing states. Well, depends on the state.

Michigan/Pennsylvania = Lean D states (+2-3D). Generally vote Democrat, but a Republican can win here if they run a strong candidate for the region versus a weak one. Even Clinton barley lost these two states (though, she did not go after traditional Dem voters)

Wisconsin = +1-2D slightly D, but recent elections of Walker and Johnson have tilted this state a bit (IMO). I think Rubio could have won this off WoW turnout (remember, Trump did extremely bad in WoW yet still won the state. Classic R win here would be around Walkers)

Ohio = +3-4R more Republican then before, but I'd say in general has a +5R pattern.

Iowa seems to be more Republican leaning overall, though you do have to remember it is a state prone to wild swings. Look at 1984 to 1988 (+16 Swing to Ds), 2004 to 2008 (+11D swing), and this election (+16R swing). Even 1988 to 1992 resulted in a heavy swing back to the GOP and a return of much of the traditional GOP vote due to the farm crisis (Dukakis won several Republican counties that have not flipped back sense). if the Republicans cut farm subsides as has been proposed I could see this state swinging hard back D. Though, overall does have an R win. For the rest, I think a left-wing Sanders type (or Sanders himself) would win in states like MI/PA/WI but the drawback is struggles in states like Virginia (even though you have NoVA being full of government margins enough could easily swing back R look at Gillespies race), Nevada (though, this state does have an anti-establishment streak), maybe Colorado (tougher to say actually since you do have Denver/Boulder which are extremely liberal, but the suburbs could flip), and DEF Florida (which is overall a lean R state). So there are different paths for Democrats to take.

EDIT:Sorry if bad grammar, english is not my first language.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,805
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2017, 05:39:31 PM »
« Edited: June 25, 2017, 05:58:14 PM by Da-Jon Cory Booker-4-Prez »

Maybe, maybe not. But, Ohio is interesting.  Dems don't need Ohio anylonger.  They need to concentrate their resources on VA, PA, WI and MI.  With WI the most important.  If anyone can solidify the blue wall of 279, its Cory Booker, who is in the same mold as Obama.

2000-2004 OH tipping point



Bush/Cheney 266
Kerry/Edwards 272 would have won with Veep Gephardt



2008-2012 Pennsylvania tipping point

Obama/Biden 272
RomneyRyan 266


2016Virginia tipping point




Trump/Pence 259
Clinton/Kaine 279 would have won with Veep Warner
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2017, 06:56:31 PM »

I think that's the takeaway. As more moderate states in the South and West have become more D, the rust belt is trending away and is slowly being replaced in importance by the urban interior west and coastal south.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,805
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2017, 07:02:50 PM »

Iowan can be won back, but Ohio is trending away and the Dems can resolidify the 272-266 map of 2012.
Logged
TML
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,404


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2017, 09:25:01 PM »

Remember that in 2000 and 2004, both of which were very close elections, the Rust Belt states of MN, IA, WI, MI, OH, and PA were all decided by less than 5%, with WI and IA decided by less than 1%. With the possible exception of OH, they were decided by relatively large margins in 2008 and 2012 because those elections were not nearly as close as 2000 or 2004. Thus, I suspect that instead of Trump setting a new trend, it was simply the reversion to a past trend.
Logged
AtorBoltox
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,984


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2017, 12:26:25 AM »

We need more than one election result to tell. Obama won huge in the midwest in 2008, but that was not indicative of a long term trend. Trump winning Michigan and Wisconsin could be a redux of Obama's win in Indiana- a one time deal.
Logged
Don Vito Corleone
bruhgmger2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,268
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2017, 11:32:12 PM »
« Edited: June 26, 2017, 11:37:21 PM by bruhgmger2 »

Will they become legitimate swing states now??

They always were. Think of it this way, even through all the blowouts we have had since 1972, the biggest margin since 1972 in Pennsylvania was 10% in 2008. They rust belt states were Democratic leaning sure, but they were always winnable for Republicans with the right candidate, and Trump turned out to be that candidate.
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,234
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2017, 10:28:28 AM »

Will they become legitimate swing states now??

They always were. Think of it this way, even through all the blowouts we have had since 1972, the biggest margin since 1972 in Pennsylvania was 10% in 2008. They rust belt states were Democratic leaning sure, but they were always winnable for Republicans with the right candidate, and Trump turned out to be that candidate.
I agree they aren't lost for Democrats at least for the moment. Somewhere down the road though, when they lose a significant amount of electoral votes to the sunbelt, they could become Republican-leaning states. That won't be for another few decades though.
Logged
The Govanah Jake
Jake Jewvinivisk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,234


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2017, 12:41:05 PM »

They were never solid "Freiwal" democratic states. In 2000 and 2004 Wisconsin was decided by less then 1 percentage point, Michigan was 5% or less, Minnesota was won by only 2% in 2000 and 3-4% in 2004, and Pennsylvannia was also within 5 points both times. They were becoming more republican in the early and mid 2000s. This trend was delayed big time in 2008 due to the Great Recession, republican Fatigue among other things, came back a little in 2012 with the Great Recession effects wearing off but Romney was a awful fit for the rust belt, and fully came back with trump to win three rust belt states with a populistic message. They use to be dem leaning swing states but now are full on swing states. Republicans can win them with a populist candidate like trump but so can the democrats win them back. What we will see probally is the Rust belt becoming less democratic and more republican in the future if the trend continues though and maybe see some of the rust belt states becoming solid republican states like Iowa but that will probally depend on the direction the republicans take.

Logged
libertpaulian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2017, 06:15:50 PM »

He likely did, but that trend is being offset by a very rapid D-trend in the electoral vote-rich Sunbelt.
Logged
Tekken_Guy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,764
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2017, 02:02:37 AM »

He likely did, but that trend is being offset by a very rapid D-trend in the electoral vote-rich Sunbelt.


And the upper-class white suburbs too.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2017, 08:35:11 AM »

He likely did, but that trend is being offset by a very rapid D-trend in the electoral vote-rich Sunbelt.


And the upper-class white suburbs too.

A lot of these places had never voted Democratic until you threw Trump vs. Clinton at them ... LBJ won a lot of places against Goldwater that Humphrey would go on to lose, so let's not make this huge assumption based off of one election.  LOL, I honestly think you guys just get overly excited about the idea of a realignment because there'd be less to talk about without one.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2017, 10:33:10 AM »

They're obviously swing states. It would be political malpractice for Republicans not to compete in states Trump won in an election where he won the popular vote.
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2017, 12:26:57 PM »

He likely did, but that trend is being offset by a very rapid D-trend in the electoral vote-rich Sunbelt.


And the upper-class white suburbs too.

A lot of these places had never voted Democratic until you threw Trump vs. Clinton at them ... LBJ won a lot of places against Goldwater that Humphrey would go on to lose, so let's not make this huge assumption based off of one election.  I think you guys just get overly excited about the idea of a realignment because there'd be less to talk about without one.
Once again, RINO Tom is the voice of reason regarding election trending and demographics against Atlas sensationalism.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2017, 01:41:17 PM »

No, he didn't create a new trend. Look at the election results for Bush in 2000 and Trump 2016. Bush came very close to winning the Upper Midwest (he lost Wisconsin twice, by 10,000, and lost Pennsylvania by 2% and Michigan by 4%). He won Ohio and Iowa (in 2004). Trump didn't create a realignment in the Midwest; he just improved on Bush's margins and added some voters there.

The GOP has long been in control of the Midwestern region. I will remind you that Republican governors and legislatures have been in power in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Minnesota in the recent past. I don't have the statistics offhand, but I'm fairly sure that most of these states have had GOP legislatures from 2000-2016 for either the same amount of time the Democrats held them or longer.

In a way, it's surprising it took so long for the Upper Midwest to flip.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2017, 02:27:16 PM »

The GOP has long been in control of the Midwestern region. I will remind you that Republican governors and legislatures have been in power in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Minnesota in the recent past. I don't have the statistics offhand, but I'm fairly sure that most of these states have had GOP legislatures from 2000-2016 for either the same amount of time the Democrats held them or longer.

Out of the states you listed, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan have seen the largest amounts of GOP influence at the state level. They rule the roost in the legislature in those states, and have since at least the 90s in most cases. Further back in the case of PA, and both had dominant GOP control over at least one chamber in the 80s.

Minnesota is different in Democrats, before Dayton, actually hadn't held the governors mansion since the early 90s. They have held the legislature most of the time since the 70s though. Republicans have been doing better in the state House though. I'm quite curious how MN elections will turn out in 2018. It's a good chance to see just how sticky the trends under Trump are. Ideally, if he stays just as unpopular, you would really expect to see Republicans lose ground in the legislature and for Democrats to hold their own in most other offices.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 12 queries.