WaPo: There’s no such thing as a Trump Democrat
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:39:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  WaPo: There’s no such thing as a Trump Democrat
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: WaPo: There’s no such thing as a Trump Democrat  (Read 4204 times)
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
« on: August 04, 2017, 05:33:45 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-trump-democrat/2017/08/04/0d5d06bc-7920-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2017, 06:18:43 PM »

His case isn't very compelling. If they hadn't voted for Obama in 2012 then I'd find the article more believable. Plenty of non-Obama Democrats have won in these regions. Even in 2016 look at all the Democratic held districts that Trump won.

He cites a lot of polling info which isn't really relevant when hard statistical data from real elections prove this false. Overall the writer is just a hack who mostly writes Trump click-bait articles. I'll trust Nate Cohn's work over this bozo any day.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2017, 07:54:52 PM »


To the extent there was a Reagan coalition it was dead by 1992. It was even starting to collapse in 1988.
Logged
heatcharger
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,233
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2017, 08:01:02 PM »

So why did they choose Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then chose to revert back to voting for the GOP? The 31 point deficit in favor of GOP congressional candidates is quite stunning.

This could mean that the Obama Coalition, especially in the Midwest and some parts of the Northeast, were heavily reliant on cross over voters who hailed from the decades long Reagan coalition. If that is the case then 2020 could very well be a victory for the GOP if these voters stay in their column and the Democrats fail at bringing the youth and minorities out to vote.

Yeah, the Driftless Area, probably the region of the country with the most Obama-Trump voters, has never really been a longstanding Democratic stronghold the same way the Iron Range is. Just take a look at this 1980-2016 swing map (courtesy of Adam Griffin) and see how, indeed, Democrats have lost strength in many parts of the Midwest and the Northeast, but not nearly at the same magnitude as the absolute annihilation in the South and Appalachia.

Obama's performance in the Midwest speaks to his strength as a campaigner, which is something Democrats should be looking to replicate with a charismatic, culturally palatable candidate rather than particular policy positions.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2017, 09:20:24 PM »


To the extent there was a Reagan coalition it was dead by 1992. It was even starting to collapse in 1988.

Roll Eyes

Please prove otherwise.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2017, 06:09:35 AM »


To the extent there was a Reagan coalition it was dead by 1992. It was even starting to collapse in 1988.

Roll Eyes

Please prove otherwise.

Dukakis was ahead by double digits. Everyone expected Bush Sr's FBI investigation to tank him, but he won anyway. The same also happened in 1948. The reason the opposition parties lost is because in both instances, the parties presented hypothetical 'electable' candidates who they assumed would win, and so they attempted to run vacuous campaigns based on careful messaging. This is what the GOP tried to do this year (minus Trump).
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,850
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2017, 10:38:06 AM »

Looks like more politically-motivated denial by big labor and the Democrats.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2017, 12:38:22 PM »

The Washington Post was hilariously wrong about Trump in 2016. And I don't mean just wrong - I mean they told people to invest their retirement in Enron status wrong.

Whatever the WaPo says, I automatically assume the opposite.
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 #8 on: August 05, 2017, 01:20:11 PM »

That is a pretty vague statement, ahugecat. Wrong about what? Their national tracking poll was actually pretty accurate. It was off by about 1%, well within the MoE.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2017, 02:21:39 PM »

That is a pretty vague statement, ahugecat. Wrong about what? Their national tracking poll was actually pretty accurate. It was off by about 1%, well within the MoE.
Where to begin?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/donald-trumps-chances-of-winning-are-approaching-zero/

"The election is in 15 days. And the electoral map just keeps looking grimmer and grimmer for Donald Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/18/trump-electoral-college-victory-non-existent/

"Trump’s path to an electoral college victory isn’t narrow. It’s nonexistent." Trump was able to get 304 votes in the electoral college - 34 more than the required 270.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/the-wrongest-media-predictions-about-donald-trump/

The Washington Post called out other media establishments for getting everything wrong, but left out how they were wrong about Trump every step of the way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/09/jeb-bush-jokes-of-trump-clinton-conspiracy-theory-heres-a-look-at-the-evidence/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/21/daily-202-is-trump-a-manchurian-candidate-or-maybe-the-1919-chicago-white-sox/57689ffd981b92a22d2421e1/

Before everyone thought Trump was colluding with Russia, the popular theory was Trump was colluding with Hillary Clinton to help get her elected.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/18/why-donald-trump-hasnt-locked-up-the-republican-nomination-just-yet-in-1-chart/

The Washington Post was so sure the GOP would have never gave the nomination to Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/09/why-donald-trump-might-not-debate-hillary-clinton/

They were so sure Trump would not debate Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/11/08/post-opinion-writers-predict-what-will-happen-on-election-night/

Not ONE of WaPo oped writers predicted a Trump victory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/01/early-voters-predict-who-wins-this-is-good-news-for-democrats/

Talk about how early voting is good for the Democrats (in reality, early voting for Democrats was down in Florida and North Carolina - one of the reasons I was able to predict a Trump win in those states actually).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/01/donald-trump-has-1-field-office-open-in-all-of-florida-thats-a-total-disaster/

Talked about how Trump doesn't have a ground game, and that because he only has 1 office in Florida compared to 50 for Clinton he is doomed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/25/there-is-no-possible-way-donald-trumps-team-actually-believes-this-is-their-path-to-270/?utm_term=.12edd4049660

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump actually DID win.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/23/never-forget-the-2016-presidential-election-is-supposed-to-be-one-that-republicans-can-win/

Drumpf is doomed!

The Washington Post wasn't quite as bad as Nate Silver was, but they were up there.

So whatever the Washington Post says about Trump's chances or data, believe the exact opposite.
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 #10 on: August 05, 2017, 03:25:47 PM »
« Edited: August 05, 2017, 03:34:44 PM by Virginia »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well to be fair, I went through I think all of those (I may have missed one or two) and none were by the author of this article. Further, I'm not a big fan of the "well, they got that thing wrong, so that naturally means they will always be wrong" reasoning, which is pretty much a fallacy on its own. It was widely believed that Trump would lose, except maybe among many partisan Republicans and Trump supporters who would naturally believe he would win. October had so many surprises that it's hard for me to fault people like WaPo.

People didn't want to believe someone as ridiculous as Trump could win, and all the constant drama surrounding Trump I think legitimately did put him far down in the polls, it's just that he always rebounded and was helped by Clinton having non-stop drama with her own issues. The election ended on a low note for her, which was convenient for Trump, who experienced an amazing number of scandalous revelations in October.

For the record, I don't really like the argument being put forth by the article. I just posted it because it was a take I wanted to see some discussion on.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2017, 04:27:04 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well to be fair, I went through I think all of those (I may have missed one or two) and none were by the author of this article. Further, I'm not a big fan of the "well, they got that thing wrong, so that naturally means they will always be wrong" reasoning, which is pretty much a fallacy on its own. It was widely believed that Trump would lose, except maybe among many partisan Republicans and Trump supporters who would naturally believe he would win. October had so many surprises that it's hard for me to fault people like WaPo.

I see what you're saying but the Washington Post was consistently and hilariously wrong about Trump all throughout the election - starting from before his announcement. They weren't just wrong on 1 or 2 things but 100 or 200 things. The links I showed were just randomly grabbed from my "Favorites" list. Dana Milbank is the worst too. That guy had to literally eat paper because he was so consistently wrong about Trump (in his defense though he did go through with that promise!).

Now the Washington Post is doubling down and saying "There's no such thing as a Trump Democrat." It's like being wrong the first 200 times wasn't good enough for them, so they're going to continue being a treasure trove of stupid during the 2020 election.

People didn't want to believe someone as ridiculous as Trump could win, and all the constant drama surrounding Trump I think legitimately did put him far down in the polls, it's just that he always rebounded and was helped by Clinton having non-stop drama with her own issues. The election ended on a low note for her, which was convenient for Trump, who experienced an amazing number of scandalous revelations in October.

A lot of people - especially the WaPo - would ignore or excuse anything that would point to a Trump victory. Now they're ignoring Trump Democrats which could backfire in 2018 and/or 2020.

HOWEVER, I do think the battle for 2020 will be fought out over the 2016 third party voters. 2020 will be unlikely to get the third party turnout 2016 did (I am expecting only 2% of votes to go third party compared to 6% in 2016). So I think the Democrats can semi-"ignore" the Trump Democrats and try to get Romney-Republicans who went third party.
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 #12 on: August 05, 2017, 04:53:22 PM »

Now the Washington Post is doubling down and saying "There's no such thing as a Trump Democrat." It's like being wrong the first 200 times wasn't good enough for them, so they're going to continue being a treasure trove of stupid during the 2020 election.

Well all I have left to say about the WaPo stuff is, is it the Washington Post saying this, or is it Dana Milbank? This article is even filed under "Opinions." If their editorial board authored it, that would be one thing, but they didn't. It's just like how if Bret Stephens started writing some stuff on NYT about how climate change is no big deal, I wouldn't be like, "well the NY Times is now denying the seriousness of climate change." However to your point, on account of their election coverage, it wouldn't be unfair to be more skeptical of some of WaPo's pieces, at least until they redeem themselves. I certainly don't like Cillizza after 2016, that's for sure.

HOWEVER, I do think the battle for 2020 will be fought out over the 2016 third party voters. 2020 will be unlikely to get the third party turnout 2016 did (I am expecting only 2% of votes to go third party compared to 6% in 2016). So I think the Democrats can semi-"ignore" the Trump Democrats and try to get Romney-Republicans who went third party.

That, and I think a modest number of soft Trump supporters - those voters who didn't like either candidate but voted for Trump in the end. There were lots of them, and if they didn't like him then, there is a chance they won't support him this time around if Democrats put up a good candidate. Either that, or they don't turn out at all, which is still a plus.
Logged
The_Texas_Libertarian
TXMichael
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 825
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2017, 07:43:21 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If this is true it means the Obama Republicans, "Obamacans", are an even bigger myth than Trump Democrats. 
Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2017, 12:47:00 PM »

So why did they choose Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then chose to revert back to voting for the GOP? The 31 point deficit in favor of GOP congressional candidates is quite stunning.

This could mean that the Obama Coalition, especially in the Midwest and some parts of the Northeast, were heavily reliant on cross over voters who hailed from the decades long Reagan coalition. If that is the case then 2020 could very well be a victory for the GOP if these voters stay in their column and the Democrats fail at bringing the youth and minorities out to vote.


In 2008 the Financial crisis happened which explains most of the Bush-Obama voters. By 2016 because of Trump's rising popularity in the midwest compared to other GOP candidates he was able to sway most of them to come back.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2017, 07:50:54 PM »

I think it is absolutely non debatable that there were a significant number of "Trump Democrats" throughout most States and Counties within the US.

It is mathematically impossible to explain various swings in counties and precincts without the existence of a significant number of voters that went Obama in '08 and/or '12, and then voted Trump in '16.

Now---- I think where it gets tricky is looking at the partisan affiliation of such voters in '16. How many of them were registered Republican, Democrat, Independent when they voted in '16?

I completely agree with the concept that many of these voters went for George W. in '00/04. In fact, my own detailed precinct analysis from Oregon appears to support that argument. So yes, the provocative headline does have merit, in that the votes for Obama were the exception and not the norm in many of these counties/cities that swung heavily towards Trump.

Still, despite the articles massive claim, it's essentially just describing many classic swing voters that have shifted back and forth over the past three decades, and not really contributing anything new that those of us on Atlas haven't already been looking at for years.

Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2017, 08:11:37 PM »

It's the WashPo trying to get Dems to only focus on suburban professionals and rich donors. The county maps from 2000, 2004 along with 2016 prove there is a significant number of Obama Trump voters who also voted for Gore and Kerry. These voters are winnable again to an extent, Biden would have probably gotten plenty of them.
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 #17 on: August 06, 2017, 08:21:13 PM »

It's the WashPo trying to get Dems to only focus on suburban professionals and rich donors. The county maps from 2000, 2004 along with 2016 prove there is a significant number of Obama Trump voters who also voted for Gore and Kerry. These voters are winnable again to an extent, Biden would have probably gotten plenty of them.

Or just reporting on an inaccurate study done by the AFL-CIO.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2017, 10:33:27 PM »

The media is promoting terrible 2020 candidates like Booker, Cuomo and Harris.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2017, 03:19:37 PM »

The media is promoting terrible 2020 candidates like Booker, Cuomo and Harris.

In all fairness who do the Democrats have? Clinton has wrecked that party in terms of its bench for years to come.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2017, 05:07:53 PM »

I completely agree with the concept that many of these voters went for George W. in '00/04.

How does this work when Kerry and Gore both won WI/MI/PA? Trump outperformed Bush by several points across the Midwest.
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 #21 on: August 07, 2017, 05:12:16 PM »

I completely agree with the concept that many of these voters went for George W. in '00/04.

How does this work when Kerry and Gore both won WI/MI/PA? Trump outperformed Bush by several points across the Midwest.
If it is true, then it could make some sense just looking at the results. Bush came close in those states, Obama won back the voters and ran up the totals in those states, and then trump won them back and more
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2017, 06:28:32 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But how did they vote down-ballot in 2012?
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2017, 06:43:09 PM »

I completely agree with the concept that many of these voters went for George W. in '00/04.

How does this work when Kerry and Gore both won WI/MI/PA? Trump outperformed Bush by several points across the Midwest.

Bush came within a percentage point of flipping Wisconsin both times, came within 4 points of flipping Michigan in 2004 (5.2 points in 2000), and came within 2.5 points of flipping Pennsylvania in 2004 (4.2 points in 2000).

Now compare Obama's margins in these states in 08' and 12' and it's clear that there's a sizeable contingency of Bush-Obama-Trump voters in them.

Trump's path in PA/MI/WI was different than Bush's in 04 no?

Bush did well in the Milwuakee and Philly suburbs while Trump ran up the score in the rural areas/Erie/Scranton/etc. etc.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2017, 06:51:31 PM »

I completely agree with the concept that many of these voters went for George W. in '00/04.

How does this work when Kerry and Gore both won WI/MI/PA? Trump outperformed Bush by several points across the Midwest.

Bush came within a percentage point of flipping Wisconsin both times, came within 4 points of flipping Michigan in 2004 (5.2 points in 2000), and came within 2.5 points of flipping Pennsylvania in 2004 (4.2 points in 2000).

Now compare Obama's margins in these states in 08' and 12' and it's clear that there's a sizeable contingency of Bush-Obama-Trump voters in them.

Trump's path in PA/MI/WI was different than Bush's in 04 no?

Bush did well in the Milwuakee and Philly suburbs while Trump ran up the score in the rural areas/Erie/Scranton/etc. etc.

Not really that different. And that's assuming people stayed exactly in one location in the state from 2000-2016.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.