Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2019, 12:20:45 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: TJ in Oregon, Virginiá)
  How did Trump win Florida
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: How did Trump win Florida  (Read 4728 times)
Republican BRTD
NYC Millennial Minority
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 895
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.77, S: 7.77

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2018, 11:33:50 pm »

by being an all around swell guy, the kind you wish would marry your daughter, if only he were forty years younger
Logged
Koorca Ton
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2018, 12:19:57 am »

Loss of D votes in the suburbs and Central Florida. The Democrats didn't do that bad in South Florida, racking up a ton of votes there. They performed more or less the same in South Florida, and the GOP performed the same good in North Florida. But the GOP's gains in Central Florida may have done it.
Logged
The Voice of America
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,907
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2018, 11:31:22 am »

Loss of D votes in the suburbs and Central Florida. The Democrats didn't do that bad in South Florida, racking up a ton of votes there. They performed more or less the same in South Florida, and the GOP performed the same good in North Florida. But the GOP's gains in Central Florida may have done it.

South Florida used to be a Democratic powerhouse. But those 70 year old Gore-Lieberman voters are either very, very elderly or gone. The new powerhouse seems to be white voters in the I-4 corridor and Panhandle. They love their Trump.
Logged
Republican BRTD
NYC Millennial Minority
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 895
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.77, S: 7.77

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2018, 05:45:51 am »

Loss of D votes in the suburbs and Central Florida. The Democrats didn't do that bad in South Florida, racking up a ton of votes there. They performed more or less the same in South Florida, and the GOP performed the same good in North Florida. But the GOP's gains in Central Florida may have done it.

South Florida used to be a Democratic powerhouse. But those 70 year old Gore-Lieberman voters are either very, very elderly or gone. The new powerhouse seems to be white voters in the I-4 corridor and Panhandle. They love their Trump.

Smart analysis!
Logged
President Phil Scott
marco.rem451
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 355


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2018, 12:36:24 pm »

According to a prominent Democratic strategist, the I-4 corridor can be roughly defined as the Orlando and Tampa media markets. In these areas, there are five counties which can be considered "urban": Pinellas, Hillsborough, Osceola, Orange, and Seminole. The shifts in raw vote margin for these counties from 2012-2016 were as follows:

Pinellas: R+31346
Hillsborough: D+4745
Osceola: D+8510
Orange: D+49602
Seminole: D+9969

Overall: D+41480

The other counties in these two media markets are considered "suburban" or "exurban." The shifts in raw vote margin for these counties from 2012-2016 were as follows:

Sarasota: R+11183
Manatee: R+11596
Hardee: R+860
Highlands: R+4861
Polk: R+23042
Pasco: R+37795
Hernando: R+20067
Citrus: R+15465
Sumter: R+8970
Marion: R+19580
Lake: R+13506
Flagler: R+8062
Volusia: R+31174
Brevard: R+25862

Overall: R+232023

On election night 2016, this strategist was reviewing the initial returns shortly after polls closed in the Eastern Time Zone at 7 pm, and although he was initially optimistic at the results from Democratic base regions (South Beach and urban counties of the Orlando/Tampa areas), once he reviewed the results from the suburban/exurban counties in the I-4 vicinity, he realized by about 7:45 pm that Trump was on track to win Florida, since at that point Hillary's lead wasn't large enough to overcome the expected margins in the Central Time Zone counties.

Sounds like Steve Schale
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,357


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2018, 01:56:29 pm »

a FL local station called FL by 10:06 ET:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slNUI3-2HFA
Logged
Pandaguineapig
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,281
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2018, 02:04:26 am »

I still can't get over how idiots like Steve Schale and Michael McDonald projected a 4-5 point Clinton win by just looking at early voting numbers from six counties and assuming there would be negligible swings everywhere else in the state
Logged
Annatar
Full Member
***
Posts: 131
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2018, 08:06:09 am »

I still can't get over how idiots like Steve Schale and Michael McDonald projected a 4-5 point Clinton win by just looking at early voting numbers from six counties and assuming there would be negligible swings everywhere else in the state

I've noticed over the years a lot of analysts only tend to look at how the biggest 3 or 4 counties are behaving and ignore everything else, unfortunately since the biggest counties in most states tend to be more democratic then the state as a whole, this leads to skewed expectations. One issue a lot of analysts don't seem to realise is in most states the big 3 or 4 democratic counties often still only account for around 30 or 35% of the vote, meaning if Republicans are gaining everywhere else then overall Republicans will find it easier to get a swing as they are gaining in counties with 60 or 65% of the states population whereas Democrats are gaining in only say 35% of the population.
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,514
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2018, 10:31:46 am »

At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support.  In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.
Logged
President Phil Scott
marco.rem451
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 355


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2018, 09:28:11 pm »

At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support.  In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.

Yup, this-then haha...lol (extra)
Logged
Calthrina950
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,236
United States


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 24, 2018, 10:49:20 pm »

At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support.  In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.

White "working-class" voters gave Trump approximately two-thirds of their votes, if I am not mistaken. And it cannot be denied that his margins and turnout among those voters helped him in Ohio and Florida. Arguably, if they had not turned out in the Florida Panhandle, he would have lost the state to Clinton.
Logged
TML
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,494


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 25, 2018, 02:33:15 am »

At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support.  In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.

White "working-class" voters gave Trump approximately two-thirds of their votes, if I am not mistaken. And it cannot be denied that his margins and turnout among those voters helped him in Ohio and Florida. Arguably, if they had not turned out in the Florida Panhandle, he would have lost the state to Clinton.

As I said earlier in this thread, it was not the panhandle where Trump made most of his gains; it was in the suburban/exurban areas near Orlando/Tampa where it happened. This area has many people who formerly resided in the Midwest, and their voting patterns matched closely.
Logged
Timothy87
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 59


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 26, 2018, 10:57:17 am »

Trump has longtime connections to Florida. The large population of NY/NJ transplants would certainly be receptive to him. Probably some backlash to Obama on Cuba policy helped hold the Cuban vote. Clinton weakness with black voters kept that turnout down a bit but what did it was the huge swing in non college educated whites. Florida is filled with them. Despite overall state growth, turnout in key areas went down in 2012 (Volusia, Lee, Pasco, Hernando, Brevard, Okaloosa, Highlands) where Romney needed big numbers to win

I think the Pulse shooting actually helped Clinton, because Orlando swung hard Dem, probably in anger over gun violence (same way Newtown, CT has)
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,514
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 26, 2018, 02:07:37 pm »

At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support.  In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.

White "working-class" voters gave Trump approximately two-thirds of their votes, if I am not mistaken. And it cannot be denied that his margins and turnout among those voters helped him in Ohio and Florida. Arguably, if they had not turned out in the Florida Panhandle, he would have lost the state to Clinton.

I know you're kind of on a Realignment 2016/2018 roll here, but your response makes literally zero sense in response to what I wrote.  It would be normal to expect Trump to, yes, match his usual gains with "WWC" voters in Florida; it would NOT be normal to expect him to match Romney's suburban support and support among college graduates ... Trump won 49% of college grads to Clinton's 46% in Florida (and, when you take out postgrads - a group that was strongly Democratic before Trump - he won 54%-42%), and he won 62% of White college grads, a negligible difference from his support among "WWC" voters in Florida.

Trump won Florida because he both made his expected gains - among "WWC" voters and rural voters - that he made everywhere else and because he ALSO didn't have anywhere near his usual losses we saw in other places - among suburbanites and White college grads.
Logged
brucejoel99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,766
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2018, 01:05:03 am »

Dominating in every non-diverse, urban area of the state via older, white, & blue collar voters.
Logged
Calthrina950
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,236
United States


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2019, 12:52:06 pm »

At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support.  In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.

White "working-class" voters gave Trump approximately two-thirds of their votes, if I am not mistaken. And it cannot be denied that his margins and turnout among those voters helped him in Ohio and Florida. Arguably, if they had not turned out in the Florida Panhandle, he would have lost the state to Clinton.

I know you're kind of on a Realignment 2016/2018 roll here, but your response makes literally zero sense in response to what I wrote.  It would be normal to expect Trump to, yes, match his usual gains with "WWC" voters in Florida; it would NOT be normal to expect him to match Romney's suburban support and support among college graduates ... Trump won 49% of college grads to Clinton's 46% in Florida (and, when you take out postgrads - a group that was strongly Democratic before Trump - he won 54%-42%), and he won 62% of White college grads, a negligible difference from his support among "WWC" voters in Florida.

Trump won Florida because he both made his expected gains - among "WWC" voters and rural voters - that he made everywhere else and because he ALSO didn't have anywhere near his usual losses we saw in other places - among suburbanites and White college grads.

What? I'm very well aware that Trump won white college graduates, and in a state like Florida, his percentages being higher than nationally, makes sense. Of course, suburban voters and retirees played a part in his victory. But Clinton fell down even further from what Obama got in the Florida Panhandle, and the numbers that he ran up in the region helped him to cancel out her gains in Southeast Florida and to carry the state. Florida, moreover, is a Republican-leaning state, and this process which I've been alluding to has not yet finished.
Logged
Calthrina950
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,236
United States


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2019, 12:53:22 pm »

At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support.  In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.

White "working-class" voters gave Trump approximately two-thirds of their votes, if I am not mistaken. And it cannot be denied that his margins and turnout among those voters helped him in Ohio and Florida. Arguably, if they had not turned out in the Florida Panhandle, he would have lost the state to Clinton.

As I said earlier in this thread, it was not the panhandle where Trump made most of his gains; it was in the suburban/exurban areas near Orlando/Tampa where it happened. This area has many people who formerly resided in the Midwest, and their voting patterns matched closely.

Are you saying that the Panhandle was insignificant?
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,514
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2019, 01:25:12 pm »

At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support.  In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.

White "working-class" voters gave Trump approximately two-thirds of their votes, if I am not mistaken. And it cannot be denied that his margins and turnout among those voters helped him in Ohio and Florida. Arguably, if they had not turned out in the Florida Panhandle, he would have lost the state to Clinton.

As I said earlier in this thread, it was not the panhandle where Trump made most of his gains; it was in the suburban/exurban areas near Orlando/Tampa where it happened. This area has many people who formerly resided in the Midwest, and their voting patterns matched closely.

Are you saying that the Panhandle was insignificant?

The Panhandle has 1,499,544 (7.27%) of Florida's total population, so kind of.  It's like people chalking Texas' Republican lean up to rural areas, when rural voters in the Florida exit poll accounted for only 8% of all voters.
Logged
TML
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,494


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2019, 01:39:24 am »

At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support.  In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.

White "working-class" voters gave Trump approximately two-thirds of their votes, if I am not mistaken. And it cannot be denied that his margins and turnout among those voters helped him in Ohio and Florida. Arguably, if they had not turned out in the Florida Panhandle, he would have lost the state to Clinton.

As I said earlier in this thread, it was not the panhandle where Trump made most of his gains; it was in the suburban/exurban areas near Orlando/Tampa where it happened. This area has many people who formerly resided in the Midwest, and their voting patterns matched closely.

Are you saying that the Panhandle was insignificant?

Read what I said earlier about the change in margins: in northern Florida, along the I-10 corridor, Trump only increased his winning margin by about 37K votes compared to Romney, whereas in the suburban/exurban areas in the Orlando/Tampa area, he increased them by over 230K votes. Tell me which increase was more significant.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,299
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2019, 09:01:47 pm »

Romney was a terrible candidate for Florida, as it has many white working class voters, many of whom, as TML said, are transplants from the north. White populists like Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton were all good candidates for these voters.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC