So we have been beaten about the head and face with the RURAL explanation. In truth there is not one explanation, but many for the loss.
One that you could see coming was the youth vote. Clinton did terribly among the young in the primaries, and I was concerned for months. When I looked at the polling cross-tabs I thought it likely the youth vote would break for Clinton because they hated Trump, and as a result Clinton’s number would go up late.
In the battleground states the opposite happened.
The declines in the youth vote are stunning. Had Clinton held Obama’s margin she would have won Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The decline in the youth vote played a key role in making both New Hampshire and Maine close.
Race plays a role here: about half of the change in the margins is explained by the different shares of the White Vote (the R squared is .58)
Oh – and man is the AZ poll wrong. But which one? 2012 or 2016?
I’m wondering if the youth vote stayed home or if it switched sides. The drop off in turnout rates overall might help explain the difference in numbers. However, that drop off in turnout might not have been uniform in each state.
Low turnout might give us some hope for the future…change the candidate, change the results. And we know that we won’t have the same candidate next time. However, if the turnout in these states was actually higher, then there is quite a bit of trouble. The Democrats aren’t supposed to lose high turnout elections. Was total turnout % in these particular states actually lower than 2012 regardless of age?
I’m not certain what that last column means. Is that the percentage of the millenial vote in each state that is white in those states, or the percentage of the overall electorate?
I really appreciate the work you’re putting in here.
I don’t think the numbers have been well enough established to draw any conclusions just yet. However, these numbers suggest that “Democrats win when people show up” is looking dicey. Turnout in CA (based on votes counted so far) was down from ’12 and while Hillary received 463,000 fewer votes than Obama, Trump received 919,000 fewer votes than Mitt, and even with “other” increasing from 2.7% to 5.6% (677,000 in ’16), Hillary’s percentage is higher than Obama’s. So, what did those missing million Mitt voters do? Default to Johnson for some, but at a minimum that still leaves a question about the other 600,00. An unlike in some other states, the total votes in the Senate race (a contest between a far right Dem and moderate Dem and no third party candidates) are less than that for president. Sanchez got 42,000 more than Trump but Harris is short of Hillary’s number by 824,000. Who (a total of 1.5 million voters) left this ballot line blank?
That’s easy – Republicans left the Senate line blank. I saw quite a few online comments from Republicans saying just that, and of course many Republicans are not going to vote for a confirmed Democrat in this situation.
Thanks for your anecdotal observation. But it means that a staggeringly large number of Trump voters left the Senate line blank and an those blanks were made up plus by Hillary voters and possibly some Johnson voters. Stein or blank-lean-left on the POTUS line voters seem more likely to have voted for Harris. And I’d guess that Hispanic Hillary voters shifted to Sanchez. Objectively, based on political record (shorter in Harris’ case than Sanchez’s), Sanchez = Hillary and Harris = Obama. Doesn’t bode well for a Hispanic Republican in a CA statewide race.
very interesting. seems more than ever this election was by state or small regions
A red-brick-road paved from PA to WI. May have been able to see the construction from outer space but down here nobody saw the bulldozers and paving machines. Possibly because no new equipment was purchased and very few new jobs were created to operate the machines. All the big buys and jobs creation were on the other side building a bridge to nowhere.
I have no clue what your comment means except it refers to Wizard of Oz
Maybe they were just turned away like the Bernie youth in the primary.
Reports of a huge number of provisional ballots left to be counted in CA. Not sure why there would be such a large number in the general election. Perhaps uncounted primary provisional ballot were inadvertently thrown into the pile of ballots and they won’t notice until the begin trying to count them.
More likely, young people having to vote provisional in the primary, were disappointed with the process and didn’t bother to vote in the Fall.
Then the country clerks wouldn’t be reporting a tally of provisional ballots for which the votes hadn’t been counted. I checked the SoS website and by county it lists the number of absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted. I don’t understand why there would be so many of the latter in a general election.
I could answer that but Martin has warned me.
Who left it blank? I think Republicans is part of the answer. Showing their disdain for being given only a choice between “Democrat A” and “Democrat B”. Maybe the half million new primary voters who were turned away in the primary? I don’t imagine they are thinking very well of the Democratic Party now.
The share of the electorate under 30 didn’t really change in the battleground states – it was up in many.
The last column is percentage of the overall electorate – I do not have the cross-tabs for race and age – that is the best I could do.
Thanks for this post. Saw from seabe’s chart that youth turnout was way down. I’m wondering a few things – to what degree was the T vote an anti-Hillary vote? did Sanders supporting youth stay home? vote? (i.e. reacting to the info from wikileaks).
important to pin down exactly what happened, especially since T is not really going to address the issues that were the basis for 99% of his voters supporting him. what’s going to happen?
I am not sure what happened. Part of the story is the third party vote held-up better than I expected.
But Trump breaking 40 in some of these states is something I never saw coming.
Nor I. I went to bed at 11:00PM CT on Election Day, positive that Hillary had won. Woke up to TV news talking about the stunning upset.
Partly, my myopia. I didn’t see any battleground results at 11:00PM, and Illinois returns were mostly Cook County with solid Democratic leads, i.e. Duckworth 65%, Kirk 32% (state final was Duckworth 54% IIRC).
Oh, you missed all the heads exploding. The collective gasp on both sides of the aisle was a unique event in my lifetime.
I was at work (this year could not take off for GOTV), read somewhere we’d know by 11 pm. so checking back at various times, then head-scratching around 11:30 at the strange commentary that planted doubt; stayed a few more hours, still could not figure it out – did T win? bizarro world.
BY 9 Florida was gone, the PA exit poll had Trump ahead and NC was heading south. 8:45 to 9:45 was the worst hour of my life in politics.
By 10 it was gone.
checked some places where I had talked with ppl unhappy about both candidates; T very high numbers. I think the T people do not understand why he won; the Rs are set to make a mistake not addressing the issues voters want addressed. I hope, as you reported, the Ds are taking a serious look at it but sounds like Ds are getting caught up in business as usual including DFA. it’s like a continuation of the campaign.
That matches the CNN exit poll.
18% disliked both candidates and half voted Trump, a quarter Hillary and a quarter third-party or not at all.
some counties had over 80% T – I should take another look at that, perhaps no/ fewer 3rd party votes there