A lot of heat and spin on this subject. Lot of investment in getting certain answers.
There is a LACK of teasing out the real regional numbers from general polling. So I wanted to put some links together that get SPECIFIC.
The Myth of the Rust Belt Revolt
Relative to the 2012 election, Democratic support in the Rust Belt collapsed as a huge number of Democrats stayed home or (to a lesser extent) voted for a third party. Trump did not really flip white working-class voters in the Rust Belt. Mostly, Democrats lost them. (Me: so it was a passive/aggressive sign that “we don’t like the dog food.”)
Graph 1…the Republicans’ gain(225K) in this area was nothing compared with the Democrats’ loss of 1.17 million (-21.7 percent) voters in the same income category(<$50K).
Graph 3…Relative to 2012, Democrats lost 950K white voters in the Rust Belt 5 (-13 percent). This figure includes a loss of 770K votes cast by white men (-24.2 percent). Compare that number to the modest gains Republicans made in terms of white voters: They picked up only 450K whites (+4.9 percent).
Democrats also lost the black, indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) vote in the Rust Belt 5, with 400K fewer voters in this category (-11.5 percent). (Caveat: Not yet broken out by state, to allow evaluation of voter restriction effects.) But even in states with no such laws, BIPOC turnout was significantly lower this election cycle.
Conclusion… The real story–the one the pundits missed–is that voters who fled the Democrats in the Rust Belt 5 were twice as likely either to vote for a third party or to stay at home than to embrace Trump.
…compared with 2012, some 500,000 more voters chose to sit out this presidential election. In the Rust Belt, Democrats lost 1.35 million voters. Trump picked up less than half, at 590,000. If there was a Rust Belt revolt this year, it was the voters’ flight from both parties.
fladem, could you repost your chart to this thread?
I will be adding subsequent links that can be discussed in their own column.
London School of Economics blog: Trump and the Revolt of the Rust Belt
“…we must look beyond distortionary exit polling and come to appreciate the thoroughly regional nature of his victory. Only this can explain Trump’s win, which relied on the Rust Belt’s rejection of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton – and their resounding endorsement of Trump’s anti-globalist rhetoric.
People have been suspicious of the role of the white working class for a variety of suspect reasons: sure, Trump supporters were on average affluent, but they are always Republican and aren’t numerous enough to deliver the presidency (538 has changed their view in the wake of the election result). Some point out that looking at support by income doesn’t show much distinctive support for Trump among the “poor”, but that’s beside the point too, as it submerges a regional phenomenon in a national average, just as exit polls do.
Depressed Democratic turnout did matter, but this wasn’t indifference or apathy alone.
Slightly lower black turnout, third-party candidates, and depressed Democratic turnout generally will all be cited as such factors. But none of that addresses the fact that to shift Michigan, say, from +10 for Obama to even cannot be explained by these factors…
(Continues with the argument for Trump/Obama flips.)
This is generalized exit polling. Not separated out for Rust Belt voters.
REGISTERED VOTERS WHO DID NOT SHOW UP
For Dems: Guess what? The same pattern as has been the case since 2010. POC and youth, esp POC youth. Without Obama heading the ticket, this looks to be the future of our hopes for easy demographic victories.
And these are registered ones who BY CHOICE did not vote. No shenanigans.
For Rep: A lot of reliable Rep voters were missing. But the “missing” white voter turned up for Trump. The non-college working class voters came out of the woodwork.
Of course, this sample is not analyzed for distribution of non-votes. Conceivably all of HC’s could have been in reliable blue states. We are still waiting for finals in the states.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-elec
tion/
But did down ballot candidates do as bad? That is a crucial question regarding whether this was a turning away from Party or from Candidate.
Extremely mixed. Also have to factor in (and this is very difficult) that down-ticket races were two-person for the most part and the presidential race was four-person; so, the winning margins aren’t good comparisons.
For example — in CT, HRC’s winning margin was 13.6 and the incumbent D Senator’s winning margin was 28.6. All of Clinton’s, Johnson’s, and Stein’s votes total less than the votes for Blumenthal.
In states like IL and WI, the non-incumbent Democrat received fewer votes than Clinton did.
Isn’t it almost always the case that the head of the ticket gets many, many more votes than ANY down ballot candidate, even senator?
Haven’t made a study of this. My guess is that in high turnout presidential elections, it would be true bc a larger portion of voters in such elections are only interested in the top of the ticket.
OTOH — 1972 was a mid-level turnout, 55%, and Nixon won with a massive 60.7% of the popular vote, but the GOP only gained 13 House seats, which took their caucus to 192 seats, and LOST 2 senate seats. 1956 was similar — Democrats gained to Senate seats (flipping control of it) and two House seats (increasing is already strong majority). So, we can say that incumbents have an advantage even when the top of the ticket is strong.
Are you referring to Duckworth? But she won and Clinton lost. I suppose there was either a surge for Trump or (very likely) many Republicans who voted for Trump but not Kirk, who was roundly despised by their base.
In IL, both Clinton and Duckworth won. We’re just trying to piece together the mixed results for POTUS and Senate within individual states.
IL:
Clinton: 3,090,726
Trump: 2,146,015
Duckworth: 3,012,940
Kirk: 2,184,692
The difference between Trump and Kirk is +38,677 for Kirk and the difference between Johnson and the Lib Senate candidate is -33,608. Close enough to identify where Kirk picked up votes that didn’t go to Trump.
Summers, the Green Senate nominee, received 40,817 more votes than Stein did. So, that accounts for where some of the Clinton votes went in the Senate race. But approx 37,000 went nowhere. Were there no Stein-Duckworth voters? Why were there Clinton-Summers voters? Clinton trouncing Trump in IL was no more in doubt than Trump trouncing Clinton in IA. Wasn’t it easier for a “not Hillary” voter to vote for Duckworth?
“Were there no Stein-Duckworth voters? “
I can guarantee there was one! And after having lunch with one of my old co-workers last week, there was at least one “Trump-Duckworth” voter if he’s not lying to me, which I doubt.
I had forgotten that Clinton won Illinois with all the wailing and moaning.
Also wouldn’t be surprised if there were Johnson-Duckworth voters even as I arbitrarily put them all in a Johnson-Kirk basket. An inescapable conclusion in IL is that there were Clinton-Kirk voters and in WI Clinton-Johnson voters. And in FL, Murphy received four hundred thousand fewer votes than Clinton.
In the old days we had straight ticket voting that sped things up. You could X a box that cast your ballot for all the Dems or Reps listed. The Republicans killed this when they had control of the legislature and the governor’s mansion. I think it (straight ticket voting) was a good idea since so many people are going to do it anyway and it shortens the lines. We typically have very long ballots in Cook County and millions are going to vote straight party anyway.
The (R)’s were mad about 30 second ads to “punch 9”. I forget if the number was 9 or what, but that was the message.
I think that’s a terrible idea — but never saw it except for my not brief enough time in PA. (And yes, I didn’t avail myself of it as the line for the 2000 general election was very long.) Why not cut voting time to zero by registering as a straight-party ticket voter?
Americans pride themselves on living in a democracy but can hardly be bothered to vote and when they do, expect that the duty of being a citizen take no more than a few minutes and want the results ASAP. Good things take more time than that and patience is a virtue.
“Why not cut voting time to zero by registering as a straight-party ticket voter?” I’m sure the Parties would love that – no problem with GOTV.
The candidate defines the party in my opinion. It is very hard to run much of an independent campaign in a battleground state in my opinion. The margins in WI, PA, NH, NC were all similar. There are exceptions: CT as Marie points out. Florida – but Murphy was a terrible candidate.
As someone else mentioned, the top of the ticket defines the ticket. For the most part, voter turnout is driven by the presidential contest, not congressional ones.
The problem is that the base for the presidential and congressional candidates of the same party are not the same in many cases (especially in states with lots of white Democrats). While the data isn’t here yet, it is totally conceivable that the presidential campaign was targeting suburban moms while D-leaning rural voters were the natural base of the congressional candidate.
Here is the link:
I do not agree with the Slate article’s analysis for the most part.
Thank you for posting it.
So you are still thinking is is self-sorting out-migration?
There is definite population shifting in gentrifying cities. Net loss to the urban. New York is #1, I beleive.
Hmm, have to retract that NY statement. I was reading an analysis of moving company stats, and am not sure if they were looking at CORE urban areas or METRO.
Numbers are seldom specified in the stats and I suspect metro is the more usual category.
Is NC actually right? It’s inverting the pattern we se in all the other states.
It is.
Exit polls are not nearly as accurate as people think. When you study them you find they are pretty squirrelly. The Pros pair census data with voter files.
Especially in 1968. Wallace did MUCH better than polls indicated. People (at least in the North) were ashamed to admit that they voted for Wallace, even if they did.
This is not true.
The last two national polls in 1968 were:
Harris (11/3): Nixon 40, Humphrey 37, Wallace 16
Gallup (11/4): Nixon 42, Humphrey 40, Wallace 14
The final result was:
Nixon 43, Humphrey 42, Wallace 15
Wallace hovered between 22 and 18 for most of September. In very late September Humphrey gave a speech distancing himself from Johnson on the war.
In late September Gallup had it 44-29-20. In California in September Humphrey was down 17: 47-30. He would lose the state by 3.
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/pubs/CalPolls/614.pdf
My database of Presidential Polling from 68 to 2012 is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TA4NktYbU_qtvRKnIaacJOYDIoidLZTabKW5wobUTT0/edit#gid=0
Well, I never saw any polls except those published by the Chicago newspapers which purported to be national polls. Remember the Republicans had polls that showed Romney winning?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/16/how_trump_won_the_south_132796.html
Marie, fladem. Some useful charting rural/urban, 1988 to present, in five regions.
Very long article.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/19/how_trump_won_the_midwest_132834.html