And on election night 148,160 said he was, 48.3% of all Kent County, Michigan voters.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Trump victory in WI in 2016 is explainable by decline in turnout relative to 2012
Trump beat Hillary in Wisconsin in 2016 by just 24,081 votes.
With turnout from 2012 down by 91,000, one could explain Trump's victory by saying Wisconsin Democrats stayed home in enough numbers in 2016 to help elect Trump. And since of the last three presidential elections turnout in Wisconsin was highest in 2012 at 3.068 million when the state helped return the incumbent Democrat to office, the argument possesses considerable plausibility.
Compared with 2008, however, this explanation fails since 2016 turnout undershot 2008 by just 6,000, not enough to account for Trump's victory over Hillary.
Both Iowa and Wisconsin were slow to the trend of turnout peaking in 2008 when the popular Democrat Obama won in an election with still unequaled turnout of 131.5 million nationwide.
Trump victory in IA was genuine and not attributable to turnout changes
Trump beat Hillary by 146,182 votes in Iowa in 2016.
The 2016 turnout was only 25,000 lower than in 2012, but 20,000 higher than in 2008.
In the last three presidential elections the turnout high in Iowa was in 2012 at 1.582 million.
On the third day after Election 2016 the totals remain incomplete in five states
IL 1% out
WA 24% out
NJ 1% out
UT 18% out
OR 1% out
WA 24% out
NJ 1% out
UT 18% out
OR 1% out
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Revulsion Election update: Trump got lucky, underperformed Romney by 1.4 million votes, McCain by 450,000 votes
Hillary underperformed Obama 2012 by 6.2 million, Obama 2008 by . . . 9.8 million.
Democrats elected Trump by not voting for Hillary.
Rush Limbaugh is repeating stupid from National Review, that Trump could have beaten Obama in 2012
This will become the new factoid to replace the "94 million not working but eating" myth and the "4 million stayed home in 2012" myth and the 99ers myth.
Heavy sigh.
Revulsion for Hillary: Some Trump victories wholly dependent on turnout undershooting 2008 levels in four high population states
TX: turnout up 0.8 million, Trump beat Hillary by 0.814 million
FL: turnout up 1.0 million, Trump beat Hillary by 0.12 million
PA: turnout down by 100 thousand, Trump beat Hillary by 68 thousand
OH: turnout down by 400 thousand, Trump beat Hillary by 454 thousand
GA: turnout up 0.1 million, Trump beat Hillary by 0.231 million
NC: turnout up 0.4 million, Trump beat Hillary by 0.177 million
MI: turnout down by 200 thousand, Trump beat Hillary by 12 thousand
AZ: turnout down by 300 thousand, Trump beat Hillary by 84 thousand
The revulsion for Hillary election: In the top 14 states by population, 2016 turnout undershot 2008 by 5.4 million net
CA: down 4.7 million
TX: up 0.8 million
FL: up 1.0
NY: down 0.5
IL: down 0.1
PA: down 0.1
OH: down 0.4
GA: up 0.1
NC: up 0.4
MI: down 0.2
NJ: down 0.7
VA: up 0.2
WA: down 0.9
AZ: down 0.3
Back out CA and the net down is 0.7 million from 2008.
Trump states had turnout net up 1.3 million from 2008. In the traditionally Democrat states Trump won, it appears to be partly due to Democrats not turning out for Hillary. Only in VA did Trump lose where turn out was up from 2008.
Clinton states apart from CA had turnout net down 2 million from 2008.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
National Review contributor tries to make the case that Trump 2016 would have beaten Obama 2012
The author repeatedly mentions that he knows he's comparing apples to oranges but never adjusts his figures for population growth over the period.
As of this morning, Trump is underperforming Romney by 1.9 million votes, but the country has grown by 9 million since 2012.
The Trump performance figure in 2016 presupposes having so much more to work with from the increased population growth but still comes up short of Romney who had so much less to work with because of a smaller population.
Trump toyed with the idea of competing in 2012 but wisely left Romney to do that and fail, knowing instinctively that the shiny, happy and clean novelty incumbent was going to be very hard to beat.
Obama was beatable in 2012, had fewer than 500,000 votes in four states east of the Mississippi gone a different way, but Romney possessed insufficient charisma compared to Obama, too few boots on the ground to make up for that, and the formidable problem of Obama's incumbency.
And on top of all that, Romney was a lousy candidate. His wife had to reassure us that "Mitt doesn't change positions".
As with all fortunes from Chinese cookies, always add "in bed" for maximum amusement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)