« Thoughts on Syria - 7 June, 2016 | Main | 14 Million Lifetime Page Views »

08 June 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



I am curious and will research the distribution of this swing in turnout across the different states. I take aggregate numbers like the national polling data with a grain of salt.

I believe Hillary starts with better odds as I believe the Democrats have an electoral college advantage. Romney won 206 electoral college votes. He lost Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia by around 100,000 votes give or take. So, its very conceivable that the enthusiasm for Trump in these states combined with less enthusiasm for Hillary could carry him over the finish line. I however believe that by mid October the forces arrayed against him and their scaremongering would drive up the lesser evil enthusiasm for Hillary. It will be close and IMO, will break one way or another. Either Hillary or Trump will get an electoral college landslide.


Looking at these numbers and others you come up with the following.
2016 Primary Vote 29-R and 28-D, 2012 Presedential Vote 65-Obama and 60-Romney or 129 total thus 57-44% did not vote in 2016 primary ( all numbers in millions and rough).
2116 voter registration as of May (Gallup) 27%-R, 28%-D & 45%-I.
2010 voter registration 29%-R, 31%-D & 38%-I

These are just numbers and only tell history. Make of them what you want as I purport that they only tell one thing. There is a large movement of Americans into non traditional parties.
Now I'm not one of them poorly educated blue color workers the MSM would make you think are the only Trump supporters, nope I'm a senior Medicare eligible great grandfather who puts in 60 hours a week and knows that our children and grandchildren are
not getting the opportunities that you or I did. Most make it in life but a lot do not and that percentage is a lot higher than when we were young. WHY. This government we have has been stale for the last twenty years and more worried with what is going on with the rest of the world than within our own borders,
Change is needed and Donald Trump is the only protest vote out there with a shot of making it to the White House. Yes, he is a pig, stupid or whatever you want to call him but mark my words he will be in the White House come 2017. Why, look at the growth in the independents. People who are not aligned with traditional thought.


Nate Silver completely lost the plot with Trump. Not sure if it was his models or personal bias. In any case he wrote a very weak mea culpa.

The Sheep Look Up

I am no fan of Trump. But he has accomplished many things already for which we should be grateful. If nothing else, he formally ended the Bush dynasty, trashed W's legacy, and spoke the truth about the NeoCon's war in Iraq.

But most important, he has opened space on the right for ideas that have been shut out by Movement Conservatism for decades.

Movement Conservatives had zero chance of appealing to the very large generation of millennials for one simple reason: they are failures. People under 35 see them as compromised, hypocritical and, most importantly, incompetent.

But Eight years of Obama has swung many toward a similar, if not as vehement, view of DNC liberalism. Many favor Sanders, but this is not necessarily because of his ideas. He is perceived as anti-establishment. Thus many of them will not follow the expected movement and simply shift towards the center and vote Hillary. They are up for grabs.

On Florida: Trump's wall, immigration policies, and rhetoric are ant-Mexican. They are NOT anti-Latino. To reason otherwise is to fall into a Cultural Marxist trap. Outside of media, activist and academic circles, neither Cubans nor Puerto Ricans feel much affinity with Mexicans and certainly do not like to be lumped together with them.

Will Trump be able to take advantage of this? Maybe. But there is room for a wedge here, if he is able to start pounding on it.


I think comparing the aggregate primary numbers is somewhat misleading.

More contested the race is, the larger the turnout. Republicans had a lot more candidates with concomitantly larger uncertainty on who might ultimately win out. Each candidate had far greater incentive to get people out and the voters had greater interest in getting their input in. The Democrats, on the other hand, tried to ensure that the primaries would be just a coronation for HRC, without any "real" contest. Where Sanders made things more interesting, turnout rose substantially. In other races, where the outcome was largely preordained (e.g. much of the South), turnout was dismal. In some cases (e.g. CA yesterday), some more conspiratorially people there were be attempts by some Democratic insiders to actively suppress turnout (some lefties are insisting that the AP story was such an attempt. Similar accusations came up earlier, although I don't remember the details.)

I suspect that some aspects of increase/decrease in turnout reflects strategies of the candidates, up to a point. HRC seems confident that she can win on the basis of the conventional Democratic votes, especially against Trump (who seems being dangerously misunderestimated, to use GWB's lingo). If so, trying to mobilize new voters and owe them promises and favors is not something she is eager to do. Demographic trends may be somewhat to the advantage of the Democrats (per Ruy Texeira's argument) but I think it might be dangerously overrated--especially if, as HRC seems determined to do, politicians waste such advantages along the way (if much of this advantage is with the more youthful demographic, why go out of way to frustrate the youths as she and her allies seem to be doing, for example?)



To quote a great African American singer: "What have you done for me lately". How did NAFTA treat Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania? How about the follow on Obama years of hope, change and racial healing. Not to mention health care. Hispanic Americans work for a living in the same economic envirnonment white people do. A point lost on some political science types triangulating campaigns and advising "journalists".


It's not just Silver: it's the entire class of political analysts. By the poll numbers alone, that Trump was a much more serious candidate would have been obvious (the rise of Sanders, however, would have been lost even in that realm too).

The problem is that people got blinkered by their own "conventional wisdom." People who watch too much politics think that conventional politics is the way things are "supposed to be" and tend to systematically reject what doesn't fit the usual narrative. (a rather dense and rather off topic exploration of some of the proclivities in political analysis, how people bury themselves in their notion of "normal" politics without thinking things through, is found in this essay: http://www.criticalreview.com/crf/jf/18%201_3%20Converse.pdf) Months got spent with alleged experts of all kinds confidently reassuring everyone that what was taking place could not possibly be taking place and the "normalcy" would reassert itself (and I wonder if some Republicans are still fantasizing about how to reassert this "normalcy," if through the most abnormal means, in the aftermath of how Republican leaders seem to have gone off the reservation after the gaffe by Trump on that judge--which, I think, is more the sign of someone who is over his head rather than someone who is actively malicious, but that's my opinon)....

I guess we'll know the rest of story in less than half a year's time...


"Hispanics" are too varied a group to generalize so blatantly. Different groups will respond differently to different messages. For starters, a lot of Hispanics are not immigrants, recent or otherwise. Many old-time Hispanic voters in the Southwest, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans aren't impressed by immigration rhetoric, pro- or anti-.

At minimum, about 15-20% of the Hispanics are reliably Republican. For example, there are many Hispanic small business people, of all backgrounds, who are ardently Republican. That's roughly the share that Romney got in 2012. I think that's about the rock bottom for any Republican, and many of these folks seem to like Trump quite a bit.

One has to think that, at least among those without immigration ties, Trump has to carry considerable potential appeal. For example, Puerto Ricans, by and large, might be heavily Democratic, but they share more characteristics with non-Hispanic working class than with recent immigrants form Latin America and could be impressed by Trump's economic message. I don't think Trump could capture the vote of the average Puerto Rican, but I could see him easily outperforming Romney or some other stuffy regular Republican with these demographics (although, given how dismal Romney was with practically all minority voters, that would not be difficult, I would think.)


Fear mongering led Obama to poll behind Mittens. Obama only snapped out of his funk when he reembraced progressive rhetoric. There were a flurry of "how Obama got his groove back" articles. Fear based campaigns dull over time. The Democrats were apocalyptic about what would happen in 2014 if arch enemy Mitch McConnell became Senate majority leader. They were apocalyptic in 2010.

It might seem trite, but it's easier to attract flies with honey than vinegar. The same is true for politics.

different clue


I do not know what "will" happen here in Michigan. I do have a feeling that many people in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania remember that it was President Clinton who finally achieved the NAFTA, WTO membership "for" America, MFN Status for China, etc. which have destroyed so many jobs in those three states from then to now. And Trump may well be shrewd enough to remind people of that all over again and to ask whether they want Bill Clinton influencing economic policy all over again.

Which will be a real question, because Hillary made it one when she said that she would put Bill Clinton in charge of "revitalizing the economy".

different clue

Peter in Toronto,

The only class warfare I have seen these last few decades is the UpperClass/OverClass war of aggression and disposession being waged against the rest of us.

The "One Per Cent" didn't get that way by accident.


Forget the duck-speak.. This will be a race won by who can get the vote out. If these numbers persist and more people dislike Hillary over the Donald (They both have enough baggage to fill to fill a container ship). Then Trump can pull it off. Locally or coat tails? IMO? None.

There is one thing for sure. There will be more cow manure slung in this race than there are cows in Texas.


The numbers are probably a good indicator of more "core" GOP voters vice Democrat voters, however, the Democrats also had a very good "Get Out The Vote" ground game for the general elections in 2008 and 2012. I don't know that the Republicans can match that (or have even really tried).


Charles Michael

I was underlining the obvious conclusions: Trump has reached non-voters and Sanders has awaken a Big doubts in the Democrat base voters about the "left" leaning of HC.
Some here seemed to have missed the point of these little known figures.

And yes, considering the size and the importance of the USA, I not voting French, feel very concerned by what disasters Hillary Clinton could choose to bring about anywhere on the planet.

Simply put: anybody but Hillary.

Charles Michael

Very well put.

These figure shows a double trend that give Hope and Faith: about Charity I shall keep it for the probable victims of a HC revengeful presidency.

William R. Cumming

Is my understanding correct that the Trump campaign largely broke?


I can assure you that the Sanders supporters will not AUTOMATICALLY vote for the Wolverine in Sheep's Clothing. There is a movement of Progressives Against Clinton Dynasty in full swing and personality is not the only issue here.
It is much easier to combat a wolf that one recognizes than one which is hidden in the herd and that is what distinguishes Trump from Hillary. Obviously, it is better to have the Herder Bernie but lacking that, the Wolverine should not expect support from the lambs.


The best analysis I've seen on this is from Politico (yes, their opinion and reporting pieces are sometimes problematic, but their polling pieces are usually pretty solid). This article explains how the voters that trump has attracted are new to the primaries, but are, for the most part, reliable GOP voters in the general.



Someone at black agenda report, I forget who, summed it up- this is the implosion of the gop. The dmob is holding steady. I was prepared for buckets of blood to rain down on the bright face above the stylish white Nehru caftan pantsuit whatever parading around morning tv today California blah blah...no dice.


The evidence seems to show that primary turnout is associated with how competitive the primary battle is, and doesn't predict who will win in the general election.



Thanks Herodotus, I was trying to think of a way how this was all democracy in action.


If the Republicans try any shenanigans @ the convention to usurp the will of
the voters we will get 4 more years of whatever you want to call the last 8.

Seamus Padraig

I'm a Bernie Bro, and if he doesn't win the nomination, I definitely plan to vote Jill Stein. Never Hellary!


Hillary is such a weak and uninspiring candidate the Democrat race became competitive the Republican one. In the end Trump comfortably won with the most votes in Republican history, despite being a political novice, having little campaign infrastructure, the special interest arrayed against him and a large competitive field. The problem for the media is I am guessing they are as highly disliked and distrusted as they are here in Britain, and there are just too many alternative options with the growth of the internet, for their attacks to work.

In 08 Obama got a large number of black voters out for the first time and that carried over to the election. Trump has done the same with many blue collar white voters, that will also carry over. Trump still to win by 5 points, that disastrous jobs report last week is the first of many. Trump is correctly positioned on all the big issues.


If I recall correctly, BabelFish and you wrote, you'll write in Bernie in November, on a different thread. That may have been before recent results came in.

That would be an invalid vote. No?

Over here it makes sense to vote for other then the two central parties, conservatives and social democrats, whatever that may mean today. Not least to sent signals concerning coalitions. But in the US it does not seem make any sense. In 2000 the Ralph Nader voters could have made a difference. Had they decided differently maybe, no Florida recount would have been necessary.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad