2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Talint]

idk if anyone has pointed this out, but if you compare the exit polls from this election to 2008 the major difference is that people voted 3P more frequently.

I don't know who they would have voted for if they weren't spending their votes getting Trump elected, but it's possible that the exit poll results actually more closely fit the "blame lolBernieBros" narrative.

The math literally does not support this.

If 60% of the combined Green Party-Libertarian vote had gone to Mrs. Clinton and 40% went to Mr. Trump, Wisconsin and Michigan would have flipped to the Democrats — but Mr. Trump still would have won the election. The same outcome occurs if 65% of the Green and Libertarian vote is assigned to Mrs. Clinton, while 35% is given to Mr. Trump.

[Fiye]

I'd sooner blame voter apathy than third party votes.

The amazing thing about how narrowly clinton lost Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is that you can literally pin her loss on any of the plethora of things that happened to her campaign. Whether she, her campaign, or some outside force did it.

[Aerin]

Wasn't the primary extremely tight in Michigan? Bernie won by a few tenths right? I think like 1.5% at the most? Bernie's STRONGEST votes were from rural areas in states where Clinton frankly shit the bed. She creamed him during the latter primaries, but in some states she lost rural votes to Bernie, she lost those in the general as well.

Hillary was supposedly up in Michigan by 20+ points, which she then lost by 1.5. Leading by that high is why many pollsters had her at a 99% chance to win the state.

Also, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying Bernie would've won. I'm just trying to look at where/how Hillary and the Dems could have done better in so that when 2018 and 2020 come along, it's clear not only where (geographically) the improvement needs to be but also what needs to be improved upon.

[Byrthnoth]

The math literally does not support this.

Well, I noted that I couldn't predict who they would vote for if they hadn't thrown their votes away. I was just going off of:

Repubs:
41.2% of the electorate was white McCain voters in 2008.
41.0% of the electorate was white Trump votes in 2016.

4.9% of the electorate was minority McCain voters in 2008.
6.1% of the electorate was minority Trump voters in 2016.

Dems:
32.7% of the electorate was white Obama voters in 2008.
26.5% of the electorate was white Clinton voters in 2016. <-----

20.6% of the electorate was minority Obama voters in 2008.
21.4% of the electorate was minority Clinton voters in 2016.


Well, where'd they go?

3P:
1.1% of the electorate was white 3P voters in 2008.
3.5% of the electorate was white 3P voters in 2016.

0.5% of the electorate was minority 3P voters in 2008.
1.5% of the electorate was minority 3P voters in 2016.


We got a lot more 3P votes in 2016 than in 2008, and otherwise the distributions are pretty similar looking. It's possible that even if they overwhelmingly voted for Hillary, she still would have just won the popular vote by even more and still lost the electoral college.

[archibaldcrane]

Looking ahead to 2018, a court just ruled that the ridiculous gerrymandering of Wisconsin assembly seats (that led to a 60-39 R edge despite 200k more D votes in 2012) is unconstitutional.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc72ee068.html

[myreality]

Looking ahead to 2018, a court just ruled that the ridiculous gerrymandering of Wisconsin assembly seats (that led to a 60-39 R edge despite 200k more D votes in 2012) is unconstitutional.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc72ee068.html

Can this argument be used in other heavily gerrymandered states?

[Byrthnoth]

I think the issue is proving gerrymandering, a term which lacks a quantitative definition.

It's not like I can look at a map and say that the weird shaped districts are a result of gerrymandering. Even if I can suspect it, I can't prove it. That is really the most significant part of this case, if their definition is accepted:

The Democrats contend they have found a way to measure unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders designed to give a "large and durable" advantage in elections to one party -- a measure the U.S. Supreme Court said was lacking in previous redistricting cases. The measure, called the efficiency gap, shows how cracking (breaking up blocs of Democratic voters) and packing (concentrating Democrats within certain districts) results in wasted votes -- excess votes for the winners in safe districts and perpetually inadequate votes for the losers.

[Zealot]

I just worked on this case in North Carolina. NC tried for the 4th time in 20 years to redraw 2 districts along racial lines, and appealed it to the Supreme Court for, again, the 4th time in 20 years when the courts said no.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Quicklet]

Well, 5th time's the charm, as they say, when the legislature declares McCrory governor by fiat and they pack the courts and any cases sent to SCOTUS get decided by new Supreme Court Justice Cruz.

[Deftscythe]

I feel like people are looking for one magic bullet reason for Hillary to have lost when the reality is that the list of reasons is long and not mutually-exclusive.

[myreality]

I feel like people are looking for one magic bullet reason for Hillary to have lost when the reality is that the list of reasons is long and not mutually-exclusive.

What does this have to do with the Gerrymandered districts?

[Dimmauk]

Can this argument be used in other heavily gerrymandered states?

God I hope so. Texas is horribly gerrymandered.

[Deftscythe]

What does this have to do with the Gerrymandered districts?

I just caught up on the last couple pages and was responding to the thread in general.

[Ragnus]

I feel like people are looking for one magic bullet reason for Hillary to have lost when the reality is that the list of reasons is long and not mutually-exclusive.

Oh, definitely. The Clinton campaign was a death by a thousand cuts, leading to a Fist of the North Star style "You are already dead!" on election night.

The Russia leaks giving the Bernie squad a feeling of confirmation of what they feared during the primaries, the general lack of interest in Bernie's base along with cases of mocking and disregarding them, literally being an establishment figurehead in a season defined by populist / anti-establishment sentiment, good old fashioned sexism that's been carried over from the 90s, giving Trump supporters the "Deplorables" soundbite to rally around, Clinton's infosec scandals that wouldn't go away no matter who said she did nothing wrong, Comey bringing the emails back into the limelight less than a week out from election night, etc....

Clinton was bound to lose this thing after burning so many bridges and relying entirely on fear of Trump to carry her through. Her primary laurels that started with her name on them were bound to wither in the general because she, the media, and many other just assumed she was a shoe in. I'm willing to bet that she didn't give a concession speech the same night because she didn't bother to even prep one. She was probably putting the finishing touches on her acceptance speech while telling the White House staff to break out the old drapes from the 90s.

[kuronosan]

The sad thing is that's probably true.

[Zealot]

Speaking of McCrory, the news out of North Carolina is that he's flat-out trying to steal the election there now.

[Quicklet]

Did you think I was being hyperbolic when I said the legislature might declare McCrory governor by fiat?

[myreality]

Speaking of McCrory, the news out of North Carolina is that he's flat-out trying to steal the election there now.

Is there a chance he can succeed?

[Zealot]

Absolutely, if he stalls long enough.

[myreality]

Goddammit, of course there is. Is there any way to counter and prevent the stealing/stalling at all?