Hoo boy...the orgy of "why is 'Murica so dum? Let's slice and dice and collectivize in a totally new way!" maps is starting early, eh?
Here is my 'hypothesis': if the name on the ballot for the Democrats read John Podesta, instead of Hillary Clinton, and we otherwise had the same campaign and the same dynamics, the Rust Belt vote would be won by Trump still.
Okay. ::breathes deeply:: Hillary currently has 1,221,340 votes from Washington. Four years ago, Obama got 1,755,396 votes. If 60% of the vote is in in Washington, 60% of 1,755,396 is... 1,053,237. If Hillary maintains her margin in Washington, she will receive 2,035,566 votes. And if we assume that these 40% are even HALF that, she gets Obama's margin. This is math. You can do it on your own with a calculator.
Well, then I missed that you'd said it more directly than I thought. Me overlooking that doesn't change the fact that people are going to want to resist that argument because it violates their sense of who is and who isn't a Democratic voter.
I'm not blaming you. You understood the argument, even by overlooking that sentence. Which means you're reading my posts. If someone can overlook my explicit statements and still understand what I'm saying, then those who aren't getting it aren't reading my posts at all. And for all the crap about me being insulting or condescending, the fact that people don't read each other's posts and comment unthinkingly is really goddamn insulting. Perhaps a more civil conversation would occur if I didn't have to restate myself sixteen times because of laziness.
I don't know if this is true or not, but to support it I'd compare Clinton's votes with the Dem votes in the senate races in Pennsylvania (another woman), Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin.
I hit the underlined passage three times before I realized it wasn't a link. How the big-data posters want to quantify that is up to them.
I keep checking the numbers. It is depressing. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Michigan lost by 13k votes, voter turnout down 1.15% or 85k. Pennsylvania lost by 73k votes, voter turnout down 1.54% or 135k. Wisconsin lost by 28k, voter turnout down 0.54% or 166k votes. EVs: 16+20+10 238+46=284. If only 150k of those 400k would have showed...
Here is for Ohio -- where Hillary did better than the male Senate Democrat candidate -- and you can look for the other states: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/ohio President CANDIDATE PARTY VOTES PCT. E.V. Donald J. Trump Republican 2,771,984 52.1% 18 Hillary Clinton Democrat 2,317,001 43.5% S. Senate CANDIDATE PARTY VOTES PCT. Rob Portman* Republican 3,048,467 58.3% Ted Strickland Democrat 1,929,873 36.9%
Not a great example. From what I remember of the Ohio posters is that all they agree on is that Strickland was a terrible governor.
How about Wisconsin, where Russ Feingold lost getting slightly less votes than Hillary? In Pennsylvania, the results for Hillary were pretty identical with the Democrat candidate for the Senate (Hillary did slightly better), but the Dem was a woman too. In Michigan, on the other hand, you had a landslide for the Democrat candidate but Hillary lost Michigan. If Michigan was the only Rust Belt state she lost, I would look at the 'sexism' theory more closely.
Yes, and your immediate conclusion that "THEY HATE WOMAN" is absurd. And Cowardly. They didn't vote for her because she's a terrible candidate for President, and because they believe the Democrat party has left them behind.
ok this is my beef with your idea, what demographic had the lowest turnout compared to 2012? would you then accuse that demographic of being anti-women?
Can you show me the post where I said that these voters hate women? Cowardly? How is this cowardly? I don't think you know what that means. Here's the thing. Why did Democrats in the Midwest come to this conclusion, and NOT Democrats in Florida, or North Carolina, or Nevada, or California, or Washington? They all showed up like it was 2008 or 2012. But not the Midwest. Your conclusions are shit because you are lazy. Time to start thinking.
you held your breath too long. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/washington I also have a better calculator than you. And apparently understand ratios better. Take a look at my spreadsheet I attached. It has a list of every Washington county, and the number of votes each candidate has. I extrapolated that number based on the % of that's left to count. If current ratios hold, then Hillary will end up with 1.5M votes in a state that's had it's urban population grow quite a bit since 2012 and 2008. LESS THAN WHAT OBAMA GOT IN 2012! I would also note that this is a state that has not one, but TWO female senators. So where are those missing voters? Well she'll actually outperform Obama in King County, while Trump will under perform. However, let's compare Maria Cantwell in 2012 to Clinton today - and in almost every rural county Cantwell outperforms Hillary by TOTAL Vote. Just as an example, in Benton county Hillary got 23K votes. Cantwell got 33K in 2012. At the Senate level. Are these missing Democrats newly self-discovered mysogonists? Or are you just unwilling to look at reality, and acknowledge that a bunch of rural folks who vote Democrat, didn't in 2016 because the Democratic Party thought they didn't exist?
Sure. There is a pervasive anti-feminist strain in American politics that you do not find in the Southwest or Mountain West, and those states voted as though it was 2008 or 2012. But in states where female representation in state legislatures is low, the Democrats fared very poorly last night. Call it the Coakley Effect. A coward ducks reality and makes up excuses to avoid taking on responsibility for something bad happening. That's what you're doing. Insteasd admitting that the Democrat party failed these voters, you're suggesting the voters failed the Democratic party because they don't want to vote for a woman. As someone who grew up & interacted among a whole bunch of those people in PA, I can give you first hand proof that your suggestion is inaccurate and offensive. Urban Democrats showed in FORCE. They knew what the consequences of voting Trump were. Do you even understand the social changes going on in America? The youth drain that states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin are having? Those kids goto school there, and then move to NYC, Boston, Austin, Chicago, Seattle, San Fran, Las Vegas, and other booming west coast cities. The Democrats that normally vote Democrat in the rural areas - folks that approve and like Obama - voted Trump, or more likely didn't vote at all. Whatever makes you feel better about myopic analysis and not having your party take accountability for its actions.
I would hypothesize - again, accuse is NOT what I am doing - that male Democrats in those demographic groups are uncomfortable with female leaders. As for demographics, 2016 exit polls show a slightly less white electorate, slightly more Latino, slightly older, slightly more male, slightly more Independent. There's not any distinguishable trend.
You can not conclusively conclude that Democrats simply didn't show up to vote. It's deeper than that. It does appear that in urban areas Democrats DID show up. They hit their marks in places like Philadelphia and Columbus. Where they DIDN'T show up was in rural areas. They didn't vote for Trump, but they sure as shit didn't vote for Hillary. This wasn't a turnout problem. This was a system problem. A party problem for a party that may have lost the rural, working class voters to an incredible degree.
I really, really, really hope this is the attitude of the Democratic party leadership. But alas, they do have some sensible, responsible leaders who will learn from this, unlike the idiot you're responding to.
Trump is going to the White House. I don't know what more motivation to get to a root cause they need.
I'm still not convinced how what essentially is going to be macro data is going to pinpoint a specific psychoanalysis like sexism. In the end you still have to take a leap of assumption I personally don't even have the energy to try to make a comprehensive data driven conclusion. The amount of time that would take is ridiculous. Let the pol sci people deal with that. It's only been 48 hours ... I'm still in the emotional fact free finger pointing stage.
You know, I grew up in rural Ohio. I know these people too. And I have Facebook friends who would say stuff like "the country's not ready for a female President" when I was growing up. You know these same people. They're the ones who make jokes about a female President PMSing and starting a war. They're the ones who complain about women drivers. I don't see anything in this story that is incompatible with mine. Except for one thing. Clinton got 70,000 fewer votes in Cuyahoga county (Cleveland) than Obama got in 2012. She also got 12,000 fewer votes in Hamilton county (Cincinnati) than Obama got in 2012. She got 11,000 fewer votes than Obama in Erie County, PA. 60,000 fewer in Milwaukee county. 9,000 fewer in Green Bay. Almost 70,000 fewer in Wayne county (Detroit). Are those rural counties?
It's easy (and as you put it, cowardly) for Maddow worshippers and the rest of the academic left to hide behind their keyboards and shout into the ether "our voters don't like her cuz she's a woman", but that rhetoric is not only divisive and misses the mark by miles, but won't do them any favors as they try to rebuild the party and further its causes.