-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
whyamihere
Banned
She's not going to be leading the Revolution.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...IL4YcyQy8pxb1zYkgXF76Uu1s/edit#gid=2030096602
Top 10 states for turnout of voting eligible people
Minnesota - 74.2%
New Hampshire - 72.6%
Colorado - 71.9%
Maine - 69.9%
Wisconsin - 69.4%
Iowa - 68.6%
Oregon - 66.9%
Virginia - 65.8%
Florida - 65.6%
Michigan - 65.6%
Bottom 10 states for turnout of voting eligible people
Hawaii - 42.5%
West Virginia - 51.0%
Tennessee - 51.0%
Texas - 51.1%
Oklahoma - 52.2%
New York - 52.4%
Arkansas - 53.0%
Mississippi - 53.5%
New Mexico - 54.8%
California - 55.0%
Seems like all you need for turnout are competitive elections and to make it easy to vote.
Top 10 states for turnout of voting eligible people
Minnesota - 74.2%
New Hampshire - 72.6%
Colorado - 71.9%
Maine - 69.9%
Wisconsin - 69.4%
Iowa - 68.6%
Oregon - 66.9%
Virginia - 65.8%
Florida - 65.6%
Michigan - 65.6%
Bottom 10 states for turnout of voting eligible people
Hawaii - 42.5%
West Virginia - 51.0%
Tennessee - 51.0%
Texas - 51.1%
Oklahoma - 52.2%
New York - 52.4%
Arkansas - 53.0%
Mississippi - 53.5%
New Mexico - 54.8%
California - 55.0%
Seems like all you need for turnout are competitive elections and to make it easy to vote.
Ohhh, I didn't know Plouffe has been around. And, yeah, it's true about Mook - even his Twitter account was very recent.
Oh, yeah, I wasn't wanting her to stand-up and do stuff, believe me. It was just to note that she's been laying low even relative to losing presidential candidates.
Who said anything about a revolution? There are dems across every state working quietly to progress issues.
Retromelon
Member
I know Mook isn't the kind of guy who wants to be in front of the camera, but I'd be interested to read some kind of post-mortem with him about what the hell went wrong.
Plouffe wrote an op-ed for the Times like a day or two after the election, and has tweeted a bit since. I'm sure Hillary will be out there again some day in the next year, but god, for her benefit and probably everyone else's, she just needs to chill and sit back for a while.
Plouffe wrote an op-ed for the Times like a day or two after the election, and has tweeted a bit since. I'm sure Hillary will be out there again some day in the next year, but god, for her benefit and probably everyone else's, she just needs to chill and sit back for a while.
The Chosen One
Member
I think someone earlier here posted a tweet that Mika was seen going into Trump Tower this morning, so it definitely seems they've become a propaganda arm of the Trump admin. During the summer they became critical of Trump around the same time that Trump responded by Twitter-attacking Mika and Joe. Then in the days leading up to election day Morning Joe started taking a more cautious outlook on the results, which ended up being smart.
But I noticed a stark change a couple of weeks ago right around the time Trump had that big meeting with media producers and anchors. Joe had already been trying to cozy up to Trump after election day, but after that media meeting Joe and Mika have been in full propaganda mode for Trump. It's gotten pretty bad the last couple of days where the other guests/panelist just sit there in stunned silence sometimes.
As for why I watched the show? Unlike many people here, I don't like being in a liberal bubble. I like to get conservative viewpoints on various topics and Joe is a moderate Republican and they tend to have guests/panelist from different political stripes. FoxNews is a pure propaganda outlet, so it's useless to watch. I watch CNN, but they tend to have huge 12-14 person panels, which turns the discussions into talk soup. They also tend to find crazy Republicans to represent the conservative point of view.
Morning Joe usually had a decent cast of conservative moderates that appeared on the show. But yes, now the show is going to Hell in a hand basket because Joe is morphing into a FoxNews commentator and Mika has lost her spine and clearly is under Joe's thumb lately.
I'm working late night these days so I'll probably still watch it but I'm not sure how much I can take. It made me sick hearing them both defending Trump's statements about revoking citizenship over flag burning. But if Trump picks Rudy for Secy of State, Joe might lash out at Trump and find his balls again. Anybody who has been watching Morning Joe for the past two weeks can tell Joe is HEAVILY invested in Romney becoming Secy of State. So something is definitely going on there.
Retro you are so far behind
Kev got on the FF15 boat, hope he gets off in time for TLG
Sirpopopop
Member
I don't think the present conservative viewpoint is at all legitimate.
Neither do I think the alt-left (Bernie) has a legitimate viewpoint.
That's why I stick with the mainstream press.
Neither do I think the alt-left (Bernie) has a legitimate viewpoint.
That's why I stick with the mainstream press.
Tension is high right now, Sanders wing of the coalition fell off the face of the planet post primary for half a year till the election. Fully expect them to do the same post inauguration. People are just not invested once the spotlight is gone.
The Chosen One
Member
Looks like I wasn't the only one who noticed:
.http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...sts-morning-joe-hosts-as-transition-spokesmen
.http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...sts-morning-joe-hosts-as-transition-spokesmen
RastaMentality
Banned
Megyn already said Trump bribed reporters with dinner, flights, and such. i imagine the same happened with mika and joe.
It's probably closer to access, which would be more valuable to a journalist.
Dominican Power
Member
I've watched a little bit of Chris Cuomo's show a few days ago and he's not bad. He's not bullshitting around with people.
Retromelon
Member
I try my best. The game is good tho who'd a thunk
I mean lets be real, how many decade long production disasters have come out smelling like roses in the end recently? But this is 2016, all our favorite celebs are dead, the cubs won, Trump is president and XV is great.
The Lamonster
Member
After the Morning Joe crew was all up in arms about SNL's "Hallelujah" cold open, I had to stop watching for good.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
and CNN was playing every damn Trump rally live and almost in their entirety on their channel like it was always some late breaking news. CNN was Trump's free channel for the entire election cycle. Fuck CNN
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
About 30% of the difference in turnout rates depends on the perceived competitiveness of the race - a state where the gap between the two candidates was about 50% would expect a 14 percentage point lower turnout than a perfectly competitive state with a single gap between the two candidates. As voters feel like their vote becomes more valuable, they are more likely to turn up.
Interestingly the correlation is actually weaker with voter power indexes than it is with just plain competitiveness margins - probably because most voters understand that Florida is likely to be an important state, but are less likely to understand that because Florida is so large population-wise, someone in New Hampshire is statistically more likely to be the critical vote.
It's unclear if this would persist with the abolition of the electoral college, because people might adjust to the idea of the voter power index, but if the trend w.r.t. to competitiveness were to hold and you abolished the electoral college, you'd expect to see US turnout at around 64.6%, up from 58.6%.
On the other hand, it isn't clear that this would result in a Clinton win. Insofar as poor turnout can be explained by people going "X will definitely win my state, why bother?", the largest sum of "lost votes" are actually in California and New York, so this increase in turnout from abolishing the electoral college might help Republicans more than Democrats.
If you want to increase turnout in a useful way, the main change would be to run a positive campaign. It's a pretty consistent finding in polsci (Ansolabehere 1994, 1999, Lau and Pomper 2001) that heavily negative campaigning depresses turnout. This was something I was worried about during the campaign - I did point out that Clinton was relying too much on attacking Trump and not spending enough time stressing her own message. Aside from that, targeted voter registration drives for Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters. The Democratic Party has a stupendously large warchest at this point and putting some of it into voter registration drives seems like a sensible plan. Finally, every additional Democratic option on the ballot increases the chances of participation - there's a strong relationship between concurrent electoral processes and turnout, and Clinton performed better in otherwise similar districts where a Democratic candidate was run than in those where no candidate was. It is absolutely unacceptable that there were uncontested seats in a number of House districts, regardless of where they are.
Interestingly the correlation is actually weaker with voter power indexes than it is with just plain competitiveness margins - probably because most voters understand that Florida is likely to be an important state, but are less likely to understand that because Florida is so large population-wise, someone in New Hampshire is statistically more likely to be the critical vote.
It's unclear if this would persist with the abolition of the electoral college, because people might adjust to the idea of the voter power index, but if the trend w.r.t. to competitiveness were to hold and you abolished the electoral college, you'd expect to see US turnout at around 64.6%, up from 58.6%.
On the other hand, it isn't clear that this would result in a Clinton win. Insofar as poor turnout can be explained by people going "X will definitely win my state, why bother?", the largest sum of "lost votes" are actually in California and New York, so this increase in turnout from abolishing the electoral college might help Republicans more than Democrats.
If you want to increase turnout in a useful way, the main change would be to run a positive campaign. It's a pretty consistent finding in polsci (Ansolabehere 1994, 1999, Lau and Pomper 2001) that heavily negative campaigning depresses turnout. This was something I was worried about during the campaign - I did point out that Clinton was relying too much on attacking Trump and not spending enough time stressing her own message. Aside from that, targeted voter registration drives for Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters. The Democratic Party has a stupendously large warchest at this point and putting some of it into voter registration drives seems like a sensible plan. Finally, every additional Democratic option on the ballot increases the chances of participation - there's a strong relationship between concurrent electoral processes and turnout, and Clinton performed better in otherwise similar districts where a Democratic candidate was run than in those where no candidate was. It is absolutely unacceptable that there were uncontested seats in a number of House districts, regardless of where they are.
Dominican Power
Member
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/11/28/trump-natl-security-team-outed-gay-brother-dying-aids/
This is the deputy national security adviser.
This is the deputy national security adviser.
How do we reach that 40.3%.
Make it easier to vote.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/election-2016/oregon-automatically-registered-voters-turnout/
This is an article about how 40% of automatically newly registered voters after Oregon's automatic registration law passed turned out.
In other words, nearly half of the people who weren't registered to vote were ready to vote. The registration process was just somehow enough to stop them.
Lots of people want to vote and just find it difficult. This is a solvable problem.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Right, but this is a chicken/egg problem. For the most part, states control the voter registration process. Republicans benefit more from reduced voter turnout because their voters are typically less marginal (more likely to have ID, or the time and capability to fill out forms, and so on), so states that Republicans control make voter registration more difficult/imposing. So to make registration easier, the Democrats need to take back statehouses - especially in states that are competitive in presidential elections. But the Democrats struggle to compete in state elections, at least partially because of the registration process. So you need a solution that works now - and that's voter registration drives. Have community organizers who can sit down with people and help them fill-out forms; have local Democrat party offices help meet the costs of ID (even transport costs!); etc.
EDIT: In particular, the death of ACORN did enormous damage to Democratic chances. Their PA chapter was pretty ferocious.
Slurpy2k20
Member
I'm thinking in much bigger numbers though, some people were excited for Trump, but how much % of total eligible voters did that move? That's still a small % of the people eligible to vote.
I was with you until you went back to Hillary. How much turnout depression are we talking about here? 2016 was still the highest turnout ever in terms of raw votes and no one would disagree it's one of the most negative campaign season ever. Even discounting for all that I think you'll still end up with close to 40% of people not turning out. How about getting 5% among the 40% to come out?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
In raw votes, yes. By percentage turnout, no. And the latter is the more important one. Which is why I'm pointing out that a more positive campaign would have helped Democratic chances. It wasn't the only thing - these things are almost always multicausal - but it was certainly one of the things. I don't think it is unfair to criticize Clinton for this one, especially when both of the other two factors I named were largely outside of her control (at least in the timeframe of her presidential campaign).
metalslimer
Member
To be fair Trump's picks are what I would expect out of most republicans. That being said *vomits*
Sure. I agree, this is a good investment target for Democrats.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I'm talking about media/real life more than Poligaf with this rant. For Poligaf specifically we have to look with caution at states like Oregon and Washington where it's all vote-by-mail but the participation numbers aren't that much higher than average, if at all. There's a lot of societal work to be done in helping people understand civics and the value of voting even if you can remove the barriers to entry. Other modern democracies regularly have turnout of 70%+ so it's not impossible, but the US has always been the odd duck in most of those global comparisons.
The US's low voter participation numbers are not an accident and I become incensed every time I see the narrative turn to blaming voters for it instead of Republicans. Republicans have won the messaging game so hard that we're blaming the victims instead of the perpetrators without any self-awareness. Nobody talks about how underfunded our voting infrastructure is or why Election Day isn't a national holiday but Columbus Day is. Closed polling stations and reduced hours is just taken for granted by the media now; Voter ID is quickly becoming an accepted norm.
Voter's apathy with government is seen as the core problem and not a symptom of the normalization of Republican obstructionism. The link between education and civic engagement is likewise ignored as that implies that political problems are reflective of broader societal issues that are multi-variable and complex; we live in the Social-Media era now so issues have to be summed up in 140 characters or less, nuance is passe.
Instead we default to saying it's all the fault of the voters who couldn't afford to take the day off from work or who had no means to get to the polling station before it closed. Voter behavior is a symptom of a disease and you don't cure a disease by treating the symptoms. It's like blaming a morbidly obese child for being fat; someone is at fault, but it's certainly not the kid.
The US's low voter participation numbers are not an accident and I become incensed every time I see the narrative turn to blaming voters for it instead of Republicans. Republicans have won the messaging game so hard that we're blaming the victims instead of the perpetrators without any self-awareness. Nobody talks about how underfunded our voting infrastructure is or why Election Day isn't a national holiday but Columbus Day is. Closed polling stations and reduced hours is just taken for granted by the media now; Voter ID is quickly becoming an accepted norm.
Voter's apathy with government is seen as the core problem and not a symptom of the normalization of Republican obstructionism. The link between education and civic engagement is likewise ignored as that implies that political problems are reflective of broader societal issues that are multi-variable and complex; we live in the Social-Media era now so issues have to be summed up in 140 characters or less, nuance is passe.
Instead we default to saying it's all the fault of the voters who couldn't afford to take the day off from work or who had no means to get to the polling station before it closed. Voter behavior is a symptom of a disease and you don't cure a disease by treating the symptoms. It's like blaming a morbidly obese child for being fat; someone is at fault, but it's certainly not the kid.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I thought it might be interesting to talk more concretely about 2020 strategy, so I did some maths. I looked at state trendrates - e.g., if Florida was x% more conservative than the rest of the nation in 1980, y% in 1984, z% in 1988, and so on, how marginal would it be in 2020? (I started in 1980 because that's when the southern realignment was mostly complete; if I extend the dataset any further back the trend is weak and has no explanatory value). The main battleground states for the Democrats (relative to the 2016 map) will be Arizona, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconson, and Michigan.
Any state I've not mentioned here that was red this year is out of reach. Worryingly, that actually includes Ohio - the next Democratic president would have to win nationally by nearly a 7 point margin to win Ohio by my calculations, simply because of how quickly Ohio is reddening.
These states can also be "grouped" by how much their movement correlate with each other, which is something like "how similar electoral appeals needed to win these states will be" - that is, North Carolina and Georgia are very highly correlated. The Democratic voting base in those states moves very similarly and is probably demographically the same set of people and likely to approve of the same Democratic message.
The groups are:
{Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan}
{Georgia, North Carolina}
{Florida}
{Arizona}
I think this tells us, at least, that Arizona is probably not first priority, although it is winnable, simply because Arizona requires a unique message to win relative to the other important states. Top priority is the Rust Belt set (I know PA isn't technically Rust Belt, but politically, it is a member), followed by Florida. [{North Carolina, Georgia} has more EVs between them than Florida, but winning two marginal states, even if similar, is obviously a riskier gamble than winning one.]
So I think a Democratic strategy for 2020 has to be focused on winning over the Rust Belt and Florida (plus retaining any states won this year, although this shouldn't be a worry as most states the Democrats won are moving more Democratic and this is the reason the Electoral College favours the Republicans - if the Democrats lose any states they won this year then something has gone apocalyptically wrong) . All indications are that these are where the election is won.
I know that sounds almost redundant and it's a conclusion a lot of people have reached, but I do want to stress it because a lot of people have been going on about the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt is not there yet, and will not be by 2020. It is overly optimistic to try and contest for it. Even though the Sun Belt is becoming progressively more Democratic and the Rust Belt more Republican, in 2020, the Rust Belt will still be relatively more Democratic than the Sun Belt will be.
When voting in the 2020 primaries, you need to be thinking: who can win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida?
EDIT: Also, Florida is really weird. Most states had correlates so you can put them into political groups - like, although I've listed Arizona alone, it moves in synch with the Sun Belt, it's just the most Democratic of the ones the Democrats don't already have and the only one really in range. If I listed all state groups, it would have a number of correlates. Florida, on the other hand, doesn't synch with any state and does entirely its own thing politically.
Any state I've not mentioned here that was red this year is out of reach. Worryingly, that actually includes Ohio - the next Democratic president would have to win nationally by nearly a 7 point margin to win Ohio by my calculations, simply because of how quickly Ohio is reddening.
These states can also be "grouped" by how much their movement correlate with each other, which is something like "how similar electoral appeals needed to win these states will be" - that is, North Carolina and Georgia are very highly correlated. The Democratic voting base in those states moves very similarly and is probably demographically the same set of people and likely to approve of the same Democratic message.
The groups are:
{Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan}
{Georgia, North Carolina}
{Florida}
{Arizona}
I think this tells us, at least, that Arizona is probably not first priority, although it is winnable, simply because Arizona requires a unique message to win relative to the other important states. Top priority is the Rust Belt set (I know PA isn't technically Rust Belt, but politically, it is a member), followed by Florida. [{North Carolina, Georgia} has more EVs between them than Florida, but winning two marginal states, even if similar, is obviously a riskier gamble than winning one.]
So I think a Democratic strategy for 2020 has to be focused on winning over the Rust Belt and Florida (plus retaining any states won this year, although this shouldn't be a worry as most states the Democrats won are moving more Democratic and this is the reason the Electoral College favours the Republicans - if the Democrats lose any states they won this year then something has gone apocalyptically wrong) . All indications are that these are where the election is won.
I know that sounds almost redundant and it's a conclusion a lot of people have reached, but I do want to stress it because a lot of people have been going on about the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt is not there yet, and will not be by 2020. It is overly optimistic to try and contest for it. Even though the Sun Belt is becoming progressively more Democratic and the Rust Belt more Republican, in 2020, the Rust Belt will still be relatively more Democratic than the Sun Belt will be.
When voting in the 2020 primaries, you need to be thinking: who can win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida?
EDIT: Also, Florida is really weird. Most states had correlates so you can put them into political groups - like, although I've listed Arizona alone, it moves in synch with the Sun Belt, it's just the most Democratic of the ones the Democrats don't already have and the only one really in range. If I listed all state groups, it would have a number of correlates. Florida, on the other hand, doesn't synch with any state and does entirely its own thing politically.
They disappeared because they wanted to help defeat Trump.
Even Tom Price?? He's as extreme as you can get.
metalslimer
Member
Extreme but still on the scale of choices I could have imagined someone like Pence making. That being said thousands of people will likely die unnecessarily with Republicans in charge. My only hope is that by the time they can even get around to implementing half the stuff they want, they will be out of office.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm increasingly sure that Tammy Duckworth would be my favoured candidate if she were to run. I really hope she does so.
Obviously no point in deciding too early; there's always a chance for revelations. But I do want to see her throw her hat in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtTOKort6gw
This is it. This is a story that middle America knows. She may not look like them, but damn does she talk like them. She's not the coastal elite; she's middle America - but the future of middle America if it is to survive.
Failing that, Klobuchar is also a good option. Neither are leftist darlings, but I don't see one of those in the wings, to be honest. I'll go for anyone that can win.
Obviously no point in deciding too early; there's always a chance for revelations. But I do want to see her throw her hat in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtTOKort6gw
This is it. This is a story that middle America knows. She may not look like them, but damn does she talk like them. She's not the coastal elite; she's middle America - but the future of middle America if it is to survive.
Failing that, Klobuchar is also a good option. Neither are leftist darlings, but I don't see one of those in the wings, to be honest. I'll go for anyone that can win.
I don't know what this has to do with Poligaf, but that vid is glorious.
Sirpopopop
Member
Elaine Chao doesn't cause me to lose sleep.
We've reached a new highwater mark in administration appointments.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Late responding. That's how you or I see it. The right will (and already are) will spin this as another reason to "temporarily" band all muslims.
Nuance is completely (intentionally) lost on the right. They will simplify things to its simplist and most damaging form. Muslim Man from Somalia attempted to murder people on a campus = all muslims should not be allowed to our country to prevent further attacks. In actuality you would need a book(s) explaining how best to respond to this and that is just not as digestible.
Thus why the right has brain washed so many. Their message is simple and fearful and both of those are very powerful tools to relay a message.
Sirpopopop
Member
You mean Tammy Duckworth - who was born in Thailand and thus is a secret Chinese plant to run the U.S. government?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Right. She'll lose the election as badly as Kenyan born Barack Obama, a clear Muslamic infiltration of the United States presidency. I do apologize.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Couple thoughts on this, though I mostly agree with this. The first issue is that I'm not sure how winnable Florida is against Trump, at least with our current vision of the future. Obama would have lost it against him and Clinton had huge success with GOTV here and still lost to the sheer surprise panhandle turnout, unless there's new information I've missed here. Unless the panhandle types abandon him in 2020 because there isn't a wall or anything, I'm not sure what else there is to do here aside from maybe hope that there's even more migration of Puerto Ricans there. It'll also be important to watch how the gubernatorial and senate races go, though as Romney learned in 2012 that's not the only indicator.
Secondly, there should be some level of defense played in Minnesota and New Hampshire, both of which were really narrow wins for Clinton. I'm not aware of NH having much in the way of demographic shifts so I'm not sure what could make it swing one way or the other, but Clinton only winning there by 3k votes shouldn't leave us complacent about it. Minnesota should probably be safer since it had all of the same issues that the other upper Midwestern states had with traditionally rural areas turning Republican but it still held blue, but a couple visits and some infrastructure there is probably a good idea, as well as trying to make sure Franken's seat isn't lost. It'll also benefit from the increased focus on Wisconsin and Michigan but I think making sure it keeps its 40 streak stays strong.
Sirpopopop
Member
The same plot which lead to the rise of Trump.
You think after 4 years of people paying attention to Breitbart that you can run Tammy Duckworth in 2020?
shinra-bansho
Member
She may not look like them. And that's where you can stop the sentence.
Why is he going on a tour when he hasn't even picked a cabinet.
Why is he going on a tour when he hasn't even picked a cabinet.
Might be time to look around you at every Western country and just accept that the West got a lot more racist in the last decade.
That said, I would probably be fine with Duckworth, because we shouldn't kowtow to white supremacy. I just don't think this is a very strong argument.
whyamihere
Banned
I think Harris and Masto are much better public speakers than Duckworth is.
- Status