Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
2008 is relevant because the line that Bernie to Trump voters swung the election against Hillary rings hollow when you realize that her supporters did the same thing in at higher numbers in 2008.What the hell does 2008 have to do with anything?
Hell, I wanted someone besides Hillary, not because she was a bad candidate, but because she had been demonized by the right for so long that there was no way even her supporters didn't have a slightly jaundiced view of her.
I also don't know what universe you live in were a socialist campaigning for someone who, as usual was the most liberal candidate ever running for president, is an actual net gain.
Let’s just look at the Blue Wall, which would have given Clinton enough EC votes to win.if you’re still talking about this shit in the year of our lord 2024, I doubt I’m going to convince you otherwise. But I’d like to at least hear a shred of evidence to support this claim.
Hillary is much more at fault for her loss than the infinitesimal number of Bernie Sanders primary voters that didn’t vote for her in the general election. Did the Bernie Bros tell her not to campaign in the Blue Wall states?
Could it be that the 3rd party vote was higher in 2016 because there were two historically unpopular candidates running?Let’s just look at the Blue Wall, which would have given Clinton enough EC votes to win.
In 2012 & 2020 about 1.3% of Michigan’s total vote went 3rd party. In 2016 it was 4.7%.
In Pennsylvania, 2012 & 2020 were 1.5%. In 2016 it was more than double that.
In Wisconsin, 2012 & 2020 were around 1.6%. In 2016 it was 4.6%.
Nothing about recent historical Republican voting patterns in those states would imply those 3rd party would normally go to Trump in 2016. It was a protest vote against Clinton…and which group within the Dem party was the most outspoken?
Do you have a link for that claim?Meanwhile, polls after the 2008 election show that as a many as 24% of Clinton primary voters voted for McCain the general election.
Yeah, that makes sense, and I’m not questioning the polls that are showing Kamala going from +4 to +2, or even from +2 to tied. I’m still having a hard time, though, understanding how Silver’s model could suddenly give Trump his best odds to win at any time in this entire cycle. I get that small changes in the swing states can have a huge impact on EC projections, but even if Kamala’s lead is shrinking a bit, I’d think his model would still show her in a MUCH stronger position than Biden was right after the debate, for example.Obviously, the RFK endorsement is one thing.
But I think the answer is simpler. When Kamala got into the race, she got a lot of the “generic” democratic vote. Generic Democrat always does better than any specific Democrat. In other words, some of the initial polls were picking up the double hater vote who knew nothing about Harris.
Since then, Republicans have been running nonstop attack ads on Kamala in swing states. As a result, she is losing some of those Generic Democrat voters.
This was always going to happen. It is now up to Kamala to win back some of those voters over the next two months or do an even better negative campaign against Trump.
From WaPo:Do you have a link for that claim?
Agree we’re getting off track and that there were more factors than just Bernie Bros for the loss, so this will be my last post on the topic as well. I just believe of all those factors, that was the one with the biggest impact on the outcome. Especially in those states (like the Blue Wall) that were decided by 1% or less.Could it be that the 3rd party vote was higher in 2016 because there were two historically unpopular candidates running?
There was a segment of the Democratic Party in 2016 that wanted anyone but Clinton. A lot of these people didn’t even have politics that lined up with Bernie, but they voted for him anyways and then voted third-party, Trump, or didn’t vote at all in the general election.
I think we both agree about the above, right? My issue comes when people bring up Bernie Bros, which was a term invented in the heart of the primary to deflect away from the actual issues Bernie brought up. Bernie Bros are coded as young, progressive (usually white) men.
It was not the young progressives who swung the election against Clinton. There were infinitely more factors against Clinton than that, and the fact that she chooses to put Bernie Bros out there as her reason for losing (and that other people continue to parrot this) is just demonstrative of her flaws as a candidate. That’s the last I’ll say about it on this thread because we’re far off topic.
Thanks.From WaPo:
“Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.
An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)”
With the electoral college it is mediocre results. She needs to be winning the popular vote by 4% plus to really feel confident about the stupid EC.Trump trailing = mediocre results for Harris. I love the spin.
I already answered your question a few pages back. You responded that you don't see anything in the data to justify that. Fine, but the response to that is simple: this is why you build a model! Because eyeballing data is extremely unreliable.Yeah, that makes sense, and I’m not questioning the polls that are showing Kamala going from +4 to +2, or even from +2 to tied. I’m still having a hard time, though, understanding how Silver’s model could suddenly give Trump his best odds to win at any time in this entire cycle. I get that small changes in the swing states can have a huge impact on EC projections, but even if Kamala’s lead is shrinking a bit, I’d think his model would still show her in a MUCH stronger position than Biden was right after the debate, for example.
And I’m just questioning the reliability of a model that appears to be inconsistent with the observable data. Maybe his model is great. But if it is, it’s picking up on something right now that’s not showing up in the data.I already answered your question a few pages back. You responded that you don't see anything in the data to justify that. Fine, but the response to that is simple: this is why you build a model! Because eyeballing data is extremely unreliable.
IF poll models are unchanged from 2020With the electoral college it is mediocre results. She needs to be winning the popular vote by 4% plus to really feel confident about the stupid EC.
These wild swings aren’t realistic. She polls +4, then a week or two later she’s +2.With the electoral college it is mediocre results. She needs to be winning the popular vote by 4% plus to really feel confident about the stupid EC.
With all due respect, don't you think the model knows more than you? First, it is fed way more data than you can see, at least if you have a day job (which you do, as I understand it). Second, people are bad at numerical estimates, at least compared to models. Third, the model incorporates a lot of learning from past elections that you're not privy to.And I’m just questioning the reliability of a model that appears to be inconsistent with the observable data. Maybe his model is great. But if it is, it’s picking up on something right now that’s not showing up in the data.