EXIT POLLS & TURNOUT DATA - The Red Shift

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 573
  • Views: 16K
  • Politics 
wmheel1287 said:
I don't know about that. Of all the bullshit that was thrown at Harris I thought the one that made sense to me was "if youre different why aren't you doing it now". While I logically understand a VP doesn't set policy, I don't think that wall was going to be broken through.
Click to expand...
I think the better way to counter that would have been to ask Trump why he didn’t implement all these great ideas 4+ years ago. Trump was actually POTUS. For half his term he had a Trifecta. And yet he never moved to eliminate taxes on tips or overtime or any of the other pie in the sky BS he promised in this campaign.
 
Paine said:
You’re kind of proving his point though.
Click to expand...
No, I just feel like professional contrarians are not worth the time and definitely not fascinating. His self selecting population on substack is not indicative of anything.
My personal experience doesn’t match with his at all
 
Paine said:
I mean, I agree with this population being self selecting but I don’t think it tells us nothing. I think liberals and leftists are a lot more averse to disagreement in general.

The inability to confront disagreement within the Democratic Party isn’t a good recipe for a successful political operation. Silver isn’t a “professional contrarian” just because he says things liberals don’t like to hear.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to argue with you cause i just don’t want to lol but
1. If his point is that online liberals are more annoying and disagree with him more than moderate republicans who pay for nate silvers substack, No shit. That is not fascinating, Which was what i initially said. The left is notorious for purity tests- hell it’s cost us 2 elections in the last quarter century.
2. His covid takes bordered on bullshit contrarianism, but whatever, i’ll rescind that
 

CHARLIE COOK:


More a Ripple Than a Wave​

NOVEMBER 14, 2024​
This may be the most misunderstood election in modern American political history, even given that it came immediately after another misunderstood result in 2022. It was, if anything, a bifurcated election. As horrific as the presidential outcome was for Democrats, those claiming that it was a wipeout haven’t looked very closely at what happened below the top of the ballot, where the extraordinary thing is how ordinary the results were.

In the House, which is a far better barometer of where the country is than the Senate, after zillions of dollars were spent, the net change will be minimal—within a couple seats of the 221-214 majority Republicans held going into the election. Virtually nothing happened (unless you are or work for someone who lost). Republicans will almost certainly have a majority, though a tiny one—probably the tightest margins for the House since the 72nd Congress (1931-33), when they had 218 seats to Democrats' 216 (although Democrats did get to organize the House because of deaths of several Republican members after the election but before the swearing-in took place). The kind of change in the House may well be little more than a rounding error.

Senate races are more representative of the map and calendar than the national mood. With only a third of the seats facing the voters every two years, it matters which third, which states, and which members are up.

...Two years ago, many mistakenly laid Republicans' underperformance at the feet of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that struck down Roe v. Wade. The Court motivated voters who support abortion rights, the theory goes, and juiced turnout for Democrats. In reality, however, Democrats won 10 million fewer votes for the House than in the previous midterm election, while Republicans won 3.7 million more votes than in 2018. No, 2022 was not about Dobbs—it was about Republicans nominating about two dozen terrible candidates in critical races, election denialism being a fairly common thread. This time, abortion initiatives did fairly well but did not help Democrats up or down the ballot. This issue is neither a silver bullet nor a get-out-of-jail-free card for the party.

Not surprisingly given recent history, swing states and undecided voters did not split down the middle. They broke overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. In terms of the undecided vote, look at the New York Times average of presidential race polls, both national and in swing states. Kamala Harris’s poll average was almost precisely what she ended up winning, which means that Trump won practically all of the undecided votes. At this point, Trump has a majority of the votes counted, with 50.4 percent to 48 percent for Harris. Once all of the votes cast are totaled, mostly in Democratic states on the West Coast, he will likely be just above or below 50 percent. ..."
 
Paine said:
I mean, I agree with this population being self selecting but I don’t think it tells us nothing. I think liberals and leftists are a lot more averse to disagreement in general.

The inability to confront disagreement within the Democratic Party isn’t a good recipe for a successful political operation. Silver isn’t a “professional contrarian” just because he says things liberals don’t like to hear.
Click to expand...
The idea that "Trump is open to all comers" is the most mind-boggling take on this election that I've seen.

Do people like Nate just not pay attention at all?
 
Paine said:
I mean, I agree with this population being self selecting but I don’t think it tells us nothing. I think liberals and leftists are a lot more averse to disagreement in general.

The inability to confront disagreement within the Democratic Party isn’t a good recipe for a successful political operation. Silver isn’t a “professional contrarian” just because he says things liberals don’t like to hear.
Click to expand...

Michael Lind makes the same point--as well as a number of other interesting ones--on the most recent episode of Ezra Klein's podcast:

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | The End of the Obama Coalition

Michael Lind on why Democrats are losing the core of their base.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
nycfan said:
Not surprisingly given recent history, swing states and undecided voters did not split down the middle. They broke overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. In terms of the undecided vote, look at the New York Times average of presidential race polls, both national and in swing states. Kamala Harris’s poll average was almost precisely what she ended up winning, which means that Trump won practically all of the undecided votes. At this point, Trump has a majority of the votes counted, with 50.4 percent to 48 percent for Harris. Once all of the votes cast are totaled, mostly in Democratic states on the West Coast, he will likely be just above or below 50 percent. ..."
Click to expand...
I think it's become clear that the undecided voters were not undecided at all. As people have been saying, they had reached their decision. They just hadn't become fully comfortable with it yet. Like my mom, who swore off Trump but then had to vote for him because Kamala was so bad. Did she have any actual reasons for not liking Kamala? You know the answer. She was undecided until the end, she said, but I knew what she was going to do. She was just searching for any way to square what she was about to do with her idealized understanding of herself.

And the way I know she voted for Trump was that she bragged to her kids in 2020 that she didn't vote for president at all, as opposed to voting Trump. She didn't do that this year.
 
Paine said:
The inability to confront disagreement within the Democratic Party isn’t a good recipe for a successful political operation. Silver isn’t a “professional contrarian” just because he says things liberals don’t like to hear.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem, ironically, is that all of the factions in the Democratic party are represented by intelligent people who are committed to liberal ideals and truth-seeking through dialogue. That means a few things:

1. It's hard for any faction to consistently get the upper-hand in any durable way. As much as leftists complain that they are locked out, that's a relative assessment. They aren't locked out the way dissenting views are locked out in the GOP. And while leftists like Bernie might struggle to gain traction, his ideas can gain currency or at least respect.

2. To the extent that our disagreements become vehement, it's mostly because there's so much at stake. For a decade, our collective sense has been that we put the country and the planet at risk every time we lose an election. And unlike the GOP's corresponding fears, ours isn't invented bullshit -- and just in case anyone had any doubts, Trump is doing his best to dispel them.

For instance, I think to this day that Bernie Sanders weakened HRC and contributed to her election loss. That has been known to happen in primaries. Pat Buchanan weakened Bush 41 -- and so conservatives ended up with the peace and prosperity of the Clinton presidency. If Obama had been primaried in 12 and lost, I would have been pissed but I'd probably get over it. We would have had a bad presidency, and then we'd elect a new leader and we'd go on as before. We've survived bad presidencies.

But when the enemy is literal fascism, then these disagreements become magnified.

3. Because we don't have an idiot caucus, and because our people tend to strive toward broad buy-in as a proxy for consensus (which is impossible), our factions tend not to attempt to crush each other. Dems would never try to destroy our Adam Kinzingers. The closest examples we have are Manchin or Sinema, and our extreme frustration with them wasn't a) because they are "disloyal" to the leaders; and b) because they were blind to what was coming (see point 2). Well, at least my extreme frustration was because of that. It's not that Sinema's ideas are always wrong; she just didn't meet the moment.

So the upshot of that is that we disagree a lot. And it gets emotional when so much is at stake. And none of us are willing to crush the others with an iron boot. That's what differentiates us from the GOP. We don't have an idiot caucus who has to resort to naked power because of its inability to muster anything like a coherent set of policies, world view or even articulate basic political values.
 


“… Trump won Dearborn, where more than half the population is of Middle Eastern or North African descent, by capturing 42 percent of votes to Harris’s 36 percent; the Green Party’s Jill Stein also took a substantial 18 percent of the vote in the city. In neighborhoods within the city where Arab Americans are the majority, such as eastern Dearborn, Harris performed even worse.

For example, in 2020, Biden beat Trump in eastern Dearborn by nearly 10,000 votes. On Election Day this year, the Detroit Free Press reports that Trump defeated Harris in eastern Dearborn by nearly 3,700 votes, accumulating 45 percent of the vote in 2024 after receiving only 18 percent in 2020 resulting in a 27 percent swing toward Trump that demonstrates how the Democrats’ refusal to restrain Israel as it destroyed Gaza likely pushed Arab Americans to the right.

Election results in the state came down to many factors—but a crucial one was who could make the biggest inroads with the Arab American community. The Democrats’ failure is clearest in Michigan’s 12th Congressional District, which includes Dearborn and Detroit and is represented by Palestinian American Rep. Rashida Tlaib. Preliminary results indicate that she won her reelection bid by nearly 161,000 votes against Republican challenger James Hooper—more than double Trump’s entire statewide margin. …”
 
nycfan said:


“… Trump won Dearborn, where more than half the population is of Middle Eastern or North African descent, by capturing 42 percent of votes to Harris’s 36 percent; the Green Party’s Jill Stein also took a substantial 18 percent of the vote in the city. In neighborhoods within the city where Arab Americans are the majority, such as eastern Dearborn, Harris performed even worse.

For example, in 2020, Biden beat Trump in eastern Dearborn by nearly 10,000 votes. On Election Day this year, the Detroit Free Press reports that Trump defeated Harris in eastern Dearborn by nearly 3,700 votes, accumulating 45 percent of the vote in 2024 after receiving only 18 percent in 2020 resulting in a 27 percent swing toward Trump that demonstrates how the Democrats’ refusal to restrain Israel as it destroyed Gaza likely pushed Arab Americans to the right.

Election results in the state came down to many factors—but a crucial one was who could make the biggest inroads with the Arab American community. The Democrats’ failure is clearest in Michigan’s 12th Congressional District, which includes Dearborn and Detroit and is represented by Palestinian American Rep. Rashida Tlaib. Preliminary results indicate that she won her reelection bid by nearly 161,000 votes against Republican challenger James Hooper—more than double Trump’s entire statewide margin. …”
Click to expand...

To be clear, her district is more than Dearborn, so would need better data to figure out how many voted for Tlaib and Trump.
 
(Cont’d)

“… Dearborn Heights’ independent mayor, Bill Bazzi—a Muslim immigrant from Lebanon who served in the United States Marines—also supported Trump. In an interview with Politico, Bazzi expressed his anger toward Harris’s campaign: “My main objective is about peace and economic prosperity for our country. But what really pushed me over the edge is when Kamala Harris brought Liz Cheney to our backyard.”

… “I just had a flashback to when her dad [former Vice President Dick Cheney] started the war in Iraq. … So now you bring a Cheney to our backyard, whose family started a war, and now we’re in a war,” Bazzi told Politico, adding, That’s when I was like, enough of this! I decided to go forward with a public endorsement after I chatted with President Trump to find out his platform. He’s a man of peace.”

… Harris’s choice to campaign with the Cheneys was widely perceived as appealing to a pro-Iraq War constituency that no longer exists—adding to the sense that Harris was a candidate out of her depth politically.

…
However, despite their disdain for the president-elect, some voters in Michigan believe that the conditions in Gaza and South Lebanon cannot get any worse regardless of who is the next U.S. president.

Saba Saed, a Palestinian American who voted for Stein, echoed a similar sentiment to Foreign Policy, expressing her indifference toward the idea that Trump will exacerbate Palestinian and Lebanese suffering any further: “It’s hard to care when they’re clearly just lying [about Gaza and South Lebanon]. I don’t know anymore. What’s worse than what’s going on right now in Gaza?” Saed asked.“
 
This is exactly why American suffering needs to be pronounced under Trump. Without true consequences, people will never acknowledge the mistakes of putting Trump in office. For too long they've taken every single freedom for granted.

The culling must occur in the most prolific and painful ways possible before this country gets it.
 
Last edited:
CallMeTyler said:
This is exactly why American suffering needs to be pronounced under Trump. Without true consequences, people will never acknowledge the mistakes of putting Trump in office.
Click to expand...
In 2004, we suffered due to wars. What was the result of that election? In 2020, yep we suffered and threw Trump out. But four years later where are we now? What you are talking about is a kind of "reactionary politics" as the way to win the Presidency. Otherwords, they screw up and we win. That's not a fundamental way of winning in my opinion.
 
nycfan said:


“… Trump won Dearborn, where more than half the population is of Middle Eastern or North African descent, by capturing 42 percent of votes to Harris’s 36 percent; the Green Party’s Jill Stein also took a substantial 18 percent of the vote in the city. In neighborhoods within the city where Arab Americans are the majority, such as eastern Dearborn, Harris performed even worse.

For example, in 2020, Biden beat Trump in eastern Dearborn by nearly 10,000 votes. On Election Day this year, the Detroit Free Press reports that Trump defeated Harris in eastern Dearborn by nearly 3,700 votes, accumulating 45 percent of the vote in 2024 after receiving only 18 percent in 2020 resulting in a 27 percent swing toward Trump that demonstrates how the Democrats’ refusal to restrain Israel as it destroyed Gaza likely pushed Arab Americans to the right.

Election results in the state came down to many factors—but a crucial one was who could make the biggest inroads with the Arab American community. The Democrats’ failure is clearest in Michigan’s 12th Congressional District, which includes Dearborn and Detroit and is represented by Palestinian American Rep. Rashida Tlaib. Preliminary results indicate that she won her reelection bid by nearly 161,000 votes against Republican challenger James Hooper—more than double Trump’s entire statewide margin. …”
Click to expand...


close up jaguar GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top