Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Well, the actual graph is behind the paywall but if you want to look at the demographics I guess it would be worth to burn one of the 3 weekly free The Economist views.
How demography will determine the next president
THE 2016 presidential campaign has revealed deep fault lines in American society. Women, the young, non-whites and the educated strongly prefer Hillary Clinton; the opposing groups back Donald Trump. These demographic distinctions have remarkable explanatory power: simply knowing whether someone is white or not, male or female, whether they graduated from college and what state they live in can raise their likelihood of supporting a Democrat all the way from 13% (a white man without a degree in Alabama) to 92% (a non-white woman without a degree in Washington, DC).
These cleavages have been the focus of countless analyses, many focused on the source of the anger expressed by Trump-supporting, non-college-educated white men. Less well-known is their impact on one’s likelihood to show up at the polls. A non-white man without a degree in Hawaii has just a 30% chance of casting a ballot; the figure for a college-educated white woman in Minnesota is 90%. Early-voting data from the current campaign show a modest decline in black turnout, counteracted by a surge among Hispanics.
Barack Obama won the turnout battle decisively in 2012. Had all demographic groups had the same propensity to vote (the national average is 60%), he would have squeaked by with 50.1% of the popular vote; in reality, he secured 51.9%. This year, Mrs Clinton is thought to have an overwhelming edge in the “ground game” over Mr Trump. The four variables that we found improved turnout forecasting when combined with pure census-based projections—state competitiveness, Google searches for voting information, campaign field offices and new voter registrations—do not support this claim. They suggest that the front-runner’s share of the popular vote would only be 0.2 percentage points lower if all demographic groups voted at the same rate. However, Mrs Clinton may have other advantages that we could not measure in our model.
Mr Trump’s hopes of winning depend largely on ushering historic numbers of non-college-educated whites (his best demographic) to the polls, while simultaneously having Mrs Clinton fall well short of Mr Obama’s turnout performance among non-whites. But it would take a pair of truly massive swings to compensate for his polling deficit: turnout among his base would have to rise by 15 percentage points from the 2012 level, while the rate for Mrs Clinton’s would have to fall by the same amount. Given Mr Trump’s shambolic organisational skills, such a one-two punch seems highly unlikely. It will probably take a large—though not unprecedented—polling error to put him over the top.
The results are correlated because people are voting for similar reasons everywhere. The Nazis are going to vote for Trump no matter what State they're in, and the Hispanics are going to vote against him no matter what state they're in. So, you get a really high nazi turnout and a really low Hispanic turnout in one state, and the reasons for that don't seem to anything to do with the idiosyncrasies of that particular state, it's safe bet that similar things will be happening everywhere else.
Hey now. His best demographic is uneducated white people, not stupid people. There's a big difference. 'Uneducated', in this context, means 'poor' more than 'stupid'- they're people who couldn't afford College degrees.
And we're not just talking about uneducated in general, either- we're specifically talking about uneducated white people.
I'm not so sure about the distinction. While I would agree that it is indeed Uneducated White People, I would disagree with the idea that it's "uneducated as in college degree" and more "uneducated as in not aware of the implications of his policies"
"There's not a girl alive who wouldn't be happy being called cute." ~Tamamo-no-MaeWhen we're talking about the uneducated in terms of demographic analysis, as we are in this context, we are absolutely talking about people without college degrees. That's just what the term means there.
Certainly the linked article that provoked this was using it that way- it doesn't even say 'uneducated', it says 'non-college-educated'.
edited 7th Nov '16 7:02:55 PM by Gilphon
So. Final Predictions?
350+ E Vs
51 Senate seats
20 in the House
1 Giant Fuck you to Amerikkka
edited 7th Nov '16 7:18:25 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!350+? You still think Clinton has a shot in Arizona and/or Georgia?
Here's my map: http://www.270towin.com/maps/Ne0eG
307-231, Clinton.
edited 7th Nov '16 7:18:25 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Here's the projection of the Soviet Canuckistani Propaganda Department Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/uspolltracker/
Notably, they have Trump's best case scenario at 265 E Vs.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I mean, she's be lucky to get Iowa and Ohio at this point, let alone Arizona and Georgia. Like, they're not out of reach, but I wouldn't bet on it. I'd rate Alaska as a more likely pickup than Georgia. (In the presidential race. No way the GOP is losing Alaska in Senate or House).
Senate seems likely to be tied, which is shame, because that means there's no way the Dems will hold onto it in 2018.

But it stills means a lot of things have to go right for him in order for him to win using just the current crop of swing states. His best chance is to flip one of the big midwestern states.
edited 7th Nov '16 6:01:17 PM by Galadriel