2020 Presidential Election Results & Exit Polls commentary thread

[Calthrina950]

I'm glad that the election has been finally projected after nearly four days, but it was still far too close to comfort, and much closer then I had anticipated it being. And I am not looking forward to the next four years, from the vantage point of what we'll see with partisan gridlock. Moreover, I fear that the Democratic Party may come to regret winning this election down the road. Yes, it was important to get Trump out, but there will be consequences that will extend into the decade.

[Calthrina950]

I'm glad that the election has been finally projected after nearly four days, but it was still far too close to comfort, and much closer then I had anticipated it being. And I am not looking forward to the next four years, from the vantage point of what we'll see with partisan gridlock. Moreover, I fear that the Democratic Party may come to regret winning this election down the road. Yes, it was important to get Trump out, but there will be consequences that will extend into the decade.

How so?

I've explained many times elsewhere that Democrats could lose their House majority and suffer additional losses at the state level during the 2022 midterms; that Biden's agenda will be blocked by McConnell, assuming Republicans retain the Senate; and that the 2024 election will not be easy for Democrats.

[Calthrina950]

We're to the point where it's actually getting pretty irresponsible for the news outlets to refuse to call the election. At this rate, there is literally a 0% chance that Trump has enough votes left out there to win the electoral college.

One has to wonder if the networks are reluctant to call the election due to memories of what happened during the 2000 election, when they badly botched the Florida call. But of course, it could also be that they are dragging this out for ratings. It's clear that Biden has won Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada. Why give Trump more time to claim fraud and to challenge the results? It doesn't do any of us good.

[Calthrina950]

Looking through the county level swings from NYT. A couple areas stand out (Latinos4Trump, Mormons coming home, trendz in southern Midwest and non-deep south, Blue Wall reforming, angry New England women, D.C. hates orange man)

Geez, though, the bottom really fell out in Colorado and the Atlanta metro for the GOP; I think it's safe to say that Colorado is blue for the foreseeable future, and the Republicans are clearly in freefall in Georgia. Well done, Stacey Abrams; really hope ATL isn't maxed out for Democrats quite yet. This should also be setting off alarm bells for the GOP, because if something like this were to happen in North Carolina the state is instantly light blue, although I'm not sure if the Democrats have as much room to grow there.

Agree with both, although Colorado's shift to the Democrats is thanks to the Denver Metropolitan Area-without which Republicans cannot win here. Biden has become the first Democrat ever to win more than 80% of the vote in Denver, and he carried Arapahoe County with more than 60% of the vote. Adams and Jefferson Counties both backed Biden by double digits; he lost Douglas County by just 7% and El Paso County by 11%, both significant improvements over previous Democratic performances; and he won Larimer County by double digits as well.

However, the Hispanic and WWC swing to Trump could still be observed here. Trump held Huerfano, Las Animas, and Conejos Counties; Biden flipped back Pueblo County, but with only a 2% plurality; and Trump flipped Alamosa County. Trump also managed to hold Grand County in the end, but Chaffee and Garfield Counties did flip to Biden. All in all, I'm still shocked by how much Biden improved over Clinton here; he's getting 55.16%, while Clinton only got 48.16%. The bulk of 2016's third-party vote consolidated behind Biden here, and he also won large numbers of new voters.

[Calthrina950]

Dan Crenshaw slaps down Georgia's newest Qongresswoman:

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1324806575597461504

I see you Dan.

I'm glad that Crenshaw is calling Taylor-Greene out, and this is a reminder of why most people garnered a favorable impression of him when he first ran back in 2018, and can also help explain why he easily won reelection this year. Yes, he's been a staunchly conservative Republican in the House, but he's sane.

[Calthrina950]

Democrats went from holding 87 of the 100 largest counties to 91 of the 100 largest. We are getting there. Who knows we may be at 96/100 come 2024 unless that bipolar county with two names pulls something.

I don't expect 2016 and 2020 suburban trends to continue in 2024.  The downballot races this year show that people have overestimated the extent to which the suburbs were revolting against Republicans.  Rather, they were simply turning against Donald Trump himself.

Weren't you the one who said that Trump would hold Oklahoma County? You turned out to be correct, and it's clear that the suburbs aren't gone for the Republicans. Indeed, they flipped back a number of suburban districts, such as SC-01 and OK-05, and came close in a few others (i.e. IL-14).

[Calthrina950]

Democrats went from holding 87 of the 100 largest counties to 91 of the 100 largest. We are getting there. Who knows we may be at 96/100 come 2024 unless that bipolar county with two names pulls something.

Which are the ones we're not winning yet?

Looking at you, Jim Wells County!

Are you surprised by how Texas turned out? Cornyn won easily, with a almost-identical margin and percentage to what he got in 2002 and 2008, and Trump also won the state without difficulty. Most polls seemed to indicate that Texas was a tossup at the presidential level and a potential upset for Senate.

[Calthrina950]

Democrats went from holding 87 of the 100 largest counties to 91 of the 100 largest. We are getting there. Who knows we may be at 96/100 come 2024 unless that bipolar county with two names pulls something.

Which are the ones we're not winning yet?

Looking at you, Jim Wells County!

Are you surprised by how Texas turned out? Cornyn won easily, with a almost-identical margin and percentage to what he got in 2002 and 2008, and Trump also won the state without difficulty. Most polls seemed to indicate that Texas was a tossup at the presidential level and a potential upset for Senate.

Something I'm curious about but haven't dug into numbers to look at: if Biden had gotten HRC levels of support from Hispanics, would he have won Texas?

Probably not, given that he only matched (or slightly underperformed) Beto O'Rourke's numbers in DFW, Houston, and San Antonio, and did worse than O'Rourke in Austin and El Paso. It would have been closer though, possibly within 1-2%.

[Calthrina950]

I get the feeling the networks are holding out for a primetime call followed by the Biden speech for maximum drama.

Networks don't conspire with each other like that. They all want to be call the race as quickly as they can as soon as they feel confident enough.

Sweet summer child...

The networks have more nefarious motives, and one can see it even with the local news stations. For example, all the local stations where I live (Colorado Springs), treated the Gardner-Hickenlooper race as "competitive" throughout, and acted as if Gardner had a legitimate shot at winning reelection. Anyone who doesn't know much about politics (which is probably the majority of the population) would have been fooled by their coverage. They also made it seem like Trump had an outside shot in Colorado, whereas he has been DOA here from the beginning.

[Calthrina950]

Refusing to call the election when the results are blatantly obvious out of an abundance of caution is one thing, but entertaining wild and extraordinary paths to victory for Trump in front of a national audience is much worse and is what makes me frustrated with the networks right now. There's absolutely no excuse to not call at the very least Nevada at this point.

At this point the refusal to call is enabling Trump and his supporters.

Conspiracy theorists online are already claiming that Democrats are tampering with ballots in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan to give Biden the win-ignoring the fact that Republican downballot candidates are running significantly ahead of Trump, that Trump supporters are harassing poll workers or staging protests in many locations, and that the only incidents of voter fraud which we've heard of thus far (and which are very few) were by Trump voters, not Biden voters.

[Calthrina950]

Senator Casey was just talking to Norah O'Donnell and trying to explain that the provisional ballots aren't counted in the current estimate of outstanding votes, which is why he expects Biden to win by close to 100,000 and she repeatedly challenged him and implied that it would be impossible. He explained Biden will likely lead by 40-50k without provisional ballots and it would expand once those were counted and again he was met with incredulity.

They're sticking with the horse race narrative. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the networks refuse to call any of these states tonight.

These people are evil.

And Jeff Glor-who was uncontroversial and serious in his demeanor-got pushed out by CBS News for the much more sensationalist and less substantive Norah O'Donnell-all for the sake of ratings. The CBS of Walter Cronkite's day and the NBC of the days of Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, or the ABC of Peter Jennings and the NBC of John Chancellor and Tom Brokaw, would have called this election for Biden already.

[Calthrina950]

From a local Atlanta reporter:

https://twitter.com/BrendanKeefe/status/1327340578946904066

I'm just noticing this now, and this is truly an astonishing story. An elderly white woman in Georgia, who has been voting in every presidential election for almost 80 years, and is a lifelong Democrat. It's ironic that the first President she voted for-Roosevelt-was the President under which this year's victor (that she also voted for), Biden, was born. I also saw a story on CBS News a few days before the election about an elderly woman, living in Texas or Arizona I believe, who traveled several hours so that she could vote this year. That woman too, is a lifelong Democrat, having first voted for Harry Truman in 1948. These individuals are living relics of a seemingly distant past who will soon be gone from us.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1329439591892475905
Remind me again why Hillary was wrong for saying half of Trump supporters are awful?

She was not.  Around 50% of Trump supporters are literal criminals yet it's inappropriate to discuss this fact.  Instead we must allow them to engage in their criminality in plain view. 

If Democrats don't hold them accountable when Biden is in office I am going to vote straight Republican in the midterms and tell my elected officials that I'm doing it in protest of their inaction.

"The Republican Party is full of criminals, so if you don't prosecute them, I'll vote for them instead." What kind of logic is that? Why not vote for the Libertarian candidates instead?

Non Swing Voter's posts, from what I've seen, seem to be routinely hyperbolic in their tone and language, and almost seem to be the perfect caricature of the "elitist" suburbanite who is so despised by the Republican base. As I've stated elsewhere, many of those who voted for Trump are indeed morally detestable, but the same can be said for many Biden voters, and such overgeneralizations don't work to the benefit of anyone.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1329439591892475905
Remind me again why Hillary was wrong for saying half of Trump supporters are awful?

She was not.  Around 50% of Trump supporters are literal criminals yet it's inappropriate to discuss this fact.  Instead we must allow them to engage in their criminality in plain view. 

If Democrats don't hold them accountable when Biden is in office I am going to vote straight Republican in the midterms and tell my elected officials that I'm doing it in protest of their inaction.

"The Republican Party is full of criminals, so if you don't prosecute them, I'll vote for them instead." What kind of logic is that? Why not vote for the Libertarian candidates instead?

Non Swing Voter's posts, from what I've seen, seem to be routinely hyperbolic in their tone and language, and almost seem to be the perfect caricature of the "elitist" suburbanite who is so despised by the Republican base. As I've stated elsewhere, many of those who voted for Trump are indeed morally detestable, but the same can be said for many Biden voters, and such overgeneralizations don't work to the benefit of anyone.

Oh please don't #bothsides this. We are experiencing a vast amount of republican officials engaging in an outright attempt to steal an election.

I'm aware of what we're seeing, but it astonishes me how so many on here already seem to be forgetting the lessons which this election's results should have taught us.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1329439591892475905
Remind me again why Hillary was wrong for saying half of Trump supporters are awful?

Fuzzy, where you at? How are you going to spin this one?

"But BLM!!!"

He was probably one of the ones who left the messages.

Shame on you for saying this. Fuzzy Bear is many things, and I know people on here disagree strongly with much of what he says-I certainly do. But to imply that he would threaten violence against another person, or engage in any kind of criminal act, is doing him a great disservice.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1329439591892475905
Remind me again why Hillary was wrong for saying half of Trump supporters are awful?

She was not.  Around 50% of Trump supporters are literal criminals yet it's inappropriate to discuss this fact.  Instead we must allow them to engage in their criminality in plain view. 

If Democrats don't hold them accountable when Biden is in office I am going to vote straight Republican in the midterms and tell my elected officials that I'm doing it in protest of their inaction.

"The Republican Party is full of criminals, so if you don't prosecute them, I'll vote for them instead." What kind of logic is that? Why not vote for the Libertarian candidates instead?

Non Swing Voter's posts, from what I've seen, seem to be routinely hyperbolic in their tone and language, and almost seem to be the perfect caricature of the "elitist" suburbanite who is so despised by the Republican base. As I've stated elsewhere, many of those who voted for Trump are indeed morally detestable, but the same can be said for many Biden voters, and such overgeneralizations don't work to the benefit of anyone.

Oh please don't #bothsides this. We are experiencing a vast amount of republican officials engaging in an outright attempt to steal an election.

I'm aware of what we're seeing, but it astonishes me how so many on here already seem to be forgetting the lessons which this election's results should have taught us.

.... that voters are clearly, for whatever reason, more willing to overlook Republicans flaws than Democrats?

No. The lesson of this election is that the country is deeply polarized, and that Biden's victory was far too close for comfort. Moreover, the Democratic Party is victorious, but it must find ways to improve minority outreach and to resolve the divide between progressives and moderates, as best as can be managed.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1329439591892475905
Remind me again why Hillary was wrong for saying half of Trump supporters are awful?

Fuzzy, where you at? How are you going to spin this one?

"But BLM!!!"

He was probably one of the ones who left the messages.

Shame on you for saying this. Fuzzy Bear is many things, and I know people on here disagree strongly with much of what he says-I certainly do. But to imply that he would threaten violence against another person, or engage in any kind of criminal act, is doing him a great disservice.

It's highly likely that he didn't leave those messages, but Fuzzy Bear is hardly that virtuous. Any time there is any sort of violence from right-wingers he pivots to talking about Black Lives Matter which says to be that he's not interested in condemning violence when his side commits it.

As I said, I don't agree with much of what he says, and I certainly think that's he become obsessed with BLM/Antifa. But he's not the kind of person, I believe, who would threaten violence or blackmail against other individuals. Say what you will about him, but I believe that his faith is genuine, and that he tries to conduct himself morally in his own personal life.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1330353938290401282

The Democratic transition into becoming the party of the wealthy is truly astonishing and depressing.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1330353938290401282

The Democratic transition into becoming the party of the wealthy is truly astonishing and depressing.

Stop it. The Democratic Party isn't the "party of the wealthy" because of this election.

I find it interesting that as soon as I say something that goes against the narrative here, people jump down my throat again. Why should I be surprised at this?

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1330353938290401282

The Democratic transition into becoming the party of the wealthy is truly astonishing and depressing.

Stop it. The Democratic Party isn't the "party of the wealthy" because of this election.

I find it interesting that as soon as I say something that goes against the narrative here, people jump down my throat again. Why should I be surprised at this?

Because your proposition was an overgeneralization.

I don't think so. While I'm well aware that Trump still carried a considerable number of upper-class suburban counties-such as Hamilton, Douglas, and Williamson Counties-and while I'm aware that much of the wealthy still skews Republican, the trend among this demographic towards Democrats is undeniable. I've seen map after map, analysis after analysis, demonstrating how Democrats have made inroads into precincts that once gave solid or overwhelming margins to W. Bush, McCain, and Romney, and which can be said to exemplify this demographic-such as the municipalities in Michigan alluded to above. And as I've stated previously, I believe that these current trends are at odds with the Party's historical mission and founding ideology.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1330353938290401282

The Democratic transition into becoming the party of the wealthy is truly astonishing and depressing.

Stop it. The Democratic Party isn't the "party of the wealthy" because of this election.

I find it interesting that as soon as I say something that goes against the narrative here, people jump down my throat again. Why should I be surprised at this?

Because your proposition was an overgeneralization.

I don't think so. While I'm well aware that Trump still carried a considerable number of upper-class suburban counties-such as Hamilton, Douglas, and Williamson Counties-and while I'm aware that much of the wealthy still skews Republican, the trend among this demographic towards Democrats is undeniable. I've seen map after map, analysis after analysis, demonstrating how Democrats have made inroads into precincts that once gave solid or overwhelming margins to W. Bush, McCain, and Romney, and which can be said to exemplify this demographic-such as the municipalities in Michigan alluded to above. And as I've stated previously, I believe that these current trends are at odds with the Party's historical mission and founding ideology.

Just because some suburbs have shifted doesn't mean that the Democratic Party is the "party of the wealthy". That's not the case at all.

Most people making less than $50,000 voted for Biden. Most non-White voters voted for Biden and we know that many non-White voters are working class. Also, the policies of the Democratic Party has not changed substantially in any way. We all know that the biggest reason for the shift in some suburbs to Democrats is due to higher educational attainment and certianly NOT higher income. Also, Trump's behavior and the sycophantic Republicans behind him is a major cause of this shift.

Finally, you like to respond to being called out by thinking that it's an "attack" on you. It's not, it's CORRECTING you.

It was your tone that I responded adversely to, more then anything else. Of course, I don't want to go back into the trenches that I was thrown into before I took my hiatus, and I'm not going to push this further. It's this kind of mentality that helps to explain why Atlas has been accused of being an echo chamber-and not without justification.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1330353938290401282

The Democratic transition into becoming the party of the wealthy is truly astonishing and depressing.

Stop it. The Democratic Party isn't the "party of the wealthy" because of this election.

I find it interesting that as soon as I say something that goes against the narrative here, people jump down my throat again. Why should I be surprised at this?

Because your proposition was an overgeneralization.

I don't think so. While I'm well aware that Trump still carried a considerable number of upper-class suburban counties-such as Hamilton, Douglas, and Williamson Counties-and while I'm aware that much of the wealthy still skews Republican, the trend among this demographic towards Democrats is undeniable. I've seen map after map, analysis after analysis, demonstrating how Democrats have made inroads into precincts that once gave solid or overwhelming margins to W. Bush, McCain, and Romney, and which can be said to exemplify this demographic-such as the municipalities in Michigan alluded to above. And as I've stated previously, I believe that these current trends are at odds with the Party's historical mission and founding ideology.

This line of thinking is deeple flawed. The well educated have trended heavily D since the GOP chose to go down the route of stupidity. A lot of well educated people are also fairly well of financially. But it is not the financial elite that is turning D but the educated elite. If you take any one group of education, higher income is correlated with being more right wing.

Well, considering that much of the "financial elite" is comprised of Wall Street moguls, many of whom are among the Democratic Party's most prominent and ardent donors, this doesn't seem to be as much of a distinction as you make it to be. That also leaves aside the fact that some of the wealthiest men in this country-Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mike Bloomberg, the founders of Google, etc-are all aligned politically with the Democratic Party in some way. But I digress.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1330353938290401282

The Democratic transition into becoming the party of the wealthy is truly astonishing and depressing.

Stop it. The Democratic Party isn't the "party of the wealthy" because of this election.

I find it interesting that as soon as I say something that goes against the narrative here, people jump down my throat again. Why should I be surprised at this?

Because your proposition was an overgeneralization.

I don't think so. While I'm well aware that Trump still carried a considerable number of upper-class suburban counties-such as Hamilton, Douglas, and Williamson Counties-and while I'm aware that much of the wealthy still skews Republican, the trend among this demographic towards Democrats is undeniable. I've seen map after map, analysis after analysis, demonstrating how Democrats have made inroads into precincts that once gave solid or overwhelming margins to W. Bush, McCain, and Romney, and which can be said to exemplify this demographic-such as the municipalities in Michigan alluded to above. And as I've stated previously, I believe that these current trends are at odds with the Party's historical mission and founding ideology.

This line of thinking is deeple flawed. The well educated have trended heavily D since the GOP chose to go down the route of stupidity. A lot of well educated people are also fairly well of financially. But it is not the financial elite that is turning D but the educated elite. If you take any one group of education, higher income is correlated with being more right wing.

Well, considering that much of the "financial elite" is comprised of Wall Street moguls, many of whom are among the Democratic Party's most prominent and ardent donors, this doesn't seem to be as much of a distinction as you make it to be. That also leaves aside the fact that some of the wealthiest men in this country-Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mike Bloomberg, the founders of Google, etc-are all aligned politically with the Democratic Party in some way. But I digress.

Um, just like any other group of people, wealthy people aren't a monolith. Of course, there has always been wealthy people who have voted for the Democratic Party.

There are wealthy people who are Democrats but the Democratic Party isn't the "party of the wealthy". Also, I've already explained to you the shift of some wealthy people to the Democrats. It's NOT due to higher income.

I'm well aware that wealthy people aren't a monolith, and I'm aware of the widening divide between college-educated and non-college educated voters. The point that I'm trying to make is that the Democratic Party, experiencing the declines that it has with unionized voters, blue-collar voters, and working-class voters-not just WWC voters, but also minority working-class voters, as the swings in the Rio Grande Valley, and Trump's improvement among black men demonstrated-is taking on more of a urbane, middle to upper class cast then what it has possessed previously.

And much of what we've heard about the Party's social messaging and social policies-on the contentious issues such as abortion, identity politics, and the like-are clearly emanating from these upper-class voters. Such ideas could only spur more socially conservative working-class voters to move into the Republican Party as time progresses. And I don't think that is a good thing. Voters have demonstrated through referendums and such that they do tend to be more economically progressive, but they can't identify with a Party which they feel clashes with their basic values.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1330353938290401282

The Democratic transition into becoming the party of the wealthy is truly astonishing and depressing.

Stop it. The Democratic Party isn't the "party of the wealthy" because of this election.

I find it interesting that as soon as I say something that goes against the narrative here, people jump down my throat again. Why should I be surprised at this?

There is a pretty strong correlation this election of counties gaining population swinging towards Biden and those losing population swinging towards Trump.  Now historically, counties that are struggling tend to swing against the incumbent party while those doing well swing towards it.  It shows just how dominant education and cultural issues are right now that the pattern has been disrupted. Wealthy tend to live in culturally diverse and vibrant areas and appreciate that especially compared to the fascist Republicanism.

This actually alludes to something which was brought to my attention recently. This article highlights how bankers-both executives and employees-overwhelmingly favored Biden, with their financial contributions and endorsements, over Trump. Republican policies have been much more favorable to the banks, and they benefited in particular from the 2017 Trump tax cuts. However, banks feel themselves to be more in alignment with Democratic "values", on issues such as climate change, income inequality, immigration, and foreign investment, among other things, and are hence more supportive of Democrats. In a way, banks are acting against their own interests, as expressed in the form of the bottom line.

[Calthrina950]

The Democratic transition into becoming the party of the wealthy is truly astonishing and depressing.

Biden won voters making <$50k by 11 points and voters making $50k-$99k by 15 points... and Trump won voters making $100k+ by 12 points.

But sure. Democrats are becoming the party of the wealthy and elite. eyeroll

The key word is becoming, not that they actually are. All political realignments take time, and 2020 is a continuation of the trends we've seen in every election, midterm or otherwise, since the beginning of this century-particularly those of 2016 and 2018. And in the article that I posted, it is mentioned that bank employees preferred Mitt Romney (Mr. "47%"), with their donations over Obama and Biden in 2012, but switched to Clinton in 2016 and Biden this year. That's another sign of the changing times.