PA-PPP: Clinton 41 Trump 40 Johnson 6

[President Johnson]

But, but... I have been told that TRUMP would lose in a landslide. How is he now almost ahead in Pennsylvania, although he just started to focus on the fall election?

[Seriously?]

You are being mocked because white older blue collar workers were not the "Reagan Democrats" in the 80s. And the actual Reagan Democrats are mostly consistent Republicans now or dead.

I am being mocked because I do not agree with your left wing spin on the "Reagan Democrat" definition. Turn on any mainstream news analysis of PA/the NE/Trump campaign. They are saying the exact same thing as I am. The profile of a "Reagan Democrat" remains the same: white, blue collar, older, sometimes more socially conservative (in a state like PA) that typically votes Democrat.

There are plenty of them in NE PA, where on a statewide level, pro-life Democrats have been elected to state office.

Only on Atlas, is junk that they are spewing on Vox, Salon and the rest of the truly partisan left-wing press considered as gospel.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This isn't a left wing or right wing issue. It's about facts. And citing those clowns in the mainstream media Atlas loves to mock doesn't help your case here.




So...how did all those blue collar voters in western Pennsylvania vote? Even NE Pennsylvania wasn't all that strong for Reagan, he only won Lackawanna one time and by a pretty weak margin compared to his statewide and nationwide numbers. Meanwhile in 1984 Reagan broke 64% in Montgomery county. Most of those blue collar Democrats actually did not vote for Reagan.

The actual Reagan Democrats were mostly conservadems in the South, who are now consistent Republican voters today, or inner suburbanites who were fearing crime and racial tensions. There isn't really a comparable bloc of voters today.

But that's not even the biggest issue with the term. Because most Reagan Democrats whether they returned to the Democratic Party or not later are now either in retirement homes or dead. The youngest someone can be in 2016 and have voted for Reagan is 50, and that means you cast your first vote in 1984, not a lifelong Democrat who crossed over for Reagan. So most blue collar workers ANYWHERE didn't vote for Reagan, they simply weren't old enough. It's been 32 years since the guy was on a ballot anywhere.

It's time to move on and quit trying to define blocs of voters as defined by a 32-year old election, whether those definitions are accurate or not. People weren't still talking about "LBJ Republicans" during Reagan's time, and that was a more recent election than 1980 or 1984 is to today. This term was already effectively meaningless by Bill Clinton's second term, the fact that it's still in use today is sheer insanity.

[Seriously?]

This isn't a left wing or right wing issue. It's about facts. And citing those clowns in the mainstream media Atlas loves to mock doesn't help your case here.




So...how did all those blue collar voters in western Pennsylvania vote? Even NE Pennsylvania wasn't all that strong for Reagan, he only won Lackawanna one time and by a pretty weak margin compared to his statewide and nationwide numbers. Meanwhile in 1984 Reagan broke 64% in Montgomery county. Most of those blue collar Democrats actually did not vote for Reagan.

The actual Reagan Democrats were mostly conservadems in the South, who are now consistent Republican voters today, or inner suburbanites who were fearing crime and racial tensions. There isn't really a comparable bloc of voters today.

But that's not even the biggest issue with the term. Because most Reagan Democrats whether they returned to the Democratic Party or not later are now either in retirement homes or dead. The youngest someone can be in 2016 and have voted for Reagan is 50, and that means you cast your first vote in 1984, not a lifelong Democrat who crossed over for Reagan. So most blue collar workers ANYWHERE didn't vote for Reagan, they simply weren't old enough. It's been 32 years since the guy was on a ballot anywhere.

It's time to move on and quit trying to define blocs of voters as defined by a 32-year old election, whether those definitions are accurate or not. People weren't still talking about "LBJ Republicans" during Reagan's time, and that was a more recent election than 1980 or 1984 is to today. This term was already effectively meaningless by Bill Clinton's second term, the fact that it's still in use today is sheer insanity.

No one is saying that "Regan Democrats" had to vote for Ronald Reagan. We are basically talking about older, white, blue collar, lower-middle class, socially conservative folks that generally pull the lever for Democrats in counties like Luzerne in Pennsylvania.

It's an argument in semantics whether to call them "Reagan Democrats" or "Trump Republicans" at this stage in the game. Trump has shown a proclivity to bring those type of voters into his camp. Most of these voters reside in the NE in more rural areas of Pennsylvania, New York, etc.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

[Seriously?]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

Because they are the same profile of voter up North that haven't assimilated into the Republican Party and haven't really voted Republican in that regard since Reagan in 1984 or Bush (on Reagan's goodwill) in 1988? The term fits if counties like Luzerne flip to the Republican side in this election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

Because they are the same profile of voter up North that haven't assimilated into the Republican Party and haven't really voted Republican in that regard since Reagan in 1984 or Bush (on Reagan's goodwill) in 1988? The term fits if counties like Luzerne flip to the Republican side in this election.

Why is Luzerne County, which at most gave Reagan 53.5% of the vote which was significantly below his national numbers so much of a Reagan Democrat stronghold but Montgomery county which gave Reagan 64.2% of the vote not one?

The term doesn't fit because the people of the profile you're describing about for the most part did not vote for Reagan. The people who did vote for Reagan but then voted Democratic afterwards were not like older blue collar socially conservative people AT ALL, and they don't make up any actual voter bloc today.

Hell Ford actually did better in comparison to his national numbers in Luzerne County in 1976 than Reagan did in 1984. So did George HW Bush in 1988. There's no evidence Reagan had any type of special appeal or personal following in Luzerne County.

[NOVA Green]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

Because they are the same profile of voter up North that haven't assimilated into the Republican Party and haven't really voted Republican in that regard since Reagan in 1984 or Bush (on Reagan's goodwill) in 1988? The term fits if counties like Luzerne flip to the Republican side in this election.

Why is Luzerne County, which at most gave Reagan 53.5% of the vote which was significantly below his national numbers so much of a Reagan Democrat stronghold but Montgomery county which gave Reagan 64.2% of the vote not one?

The term doesn't fit because the people of the profile you're describing about for the most part did not vote for Reagan. The people who did vote for Reagan but then voted Democratic afterwards were not like older blue collar socially conservative people AT ALL, and they don't make up any actual voter bloc today.

Hell Ford actually did better in comparison to his national numbers in Luzerne County in 1976 than Reagan did in 1984. So did George HW Bush in 1988. There's no evidence Reagan had any type of special appeal or personal following in Luzerne County.

Gotta agree with BRTD on this one.... there are many working-class Anglo counties like Coos and Columbia Oregon (FDR Dem counties) that voted against Reagon in '84, as well as blue-collar mill counties in Oregon (Douglas and Linn) that narrowly voted R in '88  (But <PVI) .


Reality is that "Reagan Democrats" in Oregon were actually predominately suburban independent/ Republican leaners, that flirted with Reagan for an election or two, while unfortunately, middle-class voters bought into the crap, while "Working Class Heroes" rejected the agenda, and gradually shifted towards the Republican Party after 2000, because the Democratic Party had become a party of sell-outs since NAFTA, and it wasn't thtat they left the party, it was because the party left them.

Meanwhile, Middle-Class suburbanites and upper-middle-class voters swung heavily toward Reagan in '80 and '84 and the abandoned the Republican Party forever in Oregon in '88 and never looked back,

[Ebsy]

Reagan Democrat was a stupid concept at the time and an even more inane one in the present.

[Seriously?]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

Because they are the same profile of voter up North that haven't assimilated into the Republican Party and haven't really voted Republican in that regard since Reagan in 1984 or Bush (on Reagan's goodwill) in 1988? The term fits if counties like Luzerne flip to the Republican side in this election.

Why is Luzerne County, which at most gave Reagan 53.5% of the vote which was significantly below his national numbers so much of a Reagan Democrat stronghold but Montgomery county which gave Reagan 64.2% of the vote not one?

The term doesn't fit because the people of the profile you're describing about for the most part did not vote for Reagan. The people who did vote for Reagan but then voted Democratic afterwards were not like older blue collar socially conservative people AT ALL, and they don't make up any actual voter bloc today.

Hell Ford actually did better in comparison to his national numbers in Luzerne County in 1976 than Reagan did in 1984. So did George HW Bush in 1988. There's no evidence Reagan had any type of special appeal or personal following in Luzerne County.

Ummm. It's because of the shift in areas like that which allowed Reagan to win in 1980 and complete an utter butt kicking of Mondale in 1984.

If I learned anything from watching the Trump campaign in this cycle, he's mimicking what Reagan did in 1980, even down to the slogan "Make America Great Again." It's the exact rough profile of a voter that he wants to attract to defeat the Democrats this cycle.

[Maxwell]

lol

mumble mumble Reagan Democrats

gets summarily proven wrong

THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO VOTE FOR REAGAN

[Maxwell]

I mean if there's a new branch of Democrats moving over to the Republican column, then just call them Trump democrats.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

Because they are the same profile of voter up North that haven't assimilated into the Republican Party and haven't really voted Republican in that regard since Reagan in 1984 or Bush (on Reagan's goodwill) in 1988? The term fits if counties like Luzerne flip to the Republican side in this election.

Why is Luzerne County, which at most gave Reagan 53.5% of the vote which was significantly below his national numbers so much of a Reagan Democrat stronghold but Montgomery county which gave Reagan 64.2% of the vote not one?

The term doesn't fit because the people of the profile you're describing about for the most part did not vote for Reagan. The people who did vote for Reagan but then voted Democratic afterwards were not like older blue collar socially conservative people AT ALL, and they don't make up any actual voter bloc today.

Hell Ford actually did better in comparison to his national numbers in Luzerne County in 1976 than Reagan did in 1984. So did George HW Bush in 1988. There's no evidence Reagan had any type of special appeal or personal following in Luzerne County.

Ummm. It's because of the shift in areas like that which allowed Reagan to win in 1980 and complete an utter butt kicking of Mondale in 1984.

If I learned anything from watching the Trump campaign in this cycle, he's mimicking what Reagan did in 1980, even down to the slogan "Make America Great Again." It's the exact rough profile of a voter that he wants to attract to defeat the Democrats this cycle.

Yeah that's just not true. I showed that earlier.  Luzerne County was not a notable stronghold for Reagan.

[MT Treasurer]

Trump Democrats or not, Reagan Democrats or not, this state is a must win for the GOP in 2016, unless Trump can carry WI.

[Seriously?]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

Because they are the same profile of voter up North that haven't assimilated into the Republican Party and haven't really voted Republican in that regard since Reagan in 1984 or Bush (on Reagan's goodwill) in 1988? The term fits if counties like Luzerne flip to the Republican side in this election.

Why is Luzerne County, which at most gave Reagan 53.5% of the vote which was significantly below his national numbers so much of a Reagan Democrat stronghold but Montgomery county which gave Reagan 64.2% of the vote not one?

The term doesn't fit because the people of the profile you're describing about for the most part did not vote for Reagan. The people who did vote for Reagan but then voted Democratic afterwards were not like older blue collar socially conservative people AT ALL, and they don't make up any actual voter bloc today.

Hell Ford actually did better in comparison to his national numbers in Luzerne County in 1976 than Reagan did in 1984. So did George HW Bush in 1988. There's no evidence Reagan had any type of special appeal or personal following in Luzerne County.

Ummm. It's because of the shift in areas like that which allowed Reagan to win in 1980 and complete an utter butt kicking of Mondale in 1984.

If I learned anything from watching the Trump campaign in this cycle, he's mimicking what Reagan did in 1980, even down to the slogan "Make America Great Again." It's the exact rough profile of a voter that he wants to attract to defeat the Democrats this cycle.

Yeah that's just not true. I showed that earlier.  Luzerne County was not a notable stronghold for Reagan.

You are looking at it the wrong way. A slight shift in the percentages turns a state from D to R. A 5-6% swing in Luzerne would deliver PA for the Republicans. No one is expecting a double-digit gain in these types of elections. It's more subtile than that.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

You do realize that Walter Mondale was an excellent candidate for the stereotypical blue collar whites? Mondale was the last strand of the old New Deal coalition that put unions and the working man first. Take a look at how Mondale actually won huge swaths of SW PA, the KY and WV coal areas while getting blown out nationally by 18 points. Elections then were much more class based, if you were a working man in a union you voted Democrat. Your boss voted Republican.

[NOVA Green]

You do realize that Walter Mondale was an excellent candidate for the stereotypical blue collar whites? Mondale was the last strand of the old New Deal coalition that put unions and the working man first. Take a look at how Mondale actually won huge swaths of SW PA, the KY and WV coal areas while getting blown out nationally by 18 points. Elections then were much more class based, if you were a working man in a union you voted Democrat. Your boss voted Republican.

Totally agreed....

One item to note about SW PA, is that the destruction of the US Steel Industry at the hands of unfair trade practices, caused a huge out-migration of population from that region, many of whom never returned and found jobs and new lives in other parts of the state/region and country.

"And the Wolf Finally Came: The Decline and Fall of the American Steel Industry" is an excellent and well researched book that is pretty much a classic when it comes to this part of the country and the '70s and '80s.

There are no real magical Reagan Democrats that will swing PA to the Republican column this year. Likely there will be a medium swing towards Trump in rural parts of SW PA and Luzerene, from Obama '08 and/or '12 voters, but will be offset by significant under-performance in the suburbs of Philly and likely Pittsburgh (Allegheny) as well.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Why are we still getting head-to-head polls with Bernie Sanders in them?

[Oak Hills]

Why are we still getting head-to-head polls with Bernie Sanders in them?

The fieldwork for the polls probably started before Hillary clinched…but still, it was silly to include him after about March anyway.