Cumulative House Results by State
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:16:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Cumulative House Results by State
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Cumulative House Results by State  (Read 29300 times)
Vern
vern1988
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,166
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.30, S: -0.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2018, 04:11:04 PM »

This actually doesn't seem like a half bad basemap for 2020, with maybe Iowa switched to the Republicans.


#UtahUnder60

Iowa has voted for the Democratic nominee in three of the last five Presidential elections and six of the last eight. At this point, I would consider the aggregate count of votes for Representatives as good proxies for a Presidential election that has the same electoral mix as for the preceding (now just decided) midterm. Although the Senate election results for seats is distorted by more Democratic seats at risk this time (effect will be reduced in 2020), the national result for the Senate is still advantage D.

Donald Trump is extremely polarizing, and many people voted to either support him or give him an ugly message. One way or the other, much of the vote is about Trump.

LOL
imagine using Iowas popular vote in a state with 4 districts where one of the districts is super red but had a really bad incumbent who won by 3 points. No you can't use Iowa's popular vote. Iowas 4th rural hicks will outvote the less racist rural hicks in the other 3 districts.

Your post is what is wrong with America today. Just because you vote Republican and live in a rural area doesn't mean you are racist.

9 times out of 10 it does

That is not true.

I’m guessing you haven’t lived for a significant amount of time in a rural white area

I grew up in rural NC Tongue
Logged
Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2018, 12:35:21 AM »

Amazing how intensely the dam on that New Jersey dummymander broke.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2018, 09:58:06 AM »

Amazing how intensely the dam on that New Jersey dummymander broke.

F NJ GOP.

yeah really did become a dummymander thanks to Lobiondo's retirement and tom's being pushy on issues(you shouldn't be frontline on controversial issues.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2018, 05:33:41 PM »

Circle-jerking about superiority to the "racist hicks" is a classic way for supercilious urbanites to avoid self-reflection about their own flaws and prejudices.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2018, 05:19:13 AM »
« Edited: November 15, 2018, 06:45:32 AM by 136or142 »

It would be cool to do the 2016 numbers as well then do a trend map Smiley

Also, NC numbers just go to show you have uneven the CD are made.

Can't make trend maps myself, but these are the final 2016 state by state numbers based on the certified results that I compiled myself.  Remember, none of the 2018 numbers have been certified.  There was even one state in 2016 where the certified numbers were slightly changed and I thought to myself 'what if there had been a really close Presidential election and the slight changes in numbers changed who won the state and the Presidency?'  I can just imagine "Well, heck, it seems the other person won."

I had been planning to post these results for nearly two years, but there was a discrepancy between the total number of votes recorded by whichever government body keeps the aggregate Congressional vote, and my vote totals based on the Secretary of State certified numbers. (It seems not all the Secretary of State figures include the write in totals.)  There are also differences with numbers based on which party to count the 'fusion ballots' for for the states that have them.  I list them as with either the Democrats or Republicans, others count them as votes for the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or whoever else.  Taking out these discrepancies, the total numbers for the Democrats and Republicans I have are the same as the numbers provided on that government website.

2016 results
Alabama: 1,889,685
Republican: 1,222,018, 64.7%, 6 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 621,911, 32.9%, 5 Democrats on ballot

Alaska: 308,198
Republican: 155,088, 50.3%
Democratic: 111,019, 36.0%

Arizona: 2,412,964
Republican: 1,266,013, 52.5%, 8 Republicans on ballot (a write-in Republican received 1,635 votes)
Democratic: 1,035,587, 42.9%, 8 Democrats on ballot

Arkansas: 1,068,577
Republican: 760,415, 71.2%
Democratic: 111,347, 10.4%, 1 Democrat on ballot

California: 13,414,018
Republican: 4,682,033, 34.9%, 44 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 8,624,432, 64.3%, 53 Democrats on ballot and 7 D vs D races

Colorado: 2,701,438
Republican: 1,288,618, 47.7%
Democratic: 1,263,791, 46.8%

Connecticut: 1,575,183
Republican: 568,134, 36.1%
Democratic: 990,139, 62.9%

Delaware: 420,617
Republican: 172,301, 41.0%
Democratic: 233,534, 55.5%

Florida: 8,837,426
Republican: 4,733,630, 53.6%
Democratic: 3,985,050, 45.1%
24th district (Frederica Wilson) uncontested and not on the ballot

Georgia: 3,772,862
Republican: 2,272,460, 60.2%, 13 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 1,498,437, 39.7%, 10 Republicans on ballot

Hawaii: 412,873
Republican: 85,626, 20.7%
Democratic: 316,265, 76.6%

Idaho: 681,594
Republican: 447,544, 65.7%
Democratic: 208,992, 30.7%

Illinois: 5,241,767
Republican: 2,397,436, 45.7%, 16 Democrats on ballot
Democratic: 2,810,536, 53.6%, 16 Republicans on ballot

Indiana: 2,658,367
Republican: 1,442,989, 54.3%, 8 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 1,052,901, 39.6%, 9 Democrats on ballot

Iowa: 1,515,555
Republican: 813,153, 53.7%
Democratic: 673,969 44.5%

Kansas: 1,173,736
Republican: 694,240, 59.2%
Democratic: 317,635, 27.1%, 3 Democrats on ballot

Kentucky: 1,765,376
Republican: 1,248,140, 70.7%
Democratic: 516,904, 29.3%, 4 Democrats on ballot

Louisiana: 1,804,256
Republican: 1,198,764, 66.4%, Republican candidates in 5 districts
Democratic: 564,064, 31.3%, Democratic candidates in 5 districts
This is totaled from combining the election day result for each party, and not based on any runoffs.

Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2018, 05:35:29 AM »
« Edited: November 15, 2018, 06:45:09 AM by 136or142 »

2016 U.S House results continued
Maine 742,494
Republican: 357,447, 48.1%
Democratic: 384,547, 51.8%

Maryland: 2,707,745
Republican: 962,088, 35.5%
Democrat: 1,636,200, 60.4%

Massachusetts: 2,939,968
Republican: 451,121, 15.3%, 4 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 2,343,798, 79.7%

Michigan: 4,670,905
Republican: 2,243,402, 48.0%
Democratic: 2,193,980, 47.0%

Minnesota: 2,860,432
Republican: 1,334,686, 46.7%
Democratic: 1,434,590, 50.2%

Mississippi: 1,182,273
Republican: 680,810, 57.6%
Democratic: 449,896, 38.1%

Missouri: 2,750,079
Republican: 1,600,524, 58.2%
Democratic: 1,041,306, 37.9%

Montana: 507,831
Republican: 285,358, 56.2%
Democratic: 205,919, 40.6%

Nebraska: 788,266
Republican: 557,557, 70.7%
Democratic: 221,069, 28.0%, 2 Democrats on ballot

Nevada: 1,078,497
Republican: 498,104, 46.2%
Democratic: 508,113, 47.1%

New Hampshire: 715,844
Republican: 316,001, 44.1%
Democratic: 336,451, 47.0%

New Jersey: 3,463,331
Republican: 1,541,671, 44.5%
Democratic: 1,821,620, 52.6%

New Mexico: 780,125
Republican: 343,123, 44.0%
Democratic: 436,932, 56.0%

New York: 7,095,581
Republican: 2,542,778, 35.8%, 24 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 4,456,646, 62.8%

North Carolina: 4,598,458
Republican: 2,447,326, 53.2%
Democratic: 2,142,661, 46.6%

North Dakota: 338,459
Republican: 233,980, 69.1%
Democratic: 80,377, 23.8%

Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2018, 05:59:48 AM »
« Edited: November 15, 2018, 06:52:06 AM by 136or142 »

2016 U.S House results continued
Ohio 5,218,355
Republican: 2,996,017, 57.4%
Democratic: 2,154,523, 41.3%

Oklahoma: 1,133,244
Republican: 781,691, 69.0%
Democratic: 305,222, 26.9%
Oklahoma 1st House district (Jim Bridenstine) was uncontested and was not on the ballot.

Oregon: 1,911,865
Republican: 730,894, 38.2%, 4 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 1,026,851, 53.7%

Pennsylvania: 5,743,978
Republican: 3,096,576, 53.9%, 17 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 2,625,157, 45.7%, 16 Democrats on ballot

Rhode Island: 431,519
Republican: 141,324, 32.8%
Democratic: 263,642, 61.1%

South Carolina: 2,011,746
Republican: 1,177,365, 58.5%
Democratic: 790,303, 39.3%

South Dakota: 369,973
Republican:  237,163, 64.1%
Democratic: 132,810, 35.9%

Tennessee: 2,391,061
Republican: 1,493,740, 62.5%
Democratic: 814,181, 34.1%

Texas: 8,528,526
Republican: 4,877,605, 57.2%, 34 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 3,160,535, 37.1%, 28 Democrats on ballot

Utah: 1,114,170
Republican: 710,656, 63.8%
Democratic: 356,290, 32.0%

Vermont: 295,334
Republican: ---------, -----, 0 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 264,414, 89.5%

Virginia: 3,781,608
Republican: 1,843,010, 48.7%, 10 Republicans on ballot
Democratic: 1,859,466, 49.2%

Washington: 3,141,035
Republican: 1,404,890, 44.7%, 1 R vs R race
Democratic: 1,736,145, 55.3%, 1 D vs D race

West Virginia: 686,349
Republican: 445,017, 64.8%
Democratic: 224,449, 32.7%

Wisconsin: 2,768,094
Republican: 1,270,448, 45.9%, 6 Republicans on ballot, though one write in received 169 votes
Democratic: 1,379,996, 49.9%

Wyoming: 251,776
Republican: 156,176, 62.0%
Democratic: 75,466, 30.0%

Total: 128,653,413
Republican: 63,207,150, 49.1%
Democratic: 61,800,098, 48.0%

As an aside, for those who think that Hillary Clinton was such a bad candidate, she not only, unlike the U.S House Democrats, got the highest share of the vote in her race, she got a slightly higher share of the vote than the aggregate U.S House Democratic vote.

I also have the 2014 results if anybody is interested.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2018, 06:46:45 AM »
« Edited: November 16, 2018, 09:21:59 AM by 136or142 »

As far as I can tell, leaving out Pennsylvania obviously, the only two Republican House members who won in 2016 by less than 10% of the vote who were reelected were Don Bacon and Will Hurd.

Excluding Pennsylvania, I believe this is the correct breakdown.

There were 64 districts the Democrats lost by under 20% in 2016, the Democrats won 27 of them (with Utah-4 still uncalled.)

There were 35 districts the Democrats lost by under 25% in 2016, the Democrats won 8 of them (with Georgia-7th still uncalled.)

The two districts the Democrats won this election that they 'lost' by more than 25% in 2016 were the New Mexico-2nd district where Democrats won Steve Pearce's open district. (I wouldn't be surprised if Pearce runs again here in 2020 just as he did in 2010) and the Texas-32nd district where no Democratic candidate ran in 2016.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2018, 02:27:24 PM »

It is worth noting that gerrymandering not only suppresses the number of seats produced by A party's Ron National vote total, it suppresses the overall National vote total as well. Gerrymandered safe seats produce lower grade candidates with far less funding or institutional support. Good candidates aren't going to give up potential legislative seat or other job opportunity for a doomed run in a gerrymandered safe seat, and donors aren't about to waste their money they're either. Putting those same gerrymandered areas into competitive redrawn districts will largely produce better quality and better funded candidates who obviously perform better.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2018, 10:08:36 PM »

It is worth noting that gerrymandering not only suppresses the number of seats produced by A party's Ron National vote total, it suppresses the overall National vote total as well. Gerrymandered safe seats produce lower grade candidates with far less funding or institutional support. Good candidates aren't going to give up potential legislative seat or other job opportunity for a doomed run in a gerrymandered safe seat, and donors aren't about to waste their money they're either. Putting those same gerrymandered areas into competitive redrawn districts will largely produce better quality and better funded candidates who obviously perform better.

I thought the Democratic candidates in Ohio, Texas and North Carolina were decent.  The Republican candidates in Maryland, generally not so much, but they were no worse than the Republican candidates throughout the U.S.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2018, 09:56:34 PM »

Right now the national popular vote stands at +7.7% D according to Dave Wasserman, and is projected to finish somewhere between +8% & +9% when the remaining approximately 5 million more votes have been counted. If we say it's gonna end at +8.5%, well then these states are the ones coming the closest to the national popular vote, ranked:


1. Colorado

Democrats: 1,252,603 (52.4%) (+8.4%)
Republicans: 1,050,938 (44.0%)


2. Wisconsin

Democrats: 1,358,156 (53.1%) (+7.3%)
Republicans: 1,171,456 (45.8%) (1 uncontested race)


3. Pennsylvania

Democrats: 2,669,469 (54.9%) (+10.1%)
Republicans: 2,179,246 (44.8%) (1 uncontested race)


3. Michigan

Democrats: 2,108,119 (52.0%) (+6.9%)
Republicans: 1,826,335 (45.1%) (1 uncontested race)


5. New Hampshire

Democrats: 310,320 (54.4%) (+10.6%)
Republicans: 249,714 (43.8%)


6. Minnesota

Democrats: 1,420,669 (55.2%) (+11.5%)
Republicans: 1,125,569 (43.7%)


7. Nevada

Democrats: 491,004 (51.1%) (+5.3%)
Republicans: 439,401 (45.8%)


8. Iowa

Democrats: 656,986 (50.4%) (+3.8%)
Republicans: 607,827 (46.6%)


9. Virginia

Democrats: 1,864,483 (56.3%) (+13.8%)
Republicans: 1,407,791 (42.5%) (1 uncontested race)


10. Maine

Democrats: 328,409 (52.7%) (+14.0% - +15% with final Golden votes)
Republicans: 241,180 (38.7%)


11. Arizona

Democrats: 999,328 (49.8%) (+0.5%)
Republicans: 989,802 (49.3%) (1 uncontested race)


12. Probably Florida...



PS: Will Colorado strike again in 2020 becoming the tipping point state once again just like it was in 2008 and 2012? Judging from the list above it's at least among 7-8 states (possibly more) with a real shot at it.
Logged
Dr Oz Lost Party!
PittsburghSteel
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,933
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2018, 10:29:27 PM »

Those PA numbers are beautiful...
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2018, 05:22:45 AM »

PA voting more Democratic than Michigan feels odd. It certainly hasn't happened in presidential elections in a while, IIRC.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2018, 10:24:29 AM »

PA voting more Democratic than Michigan feels odd. It certainly hasn't happened in presidential elections in a while, IIRC.

Agreed. I will say, however, that I think Wolf’s margins in the Philly suburbs are what a lot of us probably thought Hillary was going to get in 2016. The suburban vote that came out this year was something that never materialized for Hillary. I imagine the House results aren’t too dissimilar to Wolf’s (apart from Bucks County).
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2018, 03:32:15 PM »

Michigan is pretty concerning honestly. I know it's an R gerrymander, which tends to skew the PV indirectly as well, but Dems did worse there than in Wisconsin, which has a more vicious gerrymander.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2018, 03:57:29 PM »

PA voting more Democratic than Michigan feels odd. It certainly hasn't happened in presidential elections in a while, IIRC.

Agreed. I will say, however, that I think Wolf’s margins in the Philly suburbs are what a lot of us probably thought Hillary was going to get in 2016. The suburban vote that came out this year was something that never materialized for Hillary. I imagine the House results aren’t too dissimilar to Wolf’s (apart from Bucks County).

Hillary was never going to reach Wolf's numbers, but they would've been a lot better than they were in reality if not for Comey.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 22, 2018, 04:16:42 AM »

PA voting more Democratic than Michigan feels odd. It certainly hasn't happened in presidential elections in a while, IIRC.

Agreed. I will say, however, that I think Wolf’s margins in the Philly suburbs are what a lot of us probably thought Hillary was going to get in 2016. The suburban vote that came out this year was something that never materialized for Hillary. I imagine the House results aren’t too dissimilar to Wolf’s (apart from Bucks County).

Hillary was never going to reach Wolf's numbers, but they would've been a lot better than they were in reality if not for Comey.

Well, maybe not that good, but certainly somewhat close. She barely did better than Obama in 2008, and some parts of SEPA actually swung against her. I remember when the polling showed Hilary up by like 40% in SEPA. No state still amazes me as much as PA in 2016. The suburbs came out this year in a way they didn’t in 2016.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2018, 12:59:45 AM »

This actually doesn't seem like a half bad basemap for 2020, with maybe Iowa switched to the Republicans.


#UtahUnder60

Iowa has voted for the Democratic nominee in three of the last five Presidential elections and six of the last eight. At this point, I would consider the aggregate count of votes for Representatives as good proxies for a Presidential election that has the same electoral mix as for the preceding (now just decided) midterm. Although the Senate election results for seats is distorted by more Democratic seats at risk this time (effect will be reduced in 2020), the national result for the Senate is still advantage D.

Donald Trump is extremely polarizing, and many people voted to either support him or give him an ugly message. One way or the other, much of the vote is about Trump.

LOL
imagine using Iowas popular vote in a state with 4 districts where one of the districts is super red but had a really bad incumbent who won by 3 points. No you can't use Iowa's popular vote. Iowas 4th rural hicks will outvote the less racist rural hicks in the other 3 districts.

We are all using proxies for 2020. Before the 2018 election I was using 100-DIS (on the assumption that people who do not disapprove of him can vote for him, but that those who disapprove of him can cast a vote for a conservative alternative, make a nonsense vote (like "Luke Skywalker" or "Jesus Christ") as a write-in, or not vote for the President if unwilling to vote for the Democratic alternative.

After some state polls start coming in I will show those again on the Trump Approval Ratings thread then in use. New  polls after the midterm election are nationwide numbers, and they look like what I saw before the elections 

If you want someone who believes that he can post exact numbers, then look for an astrologer.

Are my proxies as good as knowing exact numbers after the election? Not in the least. Even my assumption that Donald Trump will be the nominee depends upon certain things (like having a fatal stroke or heart attack) not happening. I have no idea of who the Democratic nominee will be. I cannot even predict whether there will be a third-party nominee to cut into any possible Trump vote.

But note well: in a Presidential election with an incumbent President, the dominant factor is the perception of the incumbent President. Need I remind you that the Carter administration was delighted to recognize that the most 'unelectable' Republican got the nomination in 1980? Above all, a President who barely won election must gain some support just to offset losses of support from disappointed people. He has not gained such support. 

OK, I cannot predict the effect that the pervasive, severe scandals associated with the Trump administration will have upon the 2020 election. Until I see otherwise I will treat the general  results of House elections statewide as predictors of how a 2018 electorate will vote on the Presidency in 2020.

So do you dislike my proxy? Tough!
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2018, 12:46:43 PM »

In regards to Trump, I think what this election showed is that unlike in 2016 when the opposition to Trump was divided, nearly all of those who oppose Trump are, for now, supporting the Democratic Party.  Even if Trump were to completely hold his base, based on the midterm result, he would still lose reelection.
Logged
Dr Oz Lost Party!
PittsburghSteel
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,933
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2018, 06:59:10 PM »

PA voting more Democratic than Michigan feels odd. It certainly hasn't happened in presidential elections in a while, IIRC.

Agreed. I will say, however, that I think Wolf’s margins in the Philly suburbs are what a lot of us probably thought Hillary was going to get in 2016. The suburban vote that came out this year was something that never materialized for Hillary. I imagine the House results aren’t too dissimilar to Wolf’s (apart from Bucks County).

Well actually, in PA-14 Wolf came within 3 points of winning the district while the GOP won the congressional seat by 16.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 25, 2018, 08:07:22 PM »

In regards to Trump, I think what this election showed is that unlike in 2016 when the opposition to Trump was divided, nearly all of those who oppose Trump are, for now, supporting the Democratic Party.  Even if Trump were to completely hold his base, based on the midterm result, he would still lose reelection.

This is why the Atlas/pundit #hottake about how a third party candidate hurts Trump is so tiresome. Trump's 45% base is locked the f**k in. Any division of the remaining 55% only hurts the Democrats.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 25, 2018, 11:27:41 PM »

In regards to Trump, I think what this election showed is that unlike in 2016 when the opposition to Trump was divided, nearly all of those who oppose Trump are, for now, supporting the Democratic Party.  Even if Trump were to completely hold his base, based on the midterm result, he would still lose reelection.


Interestingly in Cali its the opposite. It looks like the total house vote will be something like 62.5 37.5 and thats with top 2.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 25, 2018, 11:39:00 PM »

In regards to Trump, I think what this election showed is that unlike in 2016 when the opposition to Trump was divided, nearly all of those who oppose Trump are, for now, supporting the Democratic Party.  Even if Trump were to completely hold his base, based on the midterm result, he would still lose reelection.

This is why the Atlas/pundit #hottake about how a third party candidate hurts Trump is so tiresome. Trump's 45% base is locked the f**k in. Any division of the remaining 55% only hurts the Democrats.
That's an overestimation. It's more like 35-40 percent. His 100% hardcore base is a couple points below his approval ratings, which tend to be between 39 and 42.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 26, 2018, 07:02:06 AM »

PA voting more Democratic than Michigan feels odd. It certainly hasn't happened in presidential elections in a while, IIRC.

Agreed. I will say, however, that I think Wolf’s margins in the Philly suburbs are what a lot of us probably thought Hillary was going to get in 2016. The suburban vote that came out this year was something that never materialized for Hillary. I imagine the House results aren’t too dissimilar to Wolf’s (apart from Bucks County).

Well actually, in PA-14 Wolf came within 3 points of winning the district while the GOP won the congressional seat by 16.

Yeah, that is true. That’s a strange area of the state though, where some statewide Dems overperform and others not so much. Like many areas, those trends predate Trump, but have just been massively accelerated. But even that district looks to have shifted based on urban/rural trends. Wolf lost rural Greene and Fayette Counties, while more suburban Washington and Westmoreland swung towards him. Casey seems to have only marginally dropped in the more rural counties relative to his overall statewide performance.

A thought experiment, but does anyone think Lamb could’ve won the new PA-14? Personally, I doubt it, in part based on his performance in March, but I imagine it would’ve been a very close result.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 26, 2018, 06:06:04 PM »

In regards to Trump, I think what this election showed is that unlike in 2016 when the opposition to Trump was divided, nearly all of those who oppose Trump are, for now, supporting the Democratic Party.  Even if Trump were to completely hold his base, based on the midterm result, he would still lose reelection.

This is why the Atlas/pundit #hottake about how a third party candidate hurts Trump is so tiresome. Trump's 45% base is locked the f**k in. Any division of the remaining 55% only hurts the Democrats.
That's an overestimation. It's more like 35-40 percent. His 100% hardcore base is a couple points below his approval ratings, which tend to be between 39 and 42.

Actually, he's been at 44% for quite a while now if you only take into account registered voter polls. Polls of adults are irrelevant. Nobody cares what you think if you don't/can't vote.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 12 queries.