These are the 2020 results. What is the Atlas narrative of the next 4 years?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:23:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  These are the 2020 results. What is the Atlas narrative of the next 4 years?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: These are the 2020 results. What is the Atlas narrative of the next 4 years?  (Read 2063 times)
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 20, 2019, 04:18:42 PM »



278-260 D win, but with Trump holding above 50% in all the Sunbelt swing states and under 50% in Iowa (what all the recent Iowa polls have shown).
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2019, 04:23:11 PM »

These results are a totally plausible 2020 scenario by recent polling (giving most Sunbelt undecideds to Trump and most Rust Belt ones to Generic D), but they are also totally contradictory to most Atlas narratives.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2019, 04:29:23 PM »

These results are a totally plausible 2020 scenario by recent polling (giving most Sunbelt undecideds to Trump and most Rust Belt ones to Generic D), but they are also totally contradictory to most Atlas narratives.

Cool story.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2019, 04:34:33 PM »

These results are a totally plausible 2020 scenario by recent polling (giving most Sunbelt undecideds to Trump and most Rust Belt ones to Generic D), but they are also totally contradictory to most Atlas narratives.

Cool story.

Yes, as we saw in 2012 vs 2016 there is no universe where one group of undecideds breaks one way and another breaks another way  Roll Eyes. I'm not saying this map is at all gonna happen, but I am sick and tired of people who seem to lack so much self awareness they cannot realize that trends can change. If you traded stocks, you'd have lost your shirt in the first 2 days of Enron going down because you do not seem to understand the basic principle of change, but keep going Mr. Iowa.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2019, 04:41:54 PM »

Will the mass exodus of voters from Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, and Atlanta to Des Moines, Detroit, and Philadelphia continue in 2024?
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2019, 04:52:05 PM »

These results are a totally plausible 2020 scenario by recent polling (giving most Sunbelt undecideds to Trump and most Rust Belt ones to Generic D), but they are also totally contradictory to most Atlas narratives.

Cool story.

Yes, as we saw in 2012 vs 2016 there is no universe where one group of undecideds breaks one way and another breaks another way  Roll Eyes. I'm not saying this map is at all gonna happen, but I am sick and tired of people who seem to lack so much self awareness they cannot realize that trends can change. If you traded stocks, you'd have lost your shirt in the first 2 days of Enron going down because you do not seem to understand the basic principle of change, but keep going Mr. Iowa.

Yeah, I’d definitely bet on the same group of undecideds breaking Trump's way on a night when he’s losing reelection that didn’t stick with Republicans in 2016 and 2018. I’m sure that group will deliver for Trump the same way it delivered for you in 2018, Senator Heller/Mr. Tilt R Nevada. Wink
Logged
Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️
The Impartial Spectator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,761


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2019, 04:53:29 PM »

In this sort of scenario, what would have happened is Dems held on to a lot of the gains among white voters that they made in 2018, but don't benefit from increased turnout of young voters and non-white voters that normally occurs in Presidential elections as compared to midterms. In fact, for Trump to get more than 50% in states like Florida and Arizona even while Dems were holding on to enough of the persuasion gains among white voters/college educated voters/suburban voters to ensure they win PA/MI/WI, there would most likely have to be a relative *decline* in youth/non-white turnout relative to 2018. The third party vote would also likely have to be extremely low (which I do think will be the case anyway).

So the question is how could Dems have really bad turnout/support from young voters and non-whites, while holding on to gains among white voters that made the 2018 midterms a Democratic wave?

Some possibilities:

1) Large scale voter suppression of young voters and non-whites is especially and unusually successful.
2) Maybe the Democratic Presidential candidate are particularly unappealing to young voters and non-white voters. Not really sure who/how that would be, but maybe Klobuchar or something with a really horrible VP choice of someone who turns out to have worn blackface or something?
3) Maybe Trump dumps Pence and picks some young non-white Republican as his VP candidate (Haley? Rubio? Someone like that? and this manages to help him gain a bit of ground with non-whites).
4) Maybe World War 3 breaks out, and there is a massive draft of millions of young people, who are sent all over the world. Millions die, and so since lots of young people are dead, they can't vote (but somehow escalation to nuclear war is avoided, so the election can still be held). Or similarly there could be some horrible pandemic virus that breaks out and is for some reason especially deadly for young people and/or non-whites?

Overall, this scenario is not likely.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2019, 04:57:36 PM »

These results are a totally plausible 2020 scenario by recent polling (giving most Sunbelt undecideds to Trump and most Rust Belt ones to Generic D), but they are also totally contradictory to most Atlas narratives.

Cool story.

Yes, as we saw in 2012 vs 2016 there is no universe where one group of undecideds breaks one way and another breaks another way  Roll Eyes. I'm not saying this map is at all gonna happen, but I am sick and tired of people who seem to lack so much self awareness they cannot realize that trends can change. If you traded stocks, you'd have lost your shirt in the first 2 days of Enron going down because you do not seem to understand the basic principle of change, but keep going Mr. Iowa.

Yeah, I’d definitely bet on the same group of undecideds breaking Trump's way on a night when he’s losing reelection that didn’t stick with Republicans in 2016 and 2018. I’m sure that group will deliver for Trump the same way it delivered for you in 2018, Senator Heller/Mr. Tilt R Nevada. Wink

It's actually Safe R Smiley
Logged
Frenchrepublican
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,278


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2019, 05:23:30 PM »

I’m not an unconditional fan of trends are everything theory, but this this map is ridiculous, how can Trump win +70% in Utah ? How can IA votes to the left of AZ ? There are no rational for that
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2019, 05:49:21 PM »

I’m not an unconditional fan of trends are everything theory, but this this map is ridiculous, how can Trump win +70% in Utah ? How can IA votes to the left of AZ ? There are no rational for that

1. Utah - whoops! Marked wrong category, I meant to go with 60%

2. All the recent IA/AZ polls have been in roughly the same place, with Trump doing better in AZ if anything
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2019, 06:05:59 PM »

I’m not an unconditional fan of trends are everything theory, but this this map is ridiculous, how can Trump win +70% in Utah ? How can IA votes to the left of AZ ? There are no rational for that

1. Utah - whoops! Marked wrong category, I meant to go with 60%

2. All the recent IA/AZ polls have been in roughly the same place, with Trump doing better in AZ if anything

Actually you forgot to mention that Democrats won the House Popular Vote in IA by more than in AZ and that Ducey did 9 points better than Reynolds.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2019, 07:18:42 PM »

I’m not an unconditional fan of trends are everything theory, but this this map is ridiculous, how can Trump win +70% in Utah ? How can IA votes to the left of AZ ? There are no rational for that

1. Utah - whoops! Marked wrong category, I meant to go with 60%

2. All the recent IA/AZ polls have been in roughly the same place, with Trump doing better in AZ if anything

Actually you forgot to mention that Democrats won the House Popular Vote in IA by more than in AZ and that Ducey did 9 points better than Reynolds.

I know you're being sarcastic, but the second point is actually pretty good, yeah. The House split is mainly because of Steve King. It is annoying that the exit polls didn't reach Iowa in 2018, but Trump's approval rating in AZ being +2 in 2018 is also another good indicator for him there. Now on the other hand, do you have any good numbers of your own to respond with? Or are you just going to keep sarcastically pointing out things that make my case for me?
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2019, 07:21:45 PM »

Also, you are WAY too focused on Trump's Iowa margin having been +9 instead of the fact that he only got 51% of the vote. Ted f**king Cruz only got a 0.2% smaller percentage of the vote in Texas in 2018 than Trump got in Iowa in 2016.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2019, 12:28:00 PM »

Also, you are WAY too focused on Trump's Iowa margin having been +9 instead of the fact that he only got 51% of the vote. Ted f**king Cruz only got a 0.2% smaller percentage of the vote in Texas in 2018 than Trump got in Iowa in 2016.
Shh, they're allergic to facts that don't fit their narrative.

I guess Democrats going from 43.2% in 2016 to 48.3% in 2018 doesn’t matter.
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2019, 01:27:30 PM »

I think it partly depends on how big the third party vote is. If it's just 1% like it was in 2004, then Trump winning >50% in the Sunbelt states wouldn't be all that shocking, but the closeness of Iowa would be fairly surprising. If it's about 5.5% like it was in 2016, then Trump winning >50% in FL and AZ would really surprise me, while I'd expect him to be in the high 40s or low 50s in IA.

But either way, a lot of people on Atlas would be really surprised about AZ voting to the right of WI.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2019, 02:56:42 PM »

Also, you are WAY too focused on Trump's Iowa margin having been +9 instead of the fact that he only got 51% of the vote. Ted f**king Cruz only got a 0.2% smaller percentage of the vote in Texas in 2018 than Trump got in Iowa in 2016.
Shh, they're allergic to facts that don't fit their narrative.

I guess Democrats going from 43.2% in 2016 to 48.3% in 2018 doesn’t matter.

No, it does. And the same thing is probably going to happen in Iowa, unless you expect Democrats to get just 42% of the vote in 2020.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2019, 01:40:05 AM »

I see MT Treasurer and Xing are already trying to act like they know what WILL happen in 2020 and will need to have an ambulance if 2016 trends don't continue. This isn't going to age well at all SmileySmileySmiley

I’ve been fairly clear that I’m not especially confident about a lot for 2020, and that people shouldn’t be too confident about their predictions. I’ve never said that literally every trend will continue (in fact, I’ve gotten plenty of flack for claiming that WI won’t necessarily trend sharply Republican in 2020.) However, it isn’t overconfident to say that IA almost certainly won’t vote left of AZ after it voted 6 points to the right of AZ in 2016. Then again, I’m trying to reason with someone who’s certain that the MI/OH results from 2016 were total flukes and both states WILL swing heavily Democratic in 2020, so maybe I’m wasting my breath.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,805
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2019, 08:05:56 AM »

That map is less likely to happen, now, Trump is having a tough time in the Sunbelt, and the WWC and the South, are the only places where minimum wage hasnt ballooned to 15.00; whereas North have the highest minimum wage. That's why FL has a minimum wage ballot initiative, and Bernie can win it
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2019, 11:10:09 AM »

Also, you are WAY too focused on Trump's Iowa margin having been +9 instead of the fact that he only got 51% of the vote. Ted f**king Cruz only got a 0.2% smaller percentage of the vote in Texas in 2018 than Trump got in Iowa in 2016.

To ignore the inconvenience of high third party vote in 2016 and to just say 'this candidate only got ___ percentage" is not a good argument. There was about 8% third party vote in 2016, 5% of it went to Johnson, McMullin, and Castle (constitution), it's bogus to think the vast majority of that will go to the Democrats.
Logged
Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️
The Impartial Spectator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,761


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2019, 04:16:37 PM »

To ignore the inconvenience of high third party vote in 2016 and to just say 'this candidate only got ___ percentage" is not a good argument. There was about 8% third party vote in 2016, 5% of it went to Johnson, McMullin, and Castle (constitution), it's bogus to think the vast majority of that will go to the Democrats.

Not sure what #s you are referring to...

Nationally the 3rd party vote was 6.05%.
In TX the 3rd party vote was 4.78%
In IA the 3rd party vote was 7.11%

As far as how the 3rd party vote will swing in 2020, it doesn't seem that implausible that Dems may get most of it. If you simply take the 2016 results and give most of the 3rd party vote to Dems, you can get quite close to the 2018 results across a large number of states.
Logged
Non Swing Voter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,181


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2019, 11:09:30 PM »

So under that scenario, which I view as unlikely, I think the most reasonable narrative would be that swing voters/independents broke heavily for the Democrat (probably Biden) and thus he rebuilt the blue wall.  But this wasn't enough in states that would presumably shift to the Democrat as well (Arizona, Florida) because they have less swing voters, more polarized electorates, and Trump + Republicans did a very good job motivating their base voters to turn out, which was enough to withstand the generic swing of independents towards democrats in the sunbelt.  But this wasn't quite enough in the midwest where they lost independents/swing voters by a healthy margin.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2019, 09:02:29 AM »

To ignore the inconvenience of high third party vote in 2016 and to just say 'this candidate only got ___ percentage" is not a good argument. There was about 8% third party vote in 2016, 5% of it went to Johnson, McMullin, and Castle (constitution), it's bogus to think the vast majority of that will go to the Democrats.

Not sure what #s you are referring to...

Nationally the 3rd party vote was 6.05%.
In TX the 3rd party vote was 4.78%
In IA the 3rd party vote was 7.11%

As far as how the 3rd party vote will swing in 2020, it doesn't seem that implausible that Dems may get most of it. If you simply take the 2016 results and give most of the 3rd party vote to Dems, you can get quite close to the 2018 results across a large number of states.

Your right Iowa was 7%, not 8% but that actually strengthens my point. If only 2% out of 7% is Jill Stein/write-in (and write-in isn't indicative of anything other than dissatisfaction with the process) and the others are all libertarian and right-wing then how do Democrats come up with this lopsided amount of 2016 third party voters? The reason 2018 was the way it was because Democrats turned the  out and Republicans did somewhat but disproportionately the people who sat home were the Obama/Trump types, skewing without a college degree and higher approval than Trump than the electorate that voted.
Logged
Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️
The Impartial Spectator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,761


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2019, 01:08:28 AM »

Your right Iowa was 7%, not 8% but that actually strengthens my point. If only 2% out of 7% is Jill Stein/write-in (and write-in isn't indicative of anything other than dissatisfaction with the process) and the others are all libertarian and right-wing then how do Democrats come up with this lopsided amount of 2016 third party voters?

While there are some 3rd party voters who are well informed and know who they are voting for, there are quite a few others who are lower-information voters more likely to be disengaged/uninterested in the political process and they vote 3rd party as a protest vote, without necessarily agreeing with who they are voting for. 3rd Party votes can be and often are simply rejections of main parties rather than affirmations of the 3rd party, and voters may simply select whatever random 3rd party they have heard of (name ID). There are others who are more informed and normally in the past have voted for one party, but can't stomach voting for them in a particular election (for example, former Rs/R leaners who voted Libertarian). Such a voter may vote Libertarian or even Constitution Party or something like that, but after a few years have passed (and after it has become clearer to them that it is a 2 party system and if they don't want R, in practice they have to vote D) and they find themselves feeling more and more "former" R, then even if they don't necessarily like everything about the Dems they may be much more likely to vote Dem than to go back to voting for the Rs that they are increasingly unhappy with.

Quote
The reason 2018 was the way it was because Democrats turned the  out and Republicans did somewhat but disproportionately the people who sat home were the Obama/Trump types, skewing without a college degree and higher approval than Trump than the electorate that voted.

This is true or false to varying degrees in different states. In the case of Iowa, it is not true that most (much less all) of why 2018 was the way it was is because of turnout.

About 60% of the difference in the result of IA-GOV 2018 as compared to the 2016 Presidential case resulted from changes in candidate/party preference. Only about 40% of the change resulted from turnout differences. True, 40% is still 40%, and that is definitely significant and meaningful, but it was not the only (or dominant) factor.

See here for the data the above is based on: https://medium.com/@CatalistAnalytics/what-happened-in-the-iowa-gubernatorial-election-b4638ae596b9

The electorate in Iowa in particular wasn't actually that favorable for Dems in particular in terms of age. The % of young voters was definitely low in comparison to 2016. This is particularly important in Iowa because IA has a large college/university presence, and college towns/students form a relatively big part of the Dem base in Iowa as compared to many other states. IA is actually the #1 state (2nd if you count DC as a 'state') in terms of student population as a share of the overall population. Young voter turnout was pretty good for a midterm (i.e. a bit better than 2010/2014), but it was still midterm turnout (much lower than 2016) and the age 65+ vote share shot way higher than in 2016. IA also has a larger than average senior population, which basically makes IA one of the most polarized states in terms of age - there are lots of youngs and lots of olds, but not many middle aged people. So if young turnout is not good, then relatively the Senior vote share spikes, and given that Rs are doing very well with Seniors, that basically means a GOP win.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/states-college-student-population_n_561b2ed4e4b0082030a30bfc
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2020, 03:09:57 PM »

It means that Trump was a below-average President, and that the Democratic incumbent is vulnerable to a Republican challenger who can fine-tune the Trump appeal without being Donald Trump.

That is ominously close to Carter in 1976. Economic distress from stagflation or any economic downturn means that the Democrat is a one-term President.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.248 seconds with 12 queries.