Why didn't Hillary have a big margin in New England? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 07:28:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Dereich)
  Why didn't Hillary have a big margin in New England? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why didn't Hillary have a big margin in New England?  (Read 1947 times)
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,936
United States


P P
« on: September 20, 2020, 06:16:34 AM »
« edited: September 20, 2020, 06:20:54 AM by Calthrina950 »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,936
United States


P P
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2020, 02:26:42 PM »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Why do you think Clinton did poorly in these areas? Was it sexism?
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,936
United States


P P
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2020, 10:36:35 AM »

For largely the same reasons she did poorly in the Midwest, and rural areas more generally. New England working class whites have been, and still are, the most Democratic in the country. But as Hillary sustained massive losses among this group nationwide, she had further to fall in New England than pretty much anywhere else. She did make improve over Obama in the wealthy towns of Fairfield County and suburban Boston, but nowhere near as much as she lost in the rural and blue-collar parts of the region. Basically, by the Obama years, Dems were pretty much maxed out in New England (and they still are at the congressional level).

Vermont is a different case altogether. Trump actually got a lower vote share than Romney (by 1pp), but Clinton did 11 points worse than Obama. Essentially it seems a significant share of the state’s left wing Democrats, upset at the defeat of their man Bernie, wrote him in or voted Green (Bernie + Stein equalled almost 8%, most of it Bernie!). Only Utah had a higher third party vote share. Incidentally, Vermont was also the only state where Trump got fewer than 100,000 votes (also he obviously did in DC), and after DC and Hawaii his worst margin. So here it was definitely a case of Hillary doing badly, not Trump doing well.

Edit: Checking all New England states, Hillary actually did better than Obama (both margin- and vote share-wise) in MA and Trump improved on Romney’s vote share by less than 1 percentage point in both CT and NH. Only in RI and ME (the two most blue-collar New England states) did Trump actually significantly improve on Romney.

Obama received 60.67% in Massachusetts, while Clinton obtained 60.01%. But she did win by a wider margin than Obama, because of the larger third-party vote in the state compared to 2012.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,936
United States


P P
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2020, 09:08:49 AM »

For largely the same reasons she did poorly in the Midwest, and rural areas more generally. New England working class whites have been, and still are, the most Democratic in the country. But as Hillary sustained massive losses among this group nationwide, she had further to fall in New England than pretty much anywhere else. She did make improve over Obama in the wealthy towns of Fairfield County and suburban Boston, but nowhere near as much as she lost in the rural and blue-collar parts of the region. Basically, by the Obama years, Dems were pretty much maxed out in New England (and they still are at the congressional level).

Vermont is a different case altogether. Trump actually got a lower vote share than Romney (by 1pp), but Clinton did 11 points worse than Obama. Essentially it seems a significant share of the state’s left wing Democrats, upset at the defeat of their man Bernie, wrote him in or voted Green (Bernie + Stein equalled almost 8%, most of it Bernie!). Only Utah had a higher third party vote share. Incidentally, Vermont was also the only state where Trump got fewer than 100,000 votes (also he obviously did in DC), and after DC and Hawaii his worst margin. So here it was definitely a case of Hillary doing badly, not Trump doing well.

Edit: Checking all New England states, Hillary actually did better than Obama (both margin- and vote share-wise) in MA and Trump improved on Romney’s vote share by less than 1 percentage point in both CT and NH. Only in RI and ME (the two most blue-collar New England states) did Trump actually significantly improve on Romney.

Obama received 60.67% in Massachusetts, while Clinton obtained 60.01%. But she did win by a wider margin than Obama, because of the larger third-party vote in the state compared to 2012.

Sorry you’re right. I checked at first on Wikipedia, which for some reason, unlike the Atlas, doesn’t include write-ins.


That's fine. There are many discrepancies between Atlas and Wikipedia on electoral results. Atlas is more accurate, because it includes a thorough collation of all the relevant data (such as write-ins), which Wikipedia doesn't.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,936
United States


P P
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2020, 09:56:02 PM »
« Edited: December 22, 2020, 12:08:58 AM by Calthrina950 »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Why do you think Clinton did poorly in these areas? Was it sexism?

No, Clinton's Elitism, and Trump's Populism and Protectionism and Anti-Interventionism messages.

I know why Clinton did poorly. I was asking HagridOftheDeep why he thought Clinton did poorly, and whether or not he thought it was sexism. Given his political viewpoints, it was a reasonable question to ask.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.036 seconds with 14 queries.