2020 Presidential Election Results & Exit Polls commentary thread

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327350069947936768

And he's going to be talking in a few minutes apparently for the first time in a week.

[NOVA Green]

https://twitter.com/alexanderao/status/1327051626872500224

Interesting... heavily Dominican as well as to a somewhat lesser extent Puerto Rican.

Here's a brief profile of Lawrence (As well as a few other factory towns in Mass).

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/three-ma-towns-owe-their-very-survival-to-people-they-once-shunned/432132/

Here's an academic abstract of a study on Dominican and Puerto Rican gangs in Lawrence:

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R24-DA012203-02-1

Here's another survey of Dominican and Puerto Rican populations in Lawrence from UMass-Boston:

https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=gaston_pubs

[Del Tachi]

-

Dumb figure.  Tens of millions of Trump voters live in the Blue counties (and many of them higher-earning than their Democratic neighbors.)

Was waiting for this argument to happen and it's complete BS.  The Trump voters in those blue counties tend to be the same kinds of unproductive members of society as the ones in red counties. 

No.  GDP is just a proxy for urbanity.  Trust me, the >1M GOP voters in Los Angeles and Cook County are much, much more productive members of society than the >1M Biden voters living in the Black Belt or on Native American reservations    

And nowadays isn't urbanity a proxy for Liberal democratic government? Exceptions to the rule, sure, but rare ones and growing rarer by the year.

No.  Of the twenty largest metro areas in the U.S., 8 of them are in states with Republican governors (7 with GOP trifectas).  That is not exceptional. 

The rest of your post is drivel.   

81% of the U.S. population is urban.  To think that Democrats win an overwhelmingly vast majority of these voters is wrong.  Trump will easily get more votes (in total) from urban areas than he will from rural areas, just as Biden will too.

Oh, so now you're trying to tie some incomplete half assed selection of GOVERNORS to wealth in Democratic run urban areas. Wow. that has droppd from silly to laughable!

Oh c'mon, can you stop acting so dumb Badger?

Georgia, Texas and Florida (three of the most urban, fastest-growing states in the whole country) have been pretty much exclusively governed by GOP trifectas for the past two decades.  This fact isn't "half assed" because (as you should know) governors, state legislatures and counties (which are administrative jurisdictions of the state) are responsible for implementing/enforcing laws relevant to economic growth/development:  taxes, public education, infrastructure, insurance law, environmental regulation, zoning/construction law, employment law, etc.  The powers of mayors/cities are explicitly subordinate to unitary State authority as defined by the relevant state statute/charter. 

However, my argument isn't that GOP control = economic/urban dynamism.  That's your argument! (albeit in the opposite partisan direction) but you haven't demonstrated any actual reason or evidence for it, lol.   It should be pretty obvious that post-industrial urban growth/economic development depends on a lot of social/economic factors that aren't really that politically-dictated.   So, my point remains:  you can't *infer how much some "contributes" to the economy from their vote, and there are plenty of dirt poor Democrats (as well as Republicans) to go around for everyone.     

So when Dallas and Houston our burgeoning economic powerhouses, that's because Republican governors and legislators have been part of the state. But when the Rio Grande Valley's are mired in poverty, that's because Democratic party hacks run their economies into the ground with liberalism. Got it. So, apparently Detroit being an economic Wasteland is because of generally having Republican Governors or at least legislators for the last couple decades?

My point is, this is the same idiotic cherry picking we hear from Republicans all the time. Chicago suffering from a spike in gang violence? Liberal Democratic permissiveness!! Chicago providing many times it's per capita rate of taxes to the federal government than it receives? Good thing we had Rauner as governor for 4 years!

California speaks for itself to anyone who isn't a party hack. Including, yes, at the Statewide level. Oh, and let's not forget New York alongside Illinois. Massachusetts? Pretty much all of New England?

Go ahead and review the latest list of per capita tax contributions versus receipts among all the states, and other than a few outliers like New Mexico oh, there's a very clear pattern. The graphic has triggered you so violently is even more so proving the point. He's heavily Democratic urban areas - - and the fact that it is not literally 100% universally voting Democratic is beyond irrelevant-- continues to mercilessly fling reality into the face of conservative economic ideologues like yourself. A strong correlation exists that Democratic urban areas are producers, Republican rural areas are takers.

I'm not saying that local government has a Paramount influence on economic development, but to write it off as even secondary to the States is again cherry-picking and laughable.

The point here is that local and state liberal government and economic growth in those areas basically Pop's the hot air balloon of conservative economic bought. Trying to write off these correlations as merely indicative of urbanity - - which again, is rather indicative of democratic governments - - it's a cop-out.

As much as Republicans hate to accept reality, which is perhaps why they react so violently to it, Californians were a hell of a lot better under Newsom and Jerry Brown than Kansans ever were under Brownback. This is only one example among many.

And just to be even more clear, even I wouldn't say that states and cities necessarily being governed by a liberal democratic governments is a Surefire route towards prosperity. In many ways they are a reaction to the industrialization and decline like Detroit, East Saint Louis, Etc. However, next time Republicans consider making a peep about how liberal Democratic economic policies are a Surefire recipe for disaster and stagnation, they need to check themselves - - and the fax - - before doing so.

lol, find one place in this thread (or anywhere else) where I've said California or Chicago lies in ruin because of liberal policies.  I've never said that because I don't believe it.  There're 100 more proximate reasons to explain why Silicon Valley, the Mississippi Delta, Hunterdon County, Morrisania or wherever are the way they are other than which of the two, big tent American political parties have won presidential elections there as of late.   

Republican support is still strongly correlated with household income in states like FL, TX, GA, IL, NV, AZ, MS, SC and many, many others.  The only places this *maybe isn't as true as it once was are in very White, relatively uneducated "Rust Belt" states like OH, PA, MI, and IN.  We do not live in a nation of urban, Democratic "makers" and rural, Republican "takers."  What we have always been is a nation of leading cities/urban areas and lagging rural areas, regardless of how the partisan composition of these places has changed over time.

The graphic misconstrues and over-generalizes to make a point.  Your stupid point of looking at "correlations" between partisanship and Federal tax receipts/disbursements falls for the same trap.  High-earning Republicans are a significant boon to the economy of urban America (where they are *not even that out-numbered by poorer Democrats, lol).  You get triggered so violently by what should be such an obvious and non-controversial point because it doesn't fit your motivated worldview that all the "wanted" folks are Democrats and all the "wasted" folks are Republicans, lol

[Horus]

https://twitter.com/alexanderao/status/1327051626872500224

Interesting... heavily Dominican as well as to a somewhat lesser extent Puerto Rican.

Here's a brief profile of Lawrence (As well as a few other factory towns in Mass).

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/three-ma-towns-owe-their-very-survival-to-people-they-once-shunned/432132/

Here's an academic abstract of a study on Dominican and Puerto Rican gangs in Lawrence:

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R24-DA012203-02-1

Here's another survey of Dominican and Puerto Rican populations in Lawrence from UMass-Boston:

https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=gaston_pubs

Gonna compare this to income maps when I get home but I'd bet good money the poorer areas swung more Trump.

[Alben Barkley]

He could save others from losing, but not himself.

[President Johnson]

Get ready folks

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327357477428600832

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/mattzap/status/1327353608032149507

[politicallefty]

What's up with Trump's hair? He does not look the same.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://twitter.com/mattzap/status/1327353608032149507

And the response will be the same from *both sides*: "of course they didn't". 

[DrScholl]

Maybe he pulled his hair out in anger and he had to get a new wig (or whatever it is he wears).

[Hammy]

Get ready folks

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327357477428600832

Are we still being naive and thinking Trump is ever going to concede?

[politicallefty]

I can't believe he would show himself like this. He looks awful. Wow. I never thought I'd see him like this.

[Horus]

I can't believe he would show himself like this. He looks awful. Wow. I never thought I'd see him like this.

Does he sound a little sad? Or am I reading into things too much?

[Alben Barkley]

Trump just admitted that his administration may not be in control next year.

Probably closest to a concession we’re gonna get.

[brucejoel99]

He almost said "the next administration" but caught himself.

*sigh*

[Non Swing Voter]

what does he look like for those of us who hate him but are at work and can't turn on the tv?

[politicallefty]

I found a live stream. Just try to jump to a spot earlier where Trump was speaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K43WveeSexg&ab_channel=NBCNews

[Non Swing Voter]

I found a live stream. Just try to jump to a spot earlier where Trump was speaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K43WveeSexg&ab_channel=NBCNews

Thanks.  He looks the same to me though.  Maybe his hair looks a little grayer (i.e., natural) than normal.  Am I missing something?

[emailking]

Yeah to me he looks the same except the hair but it could be lighting I guess. He's very subdued though.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Actually, Trump looks better (more natural) with the gray hair than that orange stuff.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

what does he look like for those of us who hate him but are at work and can't turn on the tv?

https://twitter.com/mileskahn/status/1327364015979450372?s=19

[Alben Barkley]

https://twitter.com/kellyannepolls/status/803336493469204481?s=21

[Middle-aged Europe]

NPR article on how the Navajo vote swung Arizona to Biden:

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-2020-election-results/2020/11/13/934591289/how-the-navajo-nation-helped-flip-arizona-for-democrats

[Alben Barkley]

It’s telling that nothing that’s happened over the past four years seems to have visibly aged Trump except losing.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1327369012829884419?s=20

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1327370897540468737?s=20

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1327371289401716737?s=20

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1327371667610480645?s=20

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1327372694292226049?s=20

Trump is batting 0.053