- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2016 election analysis with regards to 2020 prospects- WI, MI, and PA
Posted on 1/16/19 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 1:41 pm
Here is the raw data for 2012 and 2016 Presidential votes by Party:
Wisconsin:
Dem (2012): 1,620,985 (2016): 1,382,210
Rep (2012): 1,407,966 (2016): 1,409,467
Michigan:
Dem (2012): 2,564,569 (2016): 2,268,839
Rep (2012): 2,115,256 (2016): 2,279,543
Pennsylvania:
Dem (2012): 2,990,274 (2016): 2,926,441
Rep (2012): 2,680,434 (2016): 2,970,733
As the data shows, Wisconsin and Michigan were more a story of Democratic turnout dropping dramatically while Pennsylvania was a story of relatively even Democratic turnout but significantly higher Republican turnout. While admittedly there are swing voters out there that could change how to interpret these results, the best guess is that Democratic voters and turnout efforts were low in Wisconsin and Michigan as these were not viewed as being in play until election night by the Democrats. In contrast, Pennsylvania had significant attention by both candidates (this was also the case in FL which saw higher turnout for both parties comparing 2016 to 2012).
In 2020, I don't see how Democratic turnout is low again in WI and MI, which likely puts these states significantly out of play for Trump. I think he needs to put all his effort into holding onto PA, FL, NC, AZ, GA, and TX (in order of priority). The good news is PA has 20 EV's while WI has 10 and MI 16, so even if Trump loses WI and MI and AZ, he could still get re-elected President on a 269-269 tie as at least 25 state House delegations would vote to re-elect him (many Dem representatives are clustered in a few high population states so even though the Dems control the House now, they don't control a majority of state delegations which is how this vote would count).
Unfortunately, there are limited to no "pickup" opportunities for Trump in 2020. Minnesota ended up being very close in 2016, but an analysis of the data there shows it was due to the same low Dem turnout as seen in Wisconsin, not so much a surge in enthusiasm for Trump. NH is the best pickup shot, but is still a very long shot in my estimate.
Wisconsin:
Dem (2012): 1,620,985 (2016): 1,382,210
Rep (2012): 1,407,966 (2016): 1,409,467
Michigan:
Dem (2012): 2,564,569 (2016): 2,268,839
Rep (2012): 2,115,256 (2016): 2,279,543
Pennsylvania:
Dem (2012): 2,990,274 (2016): 2,926,441
Rep (2012): 2,680,434 (2016): 2,970,733
As the data shows, Wisconsin and Michigan were more a story of Democratic turnout dropping dramatically while Pennsylvania was a story of relatively even Democratic turnout but significantly higher Republican turnout. While admittedly there are swing voters out there that could change how to interpret these results, the best guess is that Democratic voters and turnout efforts were low in Wisconsin and Michigan as these were not viewed as being in play until election night by the Democrats. In contrast, Pennsylvania had significant attention by both candidates (this was also the case in FL which saw higher turnout for both parties comparing 2016 to 2012).
In 2020, I don't see how Democratic turnout is low again in WI and MI, which likely puts these states significantly out of play for Trump. I think he needs to put all his effort into holding onto PA, FL, NC, AZ, GA, and TX (in order of priority). The good news is PA has 20 EV's while WI has 10 and MI 16, so even if Trump loses WI and MI and AZ, he could still get re-elected President on a 269-269 tie as at least 25 state House delegations would vote to re-elect him (many Dem representatives are clustered in a few high population states so even though the Dems control the House now, they don't control a majority of state delegations which is how this vote would count).
Unfortunately, there are limited to no "pickup" opportunities for Trump in 2020. Minnesota ended up being very close in 2016, but an analysis of the data there shows it was due to the same low Dem turnout as seen in Wisconsin, not so much a surge in enthusiasm for Trump. NH is the best pickup shot, but is still a very long shot in my estimate.
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 1:47 pm
6
Posted on 1/16/19 at 1:44 pm to GeneralLee
I agree with your analysis. It will be closer and Trump needs a booming economy, or at least the perception of one, to have a chance.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 1:47 pm to GeneralLee
Obama brought out black voters that had never voted before and probably haven't voted since. I don't see some white woman or old white man bringing out the blacks the way he did. That's the big difference.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 1:49 pm to GeneralLee
Great analysis! I think the biggest difference in 2016 was many independents registered as and voted republican.
2020 will be much harder for Trump, no doubt. He does need a great economy and job numbers need to stay where they are currently. Maybe have a pending/looming SCOTUS nomination hanging in the balance as incentive.
2020 will be much harder for Trump, no doubt. He does need a great economy and job numbers need to stay where they are currently. Maybe have a pending/looming SCOTUS nomination hanging in the balance as incentive.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 1:55 pm to GeneralLee
Your assumption is off still though. WI and MI were ignored, however the candidate from the Democrats did not resonate either.
It will come down to economy and who the Democrats run.
The rust belt still belongs to Trump. He dominated the white vote and MI is >70% and WI > 80%.
If the Democrats keep ignoring the white middle class, they are going to lose the mid-west even more. Just because a D did not vote last time, it is wrong to assume they are going to vote D again. Many Rs crossed over to vote Obama and came back home for Trump.
It will come down to economy and who the Democrats run.
The rust belt still belongs to Trump. He dominated the white vote and MI is >70% and WI > 80%.
If the Democrats keep ignoring the white middle class, they are going to lose the mid-west even more. Just because a D did not vote last time, it is wrong to assume they are going to vote D again. Many Rs crossed over to vote Obama and came back home for Trump.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 1:59 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
The rust belt still belongs to Trump. He dominated the white vote and MI is >70% and WI > 80%.
Then how do you explain 2018 midterm results in those states?
I think it's safe to assume there were lots of Dems who stayed home in 2016 because they didn't like Clinton and thought the election was in the bag anyways, but many of these same Dems are now afflicted with TDS and will crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump in 2020.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:18 pm to GeneralLee
Maine and NH are well within reach and are in play.
He made significant gains from 08 and 12 races for both those states.
PA was a clear indiciation of voters actually switching over and swinging for Donald. As you mentioned with Mi and WI it was more Dem voters sitting out.
300,000 from the previous election is an incredible swing in PA.
I posted something like this around this time last year and got roasted for it. Glad to see you see the same data.
He made significant gains from 08 and 12 races for both those states.
PA was a clear indiciation of voters actually switching over and swinging for Donald. As you mentioned with Mi and WI it was more Dem voters sitting out.
300,000 from the previous election is an incredible swing in PA.
I posted something like this around this time last year and got roasted for it. Glad to see you see the same data.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:24 pm to GeneralLee
A million convicted felons will be able to vote in Florida in 2020. TRUMP has no shot a reelection unfortunately, and the GOP may not win another national election for a long time. I recommend we all plan accordingly.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:36 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Trump had a ~100K vote lead in 2016 in FL. The article below states that it's actually 1.5M felons. And assuming 13% turnout (i.e. % of felons that go through the trouble to register to vote and then do actually vote) that gets to a +50K vote for the Dems. So you'd need ~25% turnout to close the gap.
LINK
It will definitely make FL even closer which is why Trump has to put it up there with PA as states to park in for his 2020 campaign.
LINK
It will definitely make FL even closer which is why Trump has to put it up there with PA as states to park in for his 2020 campaign.
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:53 pm to Magician2
Good points. People are worried about TX, AZ, and GA long-term for the GOP due to transplants, but as northern Dems move to the sunbelt, the states they've left behind trend redder. Look at ME, MN, and RI for example below:
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:57 pm to GeneralLee
quote:
Then how do you explain 2018 midterm results in those states?
Midterms are not presidential elections.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:59 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
A million convicted felons will be able to vote in Florida in 2020. TRUMP has no shot a reelection unfortunately, and the GOP may not win another national election for a long time. I recommend we all plan accordingly.
He did not need Florida, however there is 0 evidence millions of convicted felons are all going for the Democrat. Remember when all the Puerto Rico refugees were going to turn Florida blue. 2018 election says "Hi".
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News