In 2016, Trump won the popular vote decisively, if you leave out California. Just let that sink in for a moment. He did not merely win the rural Midwest, or Texas. He won the whole country, minus California. Yes, it is fun to watch Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's debut on the national scene. And it gets the blood pumping to read that a sizeable minority of the American electorate is prepared to talk favorably about socialism. But Trump won the popular vote outside of California.
What does this mean for 2020? I haven't a clue, save that if Trump makes it that far, he might very well win the popular vote again outside California. To be sure, a little more targeted attention by the Democratic candidate to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania might defeat him. And all bets are off if the economy turns south in early 2020, as it well may. But let us not kid ourselves. This is a godawful country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Does voter suppression in 2016 make the country even worse (that it happened) or somewhat better (what the vote would likely have been without it)? Along similar lines, FL voters got rid of the automatic disenfranchisement of former felons in the last election, so if the GOP is unable sufficiently to slow walk this, FL may be bluer than it has been recently.
For what it's worth:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2019/Pres/Maps/Mar04.html#item-8
Well, let's hope that the "big one" hasn't hit California and killed everyone who lives to the west of the San Andreas fault. The lack of 'targeted attention' you reference still make me angry: HRC won the popular vote by 2.869 million votes, but lost the election by 10,704 in MI, 44,292 in PA, and 22,748 in WI. The electoral college was lost by 77,744 votes! Obama won on the basis of a massive investment in field organization that supplied important info that informed campaign decisions. Clinton didn't think it necessary to replicate that effort. She did spend more than twice what Trump did and ended the campaign with $62 million in the bank.
Field organization matters and here is a short story to prove it. Bernie Sanders won his first race for mayor of Burlington, Vt. by about 10 votes. Democrats had held that seat for decades and had come to take victory for granted. Bernie built a field organization, identified his supports and got them out to vote. It was the first and last close election Sanders ever experienced.
I think nobody knew how to campaign against a narcissistic bully, with the exception of Sanders who I think would have cleaned Trump's clock in the debates. This time will be different. The blue wave of 2018 is not over yet and Trump's record of failure will keep getting longer, turnout will likely be huge, and if the economy tanks Trump's trade wars and tax cuts will kill him. As my much smarter spouse has observed recently, I seem to be uncharacteristically optimistic of late.
And "godawful" is right!l
Doesn’t it seem a bit arbitrary to single out individual states as the unit of analysis, if we’re talking about the popular vote? I mean, you might as well point out that T***p won the popular vote outside New York + New England. Also, we should be soothed (not in to complacency, though) by the midterm popular vote, which was on the order of a 7 million vote advantage for Dems.
Still, the next election will certainly be 50-50, or 52-48, or something around there. Which, I agree, should make one shudder.
I agree with Ed here - this analysis is misleading. You can pick another couple of states (Illinois, Maryland, and Mass. work, I think) and get the same sort of result. It's just not useful to look at it in these terms. But, if we avoid significant electoral irregularities, avoid dip-shit vanity 3rd party candidates, and continue on the path of the last year or so, it should be okay. Of course, any one of the above could go wrong.
Furthermore, Trump only got approximately 19% of the total US population vote. The majority didn't vote. Why didn't they vote? Because they resent the establishment and think both parties and both candidates stink. Are they right? Yes. So if anything we should find the 'majority vote' (no one) encouraging! Or at least I do... Since the only thing that separates me from them is that I very, very, very, very, reluctantly voted.
Wrt that 19% of the population, it's quite sobering to see just how relatively few among the population has been responsible, historically, for foisting someone on itself as President. Even in the post WW Two period,as my memory serves, no one has got more than about 30 percent of those eligible to vote; if translated into US population these percentages would all be much smaller. For reasons peculiar to myself, I like to justify the Brexit decision by pointing out that it got the support of 37 percent of the British electorate.
Right, and even that 19% is no longer 19%. At least for now Trump has lost SOME of his initial voters' support.
Post a Comment