Current Topics
3 word story game
by TatumAH
0 seconds ago
RoundTable at the End of the Trump Regime!
by TatumAH
12 minutes 51 seconds ago
Disqualification Clause
by NW Ponderer
Today at 05:16 AM
Another reason for impeachment
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 03:54 AM
Post-Election Mischief
by perotista
Yesterday at 12:40 AM
Just got this from the nytimes - thought I would pass it on
by jgw
01/25/21 07:24 PM
What is wealth? How is it made? How is it accounted?
by logtroll
01/24/21 11:34 PM
Profile of a Trump Supporter
by jgw
01/24/21 08:03 PM
The Departed - 2020
by perotista
01/24/21 02:14 PM
We have had problems before (and a bit of humor)
by pondering_it_all
01/23/21 08:42 PM
The Trump Era's silver lining
by Greger
01/23/21 05:19 PM
The insurrectionist next door
by jgw
01/22/21 07:05 PM
An amusement - no politics!
by TatumAH
01/22/21 07:00 PM
An alternate to Impeachment
by perotista
01/20/21 10:52 PM
A Parler archive converted into an interactive map of the Capitol attack
by pdx rick
01/20/21 09:54 PM
Radicalized Rightwinger with 500 ammo rounds and fake Inaugural pass arrested
by Irked
01/18/21 02:50 AM
Bees do it better!
by jgw
01/15/21 09:35 PM
The coming crash
by pondering_it_all
01/14/21 10:33 PM
Unity and Healing
by jgw
01/14/21 07:23 PM
Whither Josh Hawley?
by perotista
01/13/21 07:13 PM
Forum Stats
6292 Members
61 Forums
17060 Topics
305674 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 211 of 212 < 1 2 ... 209 210 211 212 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#330257 - 11/17/20 05:29 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: chunkstyle]
perotista Online   content
member

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 1140
Another interesting stat from your numbers guy.

Of those who voted for either major party candidate because they wanted that candidate to become the next president. In other words their vote was for the candidate, not against the other candidate. This made up 71% of all those who voted.

Voting for Trump because they wanted him to continue to be president, rounding off, 58 million
Voting for Biden because they wanted him to become the next president, voting for Biden 50 million

Voting against a candidate, not for the other candidate, but strictly against a candidate only because they didn't want that candidate to continue as president or the challenger to become president. This vote was against a candidate and not for anyone. This group made up 24% of all those who voted.

Voting Biden only because they were against Trump, not for Biden, 25 million.
Voting Trump only because they were against Biden, not for Trump 11 million

This later group was decisive. The rest either refused to answer or were third party voters. This group made up 5% giving us 100%.

Biden won because of this later group who were strictly against Trump. I realize they all count the same as to the outcome of the election. It makes no difference if their vote was for or against a candidate.

But this later group of 25 million may not be for Biden's policies when he becomes president. They may make it tougher for him to govern only because they weren't really for him, but against Trump. this group also explains why the Republicans did so well down ballot vs. the presidency. Time will tell, but I found this quite interesting. I think this also backs up my belief that this election was all about getting rid of Trump, not putting the Democrats back in power as the down ballot voting also points to.
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
#330259 - 11/17/20 05:32 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: perotista]
rporter314 Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 7468
Loc: Highlands, Tx
I think you need to do an analysis of oyther elections where there were major issues involved, and compare to this one. I think it is the only way to make your stats meaningful.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Trump was dumped .... but he won't leave

Top
#330268 - 11/17/20 07:32 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: chunkstyle]
perotista Online   content
member

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 1140
You're probably right. I know the anti vote was huge in 2016, Not so much in 2008 and 2012. I have 2016, percentages only. 25% of those who voted fell into the against a candidate and not being for the other candidate. Of those 25%, 39% voted for Clinton because they were against Trump and Clinton just happened to be the other candidate. 50% of that 25% voted for Trump because they were against Clinton and not really for Trump. 11% voted third party. this is real close to the 24% of the anti voters this year which broke down Biden getting 68% of the anti voters vs. 30% going to Trump. 2% voting third party. The big change is Trump won the anti vote in 2016, lost it big time in 2020, This according to CNN exit polls.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

In 2012 the anti vote made up 11% of those who voted according to Gallup which didn't break it down.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-...candidates.aspx

The exit polls from 1972 through 2008 that I have didn't ask that question. So is 11% the norm for the anti vote or is 24 and 25% the norm.

I tend to think the 11% is the norm. We've had only 5 presidential candidates in history have a favorable rating of below 50% of all Americans. 4 of those 5 were in the last two elections.

Year Name Favorable/unfavorable
2020 Biden 49/50%
2020 Trump 45/54%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%

The whole list since 1956 when Gallup and Pew Research started keeping track of these things.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 70/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/43%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 53/42%
2020 Biden 49/50%
2020 Trump 45/54%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
#330277 - 11/17/20 10:47 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: perotista]
rporter314 Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 7468
Loc: Highlands, Tx
yeah this anti-vote thing has been a talking point for some time it seems ... but I also think that is a talking head thing ... trying to make something of every little nothing. However, sticking in my mind is the 1964, 2016 and 2020 elections as iconic in the sense there was a perceptible polarization between personalities/ideas. Whether you can ascribe or conclude it is as simple as favorability or issues. I couldn't say. A little more information is necessary to make those conclusions.

Another question, which may be an equivalent question, is whether the anti-vote was driven by personality or issues? All I can say is as a human person, Mr Trump was one of, if not the most, obnoxious person I have ever seen on the national stage. That said I would not have voted him out solely for that reason. And that being said I think I disagreed with every policy decision he made. I don't think I could have said that about any Republican in the last 50 years.

keep digging P
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Trump was dumped .... but he won't leave

Top
#330278 - 11/18/20 12:22 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: chunkstyle]
perotista Online   content
member

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 1140
I wasn't really digging, I found it interesting. Perhaps I actually was because it interested me. I think lost in the numbers was these anti voters are the ones that may, might come to the fore to oppose some policies Biden presents to the public. They didn't vote for Biden or his policies, they voted against Trump and his as you put it and I agree, his obnoxious and very uncouth personality.

It's probably a lot of these anti voters who voted for Biden also turned around and voted Republican down ballot. As far as the election of the presidency, it probably means nothing. Now it could mean something down ballot or approving and being in favor of Biden's policies in the future. We don't know that, but possible.

Time will tell. Trump through his legislative agenda, he really only had two. The repeal of Obamacare which failed miserably and his tax cuts which barely passed. So there isn't any example of anti voters coming forth to give us a clear cut idea of things to come through a historical perspective.

Like Obama over his last six years doing things with his pen and his phone, EO's, Trump did mostly the same thing. Which in a way is good, as Biden can revoke most of them.

So we'll see. I'm already working on 2022. What better way to end this with the latest House update.

The Republicans have a net gain of 8 seats so far with 8 still to be decided. Republicans flipped 11 Democratic seats. The Democrats flipped 3 Republican seats. Last election. 236 Democrats, 199 Republican. Current count, 220 Democrat, 207 Republican 8 still to be determined.



Edited by perotista (11/18/20 12:24 AM)
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
#330279 - 11/18/20 12:35 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: chunkstyle]
perotista Online   content
member

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 1140
Speaking of 2022 with redistricting coming up, there is a term trifecta's which simply means one party controls the governor, state senate and legislature.

An update on that also.

Republicans were projected to gain trifecta control in Montana and New Hampshire. The trifecta status of Alaska (a divided government Republican pick-up possibility) was not yet determined. If control of Alaska does not change, Republicans will have 23[1] trifectas (a net gain of two), Democrats will have 15 trifectas, and 12[1] states will have divided governments (a net loss of two). If Republicans gain a trifecta in Alaska, they will have 24 trifectas to Democrats' 15 with 11 divided governments.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas

Although Biden won by around 5 million votes give or take, he had no coat tails. The democrats did lousy down ballot which may come back to haunt them. Perhaps the anti vote means nothing, but then again if they ticket split as I think quite a lot of them did, come redistricting in trifecta states, the anti voters may mean a lot.
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
#330280 - 11/18/20 01:35 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: perotista]
Greger Offline


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 17602
Loc: Florida
Democrats have gained the bully pulpit. But with no mandate to speak of. President Elect Biden will hold only ceremonial power and the only thing the American people require of him is to NOT BE Trump.

We're heading into a two year moratorium on governance.

Is it too soon to be talking about 2022?
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
#330282 - 11/18/20 07:40 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: chunkstyle]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 10773
Loc: North San Diego County
Biden may not be able to do anything permanent in terms of legislation, but there is tons of stuff he can do. He can undo all of Trump's EOs, and put his own in place. His people will actually know the proper procedure (unlike Trump) so the Supreme Court will not be able to overturn them.

He can also get competent cabinet members and agency heads, unlike Trump's political cronies and saboteurs. Doesn't need senate confirmation, if he just rotates them every two years.

Republicans will be able to do nothing at all that Democrats don't support, so if they want to actually pass anything, they need to get rid of the Hasturd Rule. So I think compromise is coming. Either that or they might as well just stay home.

If he does a good enough job, Covid goes away with the vaccines, and the economy comes back, then maybe the voters will decide they like his stuff and vote in more Democratic Senators in 2022.

Top
#330283 - 11/18/20 07:45 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: chunkstyle]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 10773
Loc: North San Diego County
BTW, gerrymandering is predicated on packing your voters in as many 5% advantage districts as possible, and putting all the opposing party's voters in as few districts as possible. But it fails spectacularly, when you are down by 6%. Then you lose BIG because you have no safe districts.

Top
#330286 - 11/18/20 10:56 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: pondering_it_all]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 43762
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
BTW, gerrymandering is predicated on packing your voters in as many 5% advantage districts as possible, and putting all the opposing party's voters in as few districts as possible. But it fails spectacularly, when you are down by 6%. Then you lose BIG because you have no safe districts.

Rightwingers look at the short-term immediate gratification and do not plan for the long-haul.

Hmm
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
Page 211 of 212 < 1 2 ... 209 210 211 212 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 49 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Superfly, GreatNewsTonight, danarhea, RoughDraft274, CPWILL
6292 Registered Users
A2