Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm done after this, but it had little to do with who voted for Trump, everything to do with who didn't vote for Hillary. 500% increase in 3rd party voters compared to 2012 in at least Pa and Mi. 40000 into more than 200,000. Disgruntled white people may have gotten Trump the nomination, but the election was on non voters and third party voters. That is math, arguing against math is like arguing against science, only worse.
|
This is built on the assumption non-voters and third party voters were otherwise Hillary voters. On what is this assumption based? (FYI, empirically, juxtaposing 2012 Democratic turnout against 2016 does not make the case.)
Here's some different math. Trump should not have been able to get the amount of votes he did, at all, anywhere. A candidate like him in years past would have been bulldozed by someone with a machine like Clinton's. Looking at his numbers, it is inescapable that he somehow created a movement. Digging into the numbers, you see that movement was centered around an unusually high number of white lower to middle class voters. What caused them to so galvanize? Us. We ignored them. They exacted revenge.
Even with diminished turnout, Hillary should have beaten Trump. And your math only works if we buy into an assumption we can't prove. There is something worse than arguing with math. Selling assumptions as math. It's exactly that kind of thinking that led to the modeling that allowed Hillary to think she had it in the bag and didn't need to spend more time in WI, PA, or MI.
