- I really have not much to say about the happenings of the past week. I'll just say it had a bit of everything from Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" comment, the Donald advocating for expansion of social programs and tax cuts, the "Birther" controversy (and the Donald trolling the media about it) and now acts of violence that the media and/or public officials call "intentional acts" of "potential acts of terror." In short, it appears the Donald has the momentum of in the race currently, with his supporters showing much greater enthusiasm than Hillary's campaign. But the next inflection point is the Presidential debate next Monday. I think a few will watch that one.
- But I really would like to talk about what I think will be the big key in this year's election: the makeup of the voting electorate that actually votes. When examining the results of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections, the makeup of the electorate was very significant in the result of the election. Just look at the makeup of the electorate in terms of eligible voters over the last three elections (courtesy of Brookings):
In short, a 4 percent shift between white and minority voters between 2004 and 2012 made a big difference in who had an edge in a national election at the outset. For example, there was about 129 million votes cast in the 2012 election It could been argued that since Mitt Romney won 59 percent of the white vote in 2012, he would have won another 3 million votes if the electorate was divided up as it was 2004. He would have probably still lost, but the electoral college would have much closer (Mitt probably would have won Florida, for instance).
However, these changes in the electorate shouldn't just be seen in isolation, we also need to consider who is actually turning out. The result here is also quite telling.
Perhaps it's due to the "Obama effect" of increasing enthusiasm for minority voters, especially blacks, but it's clear that the increase in turnout of minority voters combined with the notable decrease of white voters contributed greatly in President Obama's success.
Finally, we just don't consider how the electorate is set up and how many of them racially show up, but we also need to consider the margins each racial group supports a certain candidate. Below is the Democratic vote margins by racial group.
So based on the three graphics, it's a clear story. Over past three elections, minorities are a growing part of the electorate, they are more enthused to vote and they are voting in growing proportions for Democrats. So is there any question why President Obama was so successful?
What does this mean for this election? It means that there is a clear reason why the Donald is trying to gin up the white blue collar vote as well as trying to gain some traction amongst black voters. Increase the proportion whites are of the electorate, increase the proportions he wins of them and decrease the margins of the largest minority group. Hillary, in contrast, is trying to boost minority turnout by playing up the idea that the Donald is a racially divisive figure. Politics is simple when you look at it analytically, isn't it?
- So here I have my electoral map as of today. I made no changes.
However, I'm feeling much more confident about the current map as I see more polling supporting it. My one observation this week is this: it's becoming clear that the Donald does not need to win Pennsylvania to win the Presidency. In fact, the Donald may want to pursue the route that George W. Bush took to win re-election in 2004:
While I currently don't see this scenario very likely, I can certainly see it as a possibility. the states in question (NM, CO, and VA) are certainly battleground states and could easily move in the Donald's column by election day. It's going to be a wild 7 weeks, that's all I can say.
No comments:
Post a Comment