tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post4566062994103000077..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Primary turnout doesn't predict general turnout (a la the "monster vote" model)agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-6935597094962214142016-08-30T04:06:54.561-04:002016-08-30T04:06:54.561-04:00In fairness to calling Bernie supporters posers ab...In fairness to calling Bernie supporters posers about TPP, corruption, war, etc. -- we would have seen something similar among Trump voters if Jeb ended up with the nomination instead, while Bernie won it on the other side.<br /><br />How many Trump primary voters would cross the aisle and vote for Bernie in the general, if the Republican were Jeb?<br /><br />I know I would have -- I don't care about either party, have not voted since 2000, and even then only for Nader. Too young to vote before then, but might have been a Perot voter too.<br /><br />But most Trump primary voters are Republican regulars who would vote for Jeb over Bernie -- despite everything Trump had said against TPP, Wall Street corruption of politicians, nation-building neocons, etc.<br /><br />Partisanship is starting to thaw out, but it's not going to melt overnight. We were hoping too much on that front. Bernie voters are going mostly for Crooked Hillary instead of Trump, and if the shoe were on the other foot, we'd be seeing consolidation of Trump voters around Jeb instead of crossing over to Bernie.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-86593533730304314852016-08-30T03:22:42.784-04:002016-08-30T03:22:42.784-04:00The whole appeal of the monster vote story is that...The whole appeal of the monster vote story is that it allows you paranoid hermit types the comfort to stay isolated, because the monster voters are going to swoop in to the rescue like a deus ex machina.<br /><br />No need to knock on doors, staff a phone bank, hold voter registration drives in Trump-friendly areas, and so on and so forth.<br /><br />Some of the irregular voters will organize themselves -- but these "new to the general" voters were only 6-13% of primary GOP voters, depending on the state.<br /><br />If you want the whole bunch of them to come out of the woodwork, you're going to have to go full Brexit and meet people where they live, work, and hang out, and spread the gospel. Frankly, the Trump movement is not doing that.<br /><br />Part of it is the campaign not having enough money or manpower, but they can only be expected to do so much. Grassroots Trump supporters aren't out and about spreading the gospel of populist nationalism wherever they find ears willing to listen.<br /><br />That is a major project for the next four years -- to make sure that, regardless of 2016, the next election is not even close.<br /><br />This election will mostly be won by re-aligning the existing regular voters, e.g. shifting enough Dems in Michigan to our side. New voters are going to play a much smaller role, unless there is a last-minute surge in voter registrations.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-55806354454380711002016-08-30T03:06:10.994-04:002016-08-30T03:06:10.994-04:00"and apparently don't present your musing..."and apparently don't present your musings there in the comments section."<br /><br />Read better -- I did, and they deleted the data I presented back through 2000.<br /><br />I'm banned there now, but still leave comments so that at least the voice of reason gets to the writers and moderators, if not the general audience.<br /><br />Sundance just wrote another post about how 25% of Florida early/absentee voters have never voted before "EVER" -- turns out they have, and the article he linked to only said they were new to the *primaries*.<br /><br />So, they're regular general election voters who, for a change, feel motivated enough to take part in the earlier primary stage. They're not voters who are new to the general election.<br /><br />The article said so itself, and Sundance even quoted the paragraph saying so, with the sentence in bold!<br /><br />Fortunately other commenters noticed this and said, "Hey, these aren't monster voters." So how does he respond? By glibly dismissing their comments, totally ignorant of what they were saying -- these voters are new to *primaries*, NOT the general.<br /><br />He has great knowledge of who's who in the GOP Establishment, what their shifting and conflicting motivations are, who's funding them, and so on. It's great to read for the inside look at their whole ecosystem.<br /><br />But when it comes to predicting the general, he's only looking for confirmation that it's going to be a landslide for whoever the Republican is this year -- Romney, Trump, or whoever. Even if what he's citing doesn't say it, he'll interpret it as a sign of the monster vote.<br /><br />Incurable.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-41829886505404964272016-08-30T02:54:46.926-04:002016-08-30T02:54:46.926-04:00"to makes guesses on a post-2000 electorate?&..."to makes guesses on a post-2000 electorate?"<br /><br />CTH only used one year -- 2008 -- to predict this year's Dem multiplier, suggesting that nearly 10 million are going to vanish from last time. It's lazy and foolish.<br /><br />I'm judging from all data available, not being naive or cherry-picking.<br /><br />Cruz voters are already captured by the primary numbers -- cannot add to the general numbers, moron.<br /><br />Sanders supporters are by and large voting for Clinton, since they're partisan Democrats who are just posers about being against TPP and endless wars.<br /><br />"CTH predicted the primary turn-out"<br /><br />They also got the general completely wrong last time -- search archives of November 2012. Right up till the end, it was Romney in a landslide, we got this, not even close, etc.<br /><br />You're another one who refuses to understand the relationship between primary excitement and low multiplier for the general. You're just looking for an emotional comfort, to avoid the thought that Trump actually could lose the election.<br /><br />While you're so assured that all these monster voters are just going to register themselves and find their own way to the polling stations, you aren't organizing anybody. If the monster vote fails to turn out, it'll be because you were too assured that they would do so on their own, and not need a ground game or GOTV effort.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-42364398491509135992016-08-30T02:37:44.292-04:002016-08-30T02:37:44.292-04:00'even though there are data going back to 1976...'even though there are data going back to 1976'<br />You're using 1976 numbers to makes guesses on a post-2000 electorate?<br /><br />'Because the Republican primary this year was by all accounts the most motivating and engaging at least since 1976, their multiplier this year will be lower than any previous value.'<br />Yeah all those people who voted, say, Cruz will hand the Supreme Court to Hillary and surrender their guns. On the other hand, all those Sanders supporters will rush to vote for Clinton - they love free trade and neo-con wars!<br /><br />Seriously, there is a reason why you are left with commenting on another blog and apparently don't present your musings there in the comments section.<br /><br />CTH predicted the primary turn-out, what did you ever get right?Petehttps://theconservativetreehouse.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-32901888577801769882016-08-23T17:48:53.273-04:002016-08-23T17:48:53.273-04:00Good information, thank you.
Between the cuck bel...Good information, thank you.<br /><br />Between the cuck belt defeatists who are Trump supporters but are ready to throw in the towel in mid-August of all times because he's behind in a couple of polls, cuckservatives who handwring and "still don't know" about Trump, and the white working class people I talked to who are in the tank for Trump but still aren't going to vote, it seems like I need to temper my expectations from a 400+ electoral vote landslide to something more realistic like your 320 EV prediction.<br /><br />Here's hoping that Trump wins the debates and brings a lot of these people back into the GOP-voting fold come election time.Random Dude on the Internetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-57451622010947148582016-08-23T16:49:36.509-04:002016-08-23T16:49:36.509-04:00"Here's hoping that there are some GOTV e..."Here's hoping that there are some GOTV efforts in the white working class communities in the coming weeks."<br /><br />Roger Stone is planning on doing this in the swing states, proportional to how much money he can raise.<br /><br />That's the only source of a landslide, and at least we know they won't be turning out for Crooked Hillary.<br /><br />Another positive is that white working class people who are politically isolated are more common in red states. In blue states, they may belong to a union or know someone who does -- someone who could get them registered.<br /><br />Part of the near-term agenda is to organize the unorganized, not just politically into the hostile takeover of the former country club party by the salt of the earth, but economically into labor unions so they can throw more of their weight around vs. the globalist outsourcing management.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-5406307982704328142016-08-23T16:41:01.454-04:002016-08-23T16:41:01.454-04:00Among Bush '04 voters, fully 26% defected to O...Among Bush '04 voters, fully 26% defected to Obama in '08, whereas only 6% of Kerry '04 voters defected to McCain.<br /><br />Not only is 26% a hell of a lot bigger than 6%, it was taken of a larger population -- 62 million Bush voters, vs. only 59 million Kerry voters.<br /><br />Obama's thumping of McCain was more of a big F-U to Bush than an endorsement of whatever Obama was promising. That was why McCain lost even Indiana and North Carolina, who had had it with neoconservatism.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-91602805670014300762016-08-23T16:31:41.669-04:002016-08-23T16:31:41.669-04:00(Data from two comments up is from the General Soc...(Data from two comments up is from the General Social Survey, btw)agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-10307523131213579482016-08-23T16:30:18.422-04:002016-08-23T16:30:18.422-04:00Black voters will definitely turn out for a crusty...Black voters will definitely turn out for a crusty ol' whitey grandma if she's the Democrat. They simply vote Democrat, either voluntarily out of a sense of loyalty to the party that they've belonged to for 50 years, or by being rounded up from the inner city and bussed out to the polling station like a herd of cattle.<br /><br />Black voters who are actually open-minded and weighing each choice are a minority -- 15% are for Trump, and some other percent at least considered him, but we're still talking a minority that are not reflexive Democrat voters.<br /><br />White people make a grave mistake when they attribute white mindsets to black people, thinking that they'll be far less likely to vote for a white woman than a black man. They tribalistically vote Democrat, whoever it may be.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-79130535437937741122016-08-23T16:26:00.820-04:002016-08-23T16:26:00.820-04:00White and black turnout was identical in '08 (...White and black turnout was identical in '08 (69%), and when Obama did worse in '12, it was despite higher black turnout than white (71% vs. 67%).<br /><br />The electorate was as black as the (voting eligible) population overall -- 15-16%.<br /><br />It looks that way back through '00 as well, and the population has only gotten slightly blacker during that time -- from 13% to 15%.<br /><br />Racial composition of the country or the electorate had absolutely nothing to do with Obama's wins -- which were due to liberal and moderate whites coming out in droves, plus a large defection of former Bush '04 voters when faced with McCain.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-54542928680175045042016-08-23T15:23:14.040-04:002016-08-23T15:23:14.040-04:00I think it will tough to predict with any certaint...I think it will tough to predict with any certainty how this election will turn out due to demographic changes.<br /><br />For 2008 and 2012, minority turnout really increased, to where the black turnout percentage was higher than the white turnout percentage. With 2016, I really don't see black people coming out in droves to vote for an old white lady, no matter how hard she panders to them. Without a black person on the ticket, it will be a hard sell to get them to come out and vote.<br /><br />Much has been talked about of an increased turnout of the white working class but I think this group of people will be less reliable. Again, purely anecdotal, which means little or nothing, but I know of several working class Trump supporters who still don't plan to go out and vote. Trump's landslide is dependent on these people voting for the first time in 20-30 years or even ever in their life and I think it is a very hard sell that they will show up. They might show up to his rallies but registering to vote and showing up on November 8 is another matter entirely. Here's hoping that there are some GOTV efforts in the white working class communities in the coming weeks.Random Dude on the Internetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-65832622905822914602016-08-22T22:35:38.712-04:002016-08-22T22:35:38.712-04:00Conservative Treehouse writers and commenters are ...Conservative Treehouse writers and commenters are mostly in the paranoid under-siege bunker mindset -- "the last refuge".<br /><br />They're going there for a feeling of relief and escape from the corrupted world (half of the American people are irredeemable scum in their eyes, at least that was the feeling in 2012).<br /><br />In the '90s, they retreated into the talk radio bubble, in the 2000s the Fox News bubble, and in the 2010s the conservasphere website bubble.<br /><br />If their mindset is finding sanctuary, then asking honest questions about their "monster vote" model is like desecration -- during the holy service, no less. It isn't functioning as a serious attempt to understand reality, but as a ritual object that provides emotional comfort for the dejected, whether the object "really works" or not.<br /><br />Questioning its functional value is therefore taboo, as though you were questioning the nutritional value of the host in Communion -- during the service!<br /><br />I didn't know they were so echo-chambered until they deleted that comment with more historical data that called their model into question.<br /><br />On a hunch I went through their archives, and they (including the main writer, Sundance) were convinced that Romney was going to win, in a landslide, not even close, we got this, polls schmolls, etc. This was right up through Election Day.<br /><br />Trump poked fun at Karl Rove for his on-air denial meltdown in 2012 about how Ohio could not possibly have gone to Obama (guess the bribe to fix the election didn't pan out this time). "He's the only one going around saying, 'I think Romney won the election!' What a dope."<br /><br />But that carried over into the conservasphere websites, and just as we can't rely on Rove's judgment, we shouldn't rely on the conservasphere's assessment of anything quantitative -- whatever else they may have the inside scoop on.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-64228145828554995802016-08-22T22:21:36.687-04:002016-08-22T22:21:36.687-04:00The county that Hooversville PA is in, Somerset, a...The county that Hooversville PA is in, Somerset, already went for Romney at over 70% -- not sure how much more blood we can squeeze from that stone. And population is only about 80,000.<br /><br />The difference today is that they're incredibly enthusiastic about voting Republican, rather than just voting against the Democrat. Finally the Republican is tailor-made for them.<br /><br />We can't conclude anything about Trump's general performance if we look at places that were already heavily Republican last time.<br /><br />Even in swing areas, how do we know that Trump signs mean new Republican voters, rather than reliable R voters who are just happy to show it this time around, vs. bored / ashamed / depressed by the cuckservatives?<br /><br />A true sign of a landslide would be Trump signs in every other yard in the Philly suburbs. They aren't reliable R voters showing it in public for a change. Eastern PA is reliably blue.<br /><br />A 1980 style landslide (in the electoral vote, popular was not) came with the "Reagan Democrats" -- voters from traditionally blue areas, who found enough common ground with the Reagan coalition, or who had been so turned off by Carter's results, that they stepped beyond partisan loyalty and voted for who they thought would be best for them and the nation.<br /><br />A more promising sign of a shift in PA is Luzerne County in the eastern part of the state (home to Wilkes-Barre). It's been blue since the culture wars began in the '90s, yet Trump is polling consistently at 20 points above Crooked Hillary:<br /><br />http://axiomstrategies.com/abc/luzerne/<br /><br />That's the Reagan Democrats.<br /><br />Reagan also brought in lots of suburban moderates, and Trump would need them to get a seismic shift in PA -- mainly the Philly metro suburbs.<br /><br />If we don't investigate these areas that have been blue since the '90s (liberal side of the culture war), then we're remaining in an echo chamber.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-3541155657581704162016-08-22T19:30:18.466-04:002016-08-22T19:30:18.466-04:00http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/...http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/21/at_the_base_of_trumps_support_131567.html<br /><br />In PA, it sure seems like there's a lot of visible support for Trump, at least closer to the sticks. Oh, and instead of painting Trump voters as a bunch of stupid hateful rubes, we get acknowledgment of their humanity. Like, they actually have reasonable hopes and fears. Not everybody wants to turn their back on the places from which they come. Not everybody wants to decamp to the West because, "that's where all the good jobs are". Yeah, and that's also where tons of immigrants, American born transients, cults, goofy fads, childlike naivete, and edgy paranoia also are common. L.A. has the lowest trust levels in the country; it's also the most diverse (ethnically and intellectually) place in the country. Coincidence?<br /><br />Yuppies/strivers, deracineated white liberals, alienated younger people who have no understanding of what America once was, and cuck cultural warriors just don't make the connection between security, stability, continuity, and prosperity. We've got to shame these stubborn people into "settling" for a more modest and slow pace to everything. Eventually more people will start to realize that climbing too fast means kicking the faces of too many people below you. And climbing too high means a greater risk of falling to your death. <br /><br />There shouldn't be any stigma regarding the control of immigrants, either. It's a basic obligation of any nation to put it's natives before anyone else. We can't feel too guilty about turning people away. None of us would if we (re) learned that it's good for natives to keep diseases, criminals, welfare cases, and cheap labor out.<br /><br />BTW, I don't really get why Con. Tree House is blacklisting you. If we really want to stand together, we need to be listening to each other. The site owner must really have some insecurities. Maybe he doesn't want anyone to pop his bubble that he keeps inflating. So what if he got called out for being wrong; we make mistakes, people will get over it, and escaping accountability and continuing a fraud will do a lot more damage than being honest about your flaws and conceits.<br /><br />As much hostility as there is towards people living in the cucksphere and those who seem to live their lives as offerings to the diversity idol, we can't be too smug either. The alt-right shouldn't be suppressing honest research and analysis regarding demographics, probabilities, and the overall state of things at present and in the future. For the best way to escape the dreary PC culture war era is to make a renewed commitment to honesty and inquiry. Being an insecure little bitch and casting out and smearing earnest skeptics is not doing our cause any favors. The "manly" Alt-righters can do better.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-29399633953914352142016-08-22T12:01:40.132-04:002016-08-22T12:01:40.132-04:00In 2012, they only got 20% of what they polled at....In 2012, they only got 20% of what they polled at. So if Johnson gets up to 10%, make that 2%, and if Stein goes up to 5%, make that 1%. Their combined ceiling is around 3%, floor 1%.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-1912018670939595582016-08-22T08:50:14.607-04:002016-08-22T08:50:14.607-04:00How do you see Johnson and Stein playing out?
My ...How do you see Johnson and Stein playing out?<br /><br />My uneducated guess is that they will only see marginal improvements from their 2012 runs. Johnson ends up with 1-1.2% and Stein ends up 0.4-0.6%. I always see Johnson's poll numbers as uncertain Republican voters who will come around for Trump at the 11th hour and the same goes for Stein and Clinton.<br /><br />If McMullin even is in the race by November, maybe he gets 0.1 or 0.2% of the popular vote, mostly from diehard #nevertrump supporters in Utah, Idaho, and Colorado who are too stubborn to admit they lost.Random Dude on the Internetnoreply@blogger.com