November 10, 2016

"Notwithstanding [Election Day's] 'white working-class' wave, often linked to those voters’ purported latent racism and xenophobia..."

"... the net effect of Trump’s campaign was to make substantial progress with nonwhites relative to Romney’s performance in 2012."

Also: "Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women."

47 comments:

hstad said...

As usual, the MSM misses the most incredible story coming out of these elections. Since 2009, under President Obama, Democrats have lost over 900 state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, and now the Presidency. After eight years of Barack Obama the US map is red. The Obama legacy is total failure. Mind-boggling!

n.n said...

Class diversitists on parade.

It is actually a working-class wave, of individuals who discovered their dignity, and a pro-native sentiment from America to Libya to Syria to Ukraine to Iraq.

Laslo Spatula said...

From 'Blazing Saddles' to Obama: things are explained.

Ooga Booga / Where The White Women At

I am Laslo.

JAORE said...

Doesn't fit the narrative.

El Predicto sez:
Another lesson not learned.

YoungHegelian said...

Now that reality has gone my way, I'm gonna post this yet again:

from 2/25 right here, chez Althouse:

But, Trump, Trump is different. Trump is rich as shit, lives in a penthouse in his own building in Manhattan, tells anyone who gets in his face to fuck off, hangs with the rich & famous, & surrounds himself with USDA certified grade A prime boo-tay. You know what you call that if you're a young black man? A role model.

Please, please, stop the applause now. We all have work to get back to.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

So, using the exits that missed DJTs win (rather than waiting for the actual turnout data) is supposed to be useful?

Carry on.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

We already know they were wrong.

Just sayin'

Achilles said...


Blogger PBandJ_Ombudsman said...
We already know they were wrong.

The black trump vote was underrepresented because blacks remember what progressives do to them when they try to leave the progressive plantations.

YoungHegelian said...

I also think that white liberal pundits misunderstand the minority disaffection for many Republican candidates. Their disaffection is not ideological; it's aesthetic. It's not that the minorities think that the White Republican male is an evil fascist who's going to dispossess them of all they own. It's that the standard Republican male candidate is so goddamn stuffy & boring! Who wants a leader like that! What, are we electing the First Accountant?

Trump may have many faults. Being boring is not among them. He has the persona to be seen as a "leader" by these communities.

Gahrie said...

2008: 58.2% turnout

Obama - 69,498,516
McCain - 59,948,323

2012: 54.9% turnout
Obama - 65,915,795
Romney - 60,933,504

2016: 55.6% turnout
Clinton - 59,942,917
Trump - 59.704,843

The Republican vote has remained virtually the same over the last three presidential elections, while the Democratic vote has gone down by 10.5 million votes.

Achilles said...

The LAT/USC Poll called 47/43. It was exactly right among legal voters.

Knock 2 million illegal aliens, dead people, double state voters, and family pets off Hillarys total and you have 40 states for Trump just like I said.

And trump outperformed Romney in every demographic except one, white college grads. If you shit strawberry ice cream and call yourself conservative you probably voted for mcmuffin or Johnson.

traditionalguy said...

The chattering idiot class seem to forget northern European Protestant Christians settled the New world that had not already been taken by conquest and run as a vast slavocracy over looted gold and silver owning tribes and kidnapped Africans by Conquistadors sent from Spain and Portugal's Monarchs with full Catholic Church blessing and assistance.

Why should we lay down and die from false guilt to make it easier for the next set of Conquistadors sent over here by World Government Tyrants screaming Racist Racist.

GAHCindy said...

Here in our small college town (small once the students and vacationers go home, anyway), we have one big intersection. We call it "the big light", which I think is cute. Going through the big light a couple of weekends before the election, we were in the lane next to a group of six black motorcyclists. There were a couple of Trump supporters on the intersection with "Honk for Trump" signs. The intersection was very noisy, so that made me happy. Saw the guys conversing amongst themselves. Imagine my surprise when all six of the bikers tooted their horns when our light turned green and we started moving. Trump did well with some minorities here, at least, I hope because a large number of them know that white people actually are not out to get them, and those votes have nothing to do with race, everything to do with desiring freedom for everybody.

Laslo Spatula said...

A Letter from Miss Harriet Tubman, Kansas, 1954:

Our election nightmare is finally over. We had a woman -- a Woman! From New York City, no less! -- running for Mayor, but -- Thank The Lord -- she lost. I think she was counting on the votes of the Negroes and the Mexicans, but we only have two Negroes in town, and four Mexicans...

Ever since my Husband passed away I have had to figure out who to vote for by myself: I try to vote in the way he would've wanted me to, and I hope I have made him proud in Heaven...

I don't understand why women who have never married are allowed to vote: Without a man in their lives they are only going to vote for childish, girlish things, because that is all they know. I don't know: maybe the Government will come to its senses and correct the single Women Voting problem -- one can hope...

Our new Mayor is a strong man, and he has talked big about our town fixing its sewage problem, Thank The Lord. Some days the smell is so bad you'd think you are in Godforsaken Mexico...

I bet the single women don't even have a clue on how to fix this problem; I am so grateful we have Our Men to do The Right Thing, and I hope the single women would be at least kind enough to help wash up, afterwards...

Sincerely,
Harriet.

I can only pray our Government will take care of this problem.

I am Laslo.

Thorby said...

In post election interviews, both Reince Priebus and Kellyanne Conway have indicated that their internal polls were more accurate that the media polls. The question is why. In my opinion, when the media became combatants rather than dispassionate observers, they introduced a crippling bias. Their weapon in the arena was social bullying. As a result, when closet Trump supporters were asked to give their views, they were less likely to be truthful when asked by the media than when asked by the Trump organization.

If the media wanted to do their job properly, they should have stayed on the sidelines.

Matthew Sablan said...

" It's that the standard Republican male candidate is so goddamn stuffy & boring!"

-- I don't think it is that at all. I think after 8+ years, especially during presidential elections, of being told "Republicans want to put you in chains," when they met a guy who did retail politics better than McCain/Romney, they got to hear/see Trump more and the disconnect between that and the guy they saw every day made them less likely to just buy whatever they were told about him.

I also wonder if the "What do you have to lose?" argument was more powerful than we though.

robother said...

This whole analysis is misleading, like looking at the seasonal point totals of an NBA team rather than won/loss record. The only comparative turnout that matters is swing states that determine the electoral college results. Running up the score (in white or minority votes) by either candidate in non-swing states like Texas or California is irrelevant to explaining or gaming future elections.

Anytime you see an entire electoral turnout category being cited by a Dem or Repub analyst, he's just selling a narrative that he's already invested in.

Greg Hlatky said...

I don't understand why women who have never married are allowed to vote: Without a man in their lives they are only going to vote for childish, girlish things, because that is all they know.

"When a woman has a husband and you got none,
Why should she take advice from you?
Even if you can quote Balzac and Shakespeare and all them other highfalutin' Greeks."

- Meredith Willson, The Music Man

rehajm said...

I just couldn't see the barbershop black guys coming out in droves to vote for an elitist white gramma.

coupe said...

I'm pro-hyphen, so I would expect "win-over" and not "win over".

If you say "Clinton couldn't win over white women" it sounds like she is filled with helium and is floating above them.

MadisonMan said...

@Greg, that is such an awesome song. Pert Kelton was great with it.

Christopher B said...

Thorby

I think that while there might be some deliberate manipulation, and some "shy" voters a lot of the fault was a much more unconscious bias on the part of the pollsters. Remember that most polls attempt to mathematically correct the raw data to various statistics in the population being surveyed (age ranges, ethnicity, residence, party affiliation, etc) when reporting results. Much of the bias appeared to creep in based on assumptions being made about what the composition of the actual voting population would be. It appeared that many polling groups assumed, wrongly, that the 'Obama coalition' would turn out again even though there was ample data from 2010, 2014, and even 2012 to show that wasn't accurate (as Gahrie posted above). I think the respondents to the LA Times tracking poll that consistently showed Trump ahead were analyzed and found to be older and whiter which might have been true of the general population but wasn't true of the people who actually showed up to vote. My sense would be that Priebus and Conway either got lucky about the assumptions they were making, or they were getting better data on the actual composition of the voter pool.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dreams said...

I heard Nelson Peltz, a wealthy money manager, say on CNBC a few days ago that the media took everything Trump said literally but not seriously whereas the American people took everything he said seriously but not literally which is true. The corrupt liberal media pretended to take everything Trump said literally so they could portray him negatively

cornroaster said...

Gahrie said...
2008: 58.2% turnout

Obama - 69,498,516
McCain - 59,948,323

2012: 54.9% turnout
Obama - 65,915,795
Romney - 60,933,504

2016: 55.6% turnout
Clinton - 59,942,917
Trump - 59.704,843

The Republican vote has remained virtually the same over the last three presidential elections, while the Democratic vote has gone down by 10.5 million votes

Must be the voter suppression effect of voter ID laws. We know there couldn't have been that many extra illegal votes for the Democrats.

Anglelyne said...

YoungHegelian: It's not that the minorities think that the White Republican male is an evil fascist who's going to dispossess them of all they own. It's that the standard Republican male candidate is so goddamn stuffy & boring!

No, it's not that they're "stuffy and boring". Would to God they'd be unapologetically emotionally-reserved, stiff-upper-lip, hard-core old school white men, and goddamn proud of it!

Their problem is that they're cringeing, groveling, unmanned limp noodles. E.g., the political persona of someone like Romney, who is not an effeminate man, was feminine - it was perceived as that of someone who above all else did not want to offend, who would not fight. And he didn't fight. I know cucks like to delude themselves that this pointlessly yielding behavior is "gentlemanly", but it isn't. What it is is feminine, and therefore doesn't signal "leader". (Women leaders can't be feminine in that way, either. They must be manly without being mannish, and tough fighters without being harridans. At least at the highest ranks of political office. Another reason why HRC wasn't going to be Your First Woman President.)

Trump's flamboyance (not my cup of tea, btw) works for him because it's his natural temperament, and he doesn't cringe and apologize. The "stuffiness" of a more reserved man does not work against him, if he is a man.

hombre said...

It's not racial. It's tribal.

The liberal mediaswine are seriously troubled by the fact that the "white tribe" and its allies overcame the division, shaming and propaganda promoted by their masters at DNC long enough to take our country back from their tribal coalition.

Some of their tribes are now trying to intimidate us by burning college campuses. Give 'em gasoline I say!

A big problem for their tribes is that our tribe isn't really white. At its best it contains the brightest and bravest of other tribes.

MaxedOutMama said...

Gahrie - but I think those figures reflect the impact of a Democratic candidate with serious ethical problems and a proven loyalty toward interests which don't match those of the Democratic base. That is as tactful as I could be - what I'm really thinking is far more brutal.

There are plenty of potential voters who couldn't force themselves to pull the lever for Trump, but also weren't going to pull it for Hillary. The "other" vote picked up anywhere from 2-9% in various states, with the norm being about 3%.

Given a better Democratic candidate, this election would have had a very different outcome.

I don't intend to suggest anything for 2020 (shudder, don't like to think of it). I do think we will have a paradigm shift somewhere in here to renew the Democratic party and return it to a bit more of a populist and less corrupt focus. What the Democratic leadership will do over the next few years remains to be seen.

Right now, Dem Mark Twain mode is in full sway, but history suggests that this failure will force changes.

eading the NYT coverage yesterday was an awesome experience leading me to believe that they are not going to find it easy to change. All I could think of was Noonan's line about being condescended to by your inferiors. Apparently a miasmic cloud of self-satisfied self-reinforcing stupidity has fully infiltrated their life-support systems. That is really the only reason why Hillary was the nominee.

But we'll have to wait and see. This just can't continue, and so it won't.

n.n said...

Now they're "white women". What happened to the sisterhood?

readering said...

I think there is something to be said for the celebrity/star effect erasing racial distinctions. It worked for Trump in 2016 and frankly it worked for Obama in 2008.

Anglelyne said...

tradguy: The chattering idiot class seem to forget northern European Protestant Christians settled the New world that had not already been taken by conquest and run as a vast slavocracy over looted gold and silver owning tribes and kidnapped Africans by Conquistadors sent from Spain and Portugal's Monarchs with full Catholic Church blessing and assistance

Putting aside quibbles about what the RCC blessed and assisted or did not bless or assist, I don't think the chattering idiot class, for the most part, have "forgotten" anything. I have a sneaking suspicion that their level of historical knowledge is about on par with that of the most ignorant facebook SJW, at best.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a large percentage of them seriously think that Spanish is an indigenous New World language, that only Anglo-Saxons practiced slavery in the New World, and that "Mexico" (all the way to Oregon) existed before the arrival of Europeans. (Instead of having been "stolen from the Native Americans" and constructed from the imperial land claims of European conquerors, just like the United States.)

C Stanley said...

The comment about inaccuracy of the exit polls made me realize that the only way they can get these demographic stats is thru exit polling (right?)

I guess they could pair it with data on how specific precincts with high minority percentages voted, but that's not going to gauge how the votes of minorities who live in diverse communities vote.

kentuckyliz said...

TraditionalGuy: the Catholic Church condemned chattel slavery from its beginning:

Sixty years before Columbus "discovered" the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull Sicut Dudum (1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that "all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."
A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery "null and void." Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.
When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.
Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI's 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving "Indians, blacks, or other such people" and forbade "any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse." In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.

mccullough said...

Who cares about the white vote or any vote in states Trump didn't win. Trump's vote totals surpassed Obama's 2012 votes in Florida, in Ohio, and in Pennsylavania. Who cares that Romney racked up more votes in Utah and Orange County, California.

Gahrie said...

I do think we will have a paradigm shift somewhere in here to renew the Democratic party and return it to a bit more of a populist and less corrupt focus

Who is going to accomplish this?

Donna Brazile? DWS? Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? Dick Durbin? Patty Murray? Chuck Schumer?

mccullough said...

Trump shifted the votes he needed in the states he needed (Florida, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania) and the one swing state Romney won (NC). Trump got more votes in each of these states than Obama and Romney.

As far as blacks, half of them live in solidly red states. It was inept of Clinton to try and turn out more blacks and suburban whites in Georgia. And Trump spent no time trying to soften his image with college-degreed white women in San Diego or Boston. Clinton needed to turn out minorities in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to offset Trump's net gains with whites in those
states. She didn't do it

campy said...

that only Anglo-Saxons practiced slavery in the New World,

In fact they believe Americans invented slavery and no one else has ever practiced it in all human history.

Static Ping said...

What I find disturbing at this point is the media "elite" is basically just lashing out at news it does not like. They have literally abandoned their profession. There is zero reason to trust them any further.

It's not like they hadn't made this obvious during this campaign season, blatantly picking sides, but the fact that the media is this utterly corrupt is still shocking. Still, I'm not sure why I should be surprised. When the Orlando massacre occurred, the media pretended it was about opposition to gay marriage as opposed to the ISIS inspired terrorist he obviously was. They've gone full Pravda.

A functioning democratic republic needs a functioning free press. We do not have one. This is a very bad sign.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women.

A co-worker was out on Monday campaigning for Clinton. He said that while more women than men supported Clinton, the women who did not support her were much more passionate in their dislike of her than were the men.

Alex said...

None of which excuses the noxious rhetoric and behavior put on display by the president-elect over the past 18 months or the genuine racism and xenophobia that he seemed willing to accept from some supporters.

Why is it acceptable to point out some racists in the Trump supporters but if you dare breathe on BLM you get called a Nazi/KKK?

Alex said...

Must be the voter suppression effect of voter ID laws. We know there couldn't have been that many extra illegal votes for the Democrats.

Or maybe these groups were strictly motivated to vote for Obama coz 'first black President' nonsense and in 2016 they had no reasons.

mockturtle said...

Static Ping says: What I find disturbing at this point is the media "elite" is basically just lashing out at news it does not like. They have literally abandoned their profession. There is zero reason to trust them any further.

And that, really, is the good news! We don't need them. Thankfully, we have other [better] sources of news. I have rejected the MSM and they should feel rejected after this election.

mockturtle said...

dreams said: The corrupt liberal media pretended to take everything Trump said literally so they could portray him negatively

They couldn't call him a homophobe so they had to call him everything else.

Fernandinande said...

Easier to read data :
http://www.unz.com/isteve/exit-poll-demographics/
http://www.unz.com/isteve/how-trump-did-with-catholics-and-jews/
Slightly less easy to read:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/10/this-years-exit-polls-same-gender-gap-as-in-2012-same-hispanic-support-for-republicans-as-in-2012-and-more/

The Cracker Emcee said...

"I think there is something to be said for the celebrity/star effect erasing racial distinctions. It worked for Trump in 2016 and frankly it worked for Obama in 2008."

God forbid that I get accused of racism or elitism but I don't think it's controversial to say that a significant portion of the Democrat vote comes from the lowest of the LIV vote. People whose consumption of news pretty much consists of reading the cover of The National Enquirer as they stand in line at Wal-Mart. And those tabloids have been absolutely brutal to Hillary in the last couple of weeks. A small thing, but I'd bet it accounted for quite a few votes or non-votes.

Static Ping said...

mockturtle: And that, really, is the good news! We don't need them. Thankfully, we have other [better] sources of news. I have rejected the MSM and they should feel rejected after this election.

That's great for us, but lots of people still take them seriously. In the Soviet Union, most people knew that Pravda was pure propaganda. We will see if the American people will see through this or not.

Frankly, I'd rather have Fox News and MSNBC at each others' throats than the garbage we have now. However, what I really want is a press that at least tries to be objective, even if it fails sometimes. I want a media that tells me things I don't want to hear and tells the other side things they don't want to hear.

JamesB.BKK said...

Which is worse: latent racism or patent racism? The latter is much worse than the former. Meanwhile, one may never learn of the former in an individual. The latter is the stock-in-trade of the Democratic Party notwithstanding their self-serving and dumb claim that minorities cannot be racists. Statements such as, "You are not qualified to speak on issue X, because you are a white man" are racist per se.