dagblog - Comments for "New Catalist study of 2020 election"

Russia/Trump cheated - with a

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 11 May 2021 14:14:07 +0000

Russia/Trump cheated - with a whole lot of effort that they then covered up.
I guess it's becoming conventional wisdom that it didn't matter or didn't happen, but it totally mattered -
Hillary spent a year dodging around false info on her emails & then a drip-drip-drip from supposed "journalists" Julian Assange (such as speculating on her "Parkinsons" or other afflictions, as well as blatant lies about Seth Rich that Fox et al were successfully sued for - much of this & other FUD fed by a variety of Deripaska/Roger Stone/Assange/Macedonian crews/Mike Flynn/Steve Bannon/Manafort/Fox/Cambridge Analytica
and more & more indications that Israel, UAE & Saudis were playing their games too.

And since we see how blatantly illegal so many Republicans will go - $3.5 million campaign funds funneled for
the Jan 6 riots & related, Trump appointees at FEC still won't investigate Trump for the Stormy Daniels payoffs
on his behalf that Cohen went to jail for... that after the Russians gave Assange DNC emails & planning docs
[it's still hard to believe that "Hillary's email server" wasn't hacked - the Russians hacked the DNC, DCCC, various campaign members like Podesta through spearfishing, even Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner - but *never the supposedly scandalously unsecured mail server Hillary had at home!!! - https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/mueller-clinton-arizona-hack/] that Manafort gave Russian intelligence agent Kilimnik specific polling data in Aug 2016 on Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, 3 of which she surprisingly lost & 1 came very close - and that's not even guessing what these criminal people at the NRA hanging around Butina or otherwise showing their lack of morals may have done in tilting the election towards Trump. Whatever Mueller investigated, so much was stonewalled & likely destroyed, that it's certainly not comprehensive about what the GOP was up to - but they showed their hand at being completely willing to do anything to win.

Bruenig out to piss off

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 11 May 2021 05:35:00 +0000

In reply to More important insights from

Bruenig out to piss off Hillary voters & explain nothing.

Hillary went from 75+% popularity in 2012 to superhigh negatives just 3 years later, with an unprecedented, largely under-the-wire, foreign-funded-and-run social media hit job that seemed to work (google Derioaska, ffs), seeing as outcomes were tightly bound to Red and Blue divisions - where did those lines/knee-jerk voting work the best and how was it different from 2014? Women showed off being pissed in 2018 about Trump v Hillary, but no analysis of what that means. The "wisdom" was that she had an awful candidate to run again yet still lost, but after 2020 we see Trump as particularly awful yet horribly effective - who else preside over a comically (bleach?) mismanaged pandemic with hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths while getting impeached twice, yet still nearly pull off an electoral college squeaker? (what effect did Clyburne, the adult in the room, have on calming down the party to unify around a full candidate who was struggling? What effect did Joe not having to campaign, just ride out the election period in a near bunker, hardly getting those Monday morning critiques of where he failed to campaign... comparing apples to orangutans some?) Bruenig could look at the recent UK election to see Stoermer presiding over a totally collapsing Labour despite the thought that it was the too extreme Corbyn who kept the party from being relevant. He'd rather play poke-the-bear. There was a big switch to totally polarized voting, traitors vs patriots, that 2016 signifies - sure, blame it on awful Hillary, but how did it get started, how's it progressing, what's the frequency Kenneth? Let's have some journalisting in the room how about it.

in the above, note change in

artappraiser — Tue, 11 May 2021 01:29:55 +0000

In reply to The Economist has a new

in the above, note change in concern over crime and gun control vs. concern over civil rights, during Biden's first 100 days:

The Economist has a new

artappraiser — Tue, 11 May 2021 01:22:03 +0000

In reply to New Catalist study of 2020 election

The Economist has a new feature, an updated weekly poll with You.gov, interactive, to compare what Americans have thought about policy and politics for every week over the past decade:

We launched a new interactive poll tracker that explores what Americans have thought about policy and politics for every week over the past decade https://t.co/04I1sZkqj2 EconUS
— Dr. Joseph Frusci (@JFrusci) May 11, 2021

I was having dental work this

artappraiser — Tue, 11 May 2021 01:05:09 +0000

In reply to New Catalist study of 2020 election

I was having dental work this AM so late to the party, but this @Catalist_US data is pretty freaking amazing.https://t.co/KfLKZ4bL3a
— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) May 10, 2021

Obviously this topline is generating the headlines, and for good reason. Donald Trump getting > 1/3 of the Hispanic vote, all things considered, is pretty striking. pic.twitter.com/qFDlMdkp50
— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) May 10, 2021

I mean, one-in-seven Republican voters was non-White. When thinking about GOP paths going forward, that has to be part of the calculus. pic.twitter.com/KGM2mNKx1m
— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) May 10, 2021

We need more analysis like this. Hispanics are not a monolith -- the entire construct isn't necessarily how people termed "Hispanic" or "Latino" conceive of themselves. Immigration, for example, has very different relationships with Mex-Am, Cuban-Am, and Puerto Rican voters. pic.twitter.com/Kx5BJ7cvse
— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) May 10, 2021

When you break down by gender, some of the stances are really quite striking -- Trump almost broke even among Hispanic males. Something like one-in-eight Black males. pic.twitter.com/vRuZtHB0Nm
— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) May 10, 2021

Gen X is gonna get skipped over for presidents until we're 80 years old like the Silents. No respect. pic.twitter.com/cYH9J0ezDE
— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) May 10, 2021

Bill Scher: Democrats can

artappraiser — Tue, 11 May 2021 00:23:42 +0000

In reply to New Catalist study of 2020 election

Bill Scher: Democrats can keep the House in 2022. Really.

36 midterm elections since Reconstruction

In only 3 of the 36 did the president's party gain House seats.

But 2022 could be the 4th.

My latest for the Washington @monthly https://t.co/i14d19TyFY
— Bill Scher (@billscher) May 10, 2021

Found this a MUCH better

artappraiser — Mon, 10 May 2021 18:24:42 +0000

In reply to New Catalist study of 2020 election

Found this a MUCH better takeaway from the study with much less agenda-like spin, mho. Is especially interesting that Biden lost some urban but gained some rural and also bodes extremely well that the Dem party is growing more diverse. Also the complexity of younger voters is very interesting -

Democrats lost vote share among Latinos, from 71-29% in 2016 to 63-37% in two-way, but gained among white voters with a college degree, from 50-50 to 54-46% in 2020

New Catalyst estimates:https://t.co/U2bRU7JGkr pic.twitter.com/WAGuAZA7D1
— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) May 10, 2021

Turnout was up substantially in 2020, especially among younger voters

New Catalist estimates:https://t.co/U2bRU7JGkr pic.twitter.com/ATMpyk2s1G
— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) May 10, 2021

The density divide remained strong in 2020, but Biden lost ground in urban areas & gained in rural & suburban areas vs 2016

New Catalist estimates:https://t.co/U2bRU7JGkr pic.twitter.com/hXv8hMx31p
— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) May 10, 2021

Despite racial depolarization, the Democratic Party coalition remains far more diverse & is growing more diverse with the electorate.

New Catalist estimates:https://t.co/U2bRU7JGkr pic.twitter.com/WrdcmfHn8g
— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) May 10, 2021

Democrats did not gain share disproportionately from younger voters, despite the crashing level of 3rd-party support, but Democrats did gain from the rising younger generation share of the electorate

New Catalist estimates:https://t.co/U2bRU7JGkr pic.twitter.com/i1eSCgwEoY
— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) May 10, 2021

The married proportion of the electorate was down from 56% in 2016 to 52% in 2020. But the marriage gap declined from 18 points to 13 points; it also declined in House elections. Dems improved with married men from 2016.
More cross-tabs:https://t.co/AyIGey4clF
— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) May 10, 2021

White educational polarization continued in 2020, especially in congressional voting. https://t.co/tlPYPsrXDn pic.twitter.com/q3sRY3TRBq
— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) May 10, 2021

It would the the Congress

artappraiser — Mon, 10 May 2021 18:13:36 +0000

In reply to New Catalist study of 2020 election

It would the the Congress elected in 2024 (not 2022) that decides this.

Nonetheless, it's sort of shocking that Democrats don't seem to have much of a plan to make this harder (e.g. through new legislation) while they have their majorities. (H.R. 1 doesn't really address it.) https://t.co/MDcDfg0Mot
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) May 7, 2021

I think I did post elsewhere Yglesias discussing this but now here is Nate Silver is piping in that it's a possibility.

Also I've been seeing a considerable amount lately stressing how there was much higher turnout in 2020 of people who had never voted before, especially minorities of all types, and this didn't turn out like Democrats always dreamed. Wasn't just about Trump, it was about traditional non-voters voting much more idiosyncratically than was always presumed. That they were drawn to do so by Trump, either for or against, but then the rest of the ticket voting was very surprising in many ways, not reliably blue or red.

Behooves to keep in mind that this totally jives with what Trump has done to the Republican party! It's not the same old same old GOP anymore. And this article was a good reminder that some of these changes even worked to Biden's benefit. I.E. more GOP open to deficit spending, etc.

This is a weird framing. Non

artappraiser — Mon, 10 May 2021 17:37:14 +0000

In reply to New Catalist study of 2020 election

This is a weird framing. Non-Hispanic white males are about 30% of the population. That leaves 70% in the “women and people of color” category. So any given white man is still twice as likely to be a Trump voter that a woman and/or POC.
— Zach (@ROTHasaurusRex) May 10, 2021

A graph like this also doesn’t differentiate something crucial- was this due to an increase in women/POC voting for Trump, or a decrease in white men voting for Trump?
— Zach (@ROTHasaurusRex) May 10, 2021

From what I recall from exit polling, it was a bit of both
— Uosdwis R Dewoh (@IckeAnd) May 10, 2021

lots of good points in other comments as well...

More important insights from

artappraiser — Mon, 10 May 2021 17:33:04 +0000

In reply to New Catalist study of 2020 election

More important insights from today's Catalist data release. Trump increased his margins with all race+gender groups except white men. Women of color were the most swayed by Trump's style of governing. pic.twitter.com/dsmqb0oSJd
— Matt Bruenig (@MattBruenig) May 10, 2021

The new Catalist data seems to line up with my theory that all the Big Think about the 2016 election was mistaken. Trump did not do any better than usual (in fact slightly worse). It's just that hillary did way worse than usual, with the balance heading to third parties. pic.twitter.com/XMVcrFvQF5
— Matt Bruenig (@MattBruenig) May 10, 2021

Things are shifting below these headline numbers (e.g. in 2020, support for Trump became blacker, browner, and more female) but the basic story of Trump's 2016 victory is just that Hillary was a remarkably bad candidate.
— Matt Bruenig (@MattBruenig) May 10, 2021

But like a far higher proportion of women (and likely PoC) voted for Biden. So, I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it just that white men are making a smaller and smaller proportion of the overall electorate? pic.twitter.com/hrBvWm7WLy
— . (@k_____pinkhair) May 10, 2021

It's significant that when you say "Trump voter", most blue tribe people picture an "aggrieved" white man; but most Trump voters do not actually fit that description.
— Tom Swiss #EndPoliceBrutality (@tom_swiss) May 10, 2021

The people that fit that description are not a minority.
— Ken FAAFO Hicken (@KenHicken) May 10, 2021

A minority overall, and a minority of Trump voters.
— Commando Fetishism (@DSAVerthandi) May 10, 2021