Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Trump Will Have A Hard Time Turning Blue States Red In November
Donald Trump’s performance in primaries and caucuses has created some unusual geographic patterns. What sort of candidate dominates in both Alabama (where Trump won 43 percent of the vote on Super Tuesday) and Massachusetts (where he got 49 percent)? Why was Trump so strong in Hawaii — and so weak in Kansas? The answers to these questions are complicated. Trump attracts voters for multiple reasons: Economic anxiety and racial resentment are important factors in his success, but hardly the only ones.
Let me propose One Simple Trick that makes the geographic patterns at least a bit clearer: Trump’s strengths and weaknesses are easier to understand if you consider how many Democrats and Republicans turned out in each primary. Republican voters are a small minority of the overall electorate in states like Massachusetts and Hawaii, so their support for Trump isn’t a good indication of how those states might behave in November.
Take Massachusetts, for example. Trump’s 49 percent — his highest fraction in any state to date — was on light turnout: Only about 630,000 voters participated in the Republican primary, compared with 1.2 million for the Democratic one. Thus, Trump won only about 17 percent of the overall vote among Bay Staters who turned out that day.
By contrast, while Trump’s performance in Ohio might seem poor at first glance — he got 36 percent of the vote and lost to John Kasich — it’s better once you consider that Republicans turned out substantially more voters than Democrats. As a share of the combined Democratic and Republican primary turnout, Trump got 22 percent of the vote in Ohio — a fair bit better than he did in Massachusetts.
Here are those figures for all states where both Democrats and Republicans have voted so far.1
TRUMP’S SHARE OF PRIMARY/CAUCUS VOTE
STATE REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATIC+REPUBLICAN
Mississippi 47.3% 30.6%
Alabama 43.4 29.6
Tennessee 38.9 27.1
Arizona 47.1 26.6
Florida 45.7 26.5
Missouri 40.9 24.5
Georgia 38.8 24.4
Ohio 35.6 22.4
South Car. 33.0 21.9
Nevada 45.9 21.7
Arkansas 32.8 21.3
Louisiana 41.4 20.4
North Car. 40.2 20.2
Virginia 34.7 19.7
Michigan 36.5 19.2
New Ham. 35.2 18.7
Texas 26.7 17.8
Mass. 49.3 17.0
Oklahoma 28.3 16.4
Illinois 38.8 16.1
Kansas 23.3 15.2
Iowa 24.3 13.9
Vermont 32.7 10.2
Utah 14.0 9.8
Maine 32.6 9.4
Minnesota 21.3 7.6
United States 37.1 21.3
SOURCE: THE GREEN PAPERS, UNITED STATES ELECTIONS PROJECT
This calculation makes it clearer that Trump’s strengths are mostly in the South. Of Trump’s top seven states so far by his share of the combined primary or caucus vote, five or six are in the South, depending on how you classify Missouri.
New England looks like a poor region for Trump, by contrast. His share of the combined primary or caucus vote was slightly below his national average in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and well behind it in Vermont and Maine.
The industrial Midwest has been about average for Trump. The Ohio result, as I mentioned, is better for Trump once you consider the very high Republican turnout there (and that he lost to the state’s governor). But his performances in Michigan and Illinois rate as middling by this metric even though Trump won both states. The Great Plains states have been a poor region for Trump, while the West has been a mixed bag. Trump’s big win in Nevada is less impressive once you consider that Democratic turnout outpaced GOP turnout. But his results from Arizona hold up well.
This method leaves a lot of things to be desired. If you were being more exacting, you’d want to adjust for whether each party held an open or closed primary in each state, how many opponents Trump faced at various stages of the race, and other factors.
But as the calendar turns toward bluer states, be wary of making extrapolations from Trump’s performance in the primaries to how he might perform in the general election. Overall, Trump is deeply unpopular with general election voters and will have a lot of work to do to repair his image should he become the Republican nominee. The race can and will change, and Hillary Clinton shouldn’t take a lot for granted. But Trump is more likely to “transform the electoral map” by turning red states blue, rather than the other way around.
Dude you're shitting on yourself. You're trying to pull out all the ambiguous stops to convince yourself that Trump can't possibly win and Clinton will. If she succeeds she'll continue all the stupid shit Obama started which keeps your Zionist ass happy. Just in case you're too naïve to realize it, if Clinton wins her main focus like all other presidents in the past who have relied on their donors is to satisfy their requests and demands which made their candidacy possible. She's not one bit concerned with the voting class. At least Trump is a self funder.
Dude you're shitting on yourself. You're trying to pull out all the ambiguous stops to convince yourself that Trump can't possibly win and Clinton will. If she succeeds she'll continue all the stupid shit Obama started which keeps your Zionist ass happy. Just in case you're too naïve to realize it, if Clinton wins her main focus like all other presidents in the past who have relied on their donors is to satisfy their requests and demands which made their candidacy possible. She's not one bit concerned with the voting class. At least Trump is a self funder.
Jim
Asswipes trying in vain to come out of his meltdown. A pathetic attempt. He is, and will always be, a lying, stupid, lazy, dirty, pig.
Asswipes trying in vain to come out of his meltdown. A pathetic attempt. He is, and will always be, a lying, stupid, lazy, dirty, pig.
It amazes me how naïve people are when it comes to matters of politics. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that in order to run a successful campaign a candidate must spend lots and lots of money especially in a national election. That money comes from donations from corporations and special interest groups. That money isn't given to candidates in a gift card saying "Hey good Luck" it's given to them under contingencies. You can almost call it a bribe. If a candidate wins they have a lot of favors to fulfill. Trump probably does have a few donors but for the most part he is funding his own campaign. That's one reason why he's getting so much flack, cause nobody can hook him. That's better for us in the long run. He doesn't have to do anybody's bidding but his own. On the other hand Clinton has a whole bunch of money controlling her, she may as well be a clone. Vote for that, never.
But he's BORROWING the money from himself. He's not funding his campaign by a damned sight.
wtf?? you retard .. that is absolutely the stupidest post you've ever made. and there's a long list of stupid things you've posted. congrats old wino, you have reached a new low of stupidity
wtf?? you retard .. that is absolutely the stupidest post you've ever made. and there's a long list of stupid things you've posted. congrats old wino, you have reached a new low of stupidity
here's assup channeling his inner Moses.
Yea, no shit... I borrowed 5 bucks from my self yesterday... WTF?
You're right Yssup Rider. Hillary Clinton will be the next president. We can only pray that Trump doesn't cause the Republicans to lose the Senate and the House. Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress accomplished some good things, including balancing the budget. Hillary and a Democrat Congress, egged on by the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, would potentially set the USA on the path to become the next Greece.
Trump Will Have A Hard Time Turning Blue States Red In November
Donald Trump’s performance in primaries and caucuses has created some unusual geographic patterns. What sort of candidate dominates in both Alabama (where Trump won 43 percent of the vote on Super Tuesday) and Massachusetts (where he got 49 percent)? Why was Trump so strong in Hawaii — and so weak in Kansas? The answers to these questions are complicated. Trump attracts voters for multiple reasons: Economic anxiety and racial resentment are important factors in his success, but hardly the only ones.
Let me propose One Simple Trick that makes the geographic patterns at least a bit clearer: Trump’s strengths and weaknesses are easier to understand if you consider how many Democrats and Republicans turned out in each primary. Republican voters are a small minority of the overall electorate in states like Massachusetts and Hawaii, so their support for Trump isn’t a good indication of how those states might behave in November.
Take Massachusetts, for example. Trump’s 49 percent — his highest fraction in any state to date — was on light turnout: Only about 630,000 voters participated in the Republican primary, compared with 1.2 million for the Democratic one. Thus, Trump won only about 17 percent of the overall vote among Bay Staters who turned out that day.
By contrast, while Trump’s performance in Ohio might seem poor at first glance — he got 36 percent of the vote and lost to John Kasich — it’s better once you consider that Republicans turned out substantially more voters than Democrats. As a share of the combined Democratic and Republican primary turnout, Trump got 22 percent of the vote in Ohio — a fair bit better than he did in Massachusetts.
Here are those figures for all states where both Democrats and Republicans have voted so far.1
TRUMP’S SHARE OF PRIMARY/CAUCUS VOTE
STATE REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATIC+REPUBLICAN
Mississippi 47.3% 30.6%
Alabama 43.4 29.6
Tennessee 38.9 27.1
Arizona 47.1 26.6
Florida 45.7 26.5
Missouri 40.9 24.5
Georgia 38.8 24.4
Ohio 35.6 22.4
South Car. 33.0 21.9
Nevada 45.9 21.7
Arkansas 32.8 21.3
Louisiana 41.4 20.4
North Car. 40.2 20.2
Virginia 34.7 19.7
Michigan 36.5 19.2
New Ham. 35.2 18.7
Texas 26.7 17.8
Mass. 49.3 17.0
Oklahoma 28.3 16.4
Illinois 38.8 16.1
Kansas 23.3 15.2
Iowa 24.3 13.9
Vermont 32.7 10.2
Utah 14.0 9.8
Maine 32.6 9.4
Minnesota 21.3 7.6
United States 37.1 21.3
SOURCE: THE GREEN PAPERS, UNITED STATES ELECTIONS PROJECT
This calculation makes it clearer that Trump’s strengths are mostly in the South. Of Trump’s top seven states so far by his share of the combined primary or caucus vote, five or six are in the South, depending on how you classify Missouri.
New England looks like a poor region for Trump, by contrast. His share of the combined primary or caucus vote was slightly below his national average in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and well behind it in Vermont and Maine.
The industrial Midwest has been about average for Trump. The Ohio result, as I mentioned, is better for Trump once you consider the very high Republican turnout there (and that he lost to the state’s governor). But his performances in Michigan and Illinois rate as middling by this metric even though Trump won both states. The Great Plains states have been a poor region for Trump, while the West has been a mixed bag. Trump’s big win in Nevada is less impressive once you consider that Democratic turnout outpaced GOP turnout. But his results from Arizona hold up well.
This method leaves a lot of things to be desired. If you were being more exacting, you’d want to adjust for whether each party held an open or closed primary in each state, how many opponents Trump faced at various stages of the race, and other factors.
But as the calendar turns toward bluer states, be wary of making extrapolations from Trump’s performance in the primaries to how he might perform in the general election. Overall, Trump is deeply unpopular with general election voters and will have a lot of work to do to repair his image should he become the Republican nominee. The race can and will change, and Hillary Clinton shouldn’t take a lot for granted. But Trump is more likely to “transform the electoral map” by turning red states blue, rather than the other way around.
It is extremely hard to argue with Nate Silver. He has an excellent track record.
Mr. Trump is likely banking on the fact that a lot of voters hate Hillary, so he can pick up the anti-Hillary vote. He will certainly look rather un-Presidential smearing shit all over her - with things like polls which indicate she isn't trusted by 60% of Americans - but he is fighting against people who hate him, and what other tactic could he use?
You liberals continue to fail to pick up on the idea that there is nothing left for a significant class of Americans who hate the direction the country has taken, and especially hate the way you motherfucking liberals talk down to us. We don't want to go to jail for blowing things up like you liberals did in the 60's, so harsh political fighting is our only recourse.
He is also lending a voice to those who are tired of getting cheated out of middle class jobs when factories shut down and go to China or Mexico - the anti-Nafta/free trade folks.
Think of it this way:
You have fucked us out of our country, so we might as well take you down with us - see you in hell!!!
You're right Yssup Rider. Hillary Clinton will be the next president. We can only pray that Trump doesn't cause the Republicans to lose the Senate and the House. Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress accomplished some good things, including balancing the budget. Hillary and a Democrat Congress, egged on by the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, would potentially set the USA on the path to become the next Greece.
With Hillary Clinton at the helm we'll certainly get "Greeced" alright, lol.
Trump will have a hard time turning blue states red in November.
