Where are you getting this information from?
Trump on how he’d handle the problems of Middle-earth: Donald Trump: Let Me Tell You About Smaug
The same place that Ms. Henry gets the concern … best guesswork.
Non-college educated White voters voted the most against Obama in 2012 … 62% of those who voted voted against him. While union politicking probably blunted that anti-Obama vote some, most assuredly much of that 62% were in Unions as well, and of course that group is the very same group that supports Trump the most.
In fact on preview I’ve looked for and found numbers. Since 2000 just a small bit more than half of White Union voters voted for the Democratic nominee. The White union vote is still important but is less central … in 1960 those votes were a third of those voting for the Democratic presidential nominee, by 2012 it was a sixth. Still they were likely critical in wins in WI and OH.
Yes the calculus for a Trump v Clinton hypothetical includes Trump gaining share and turnout of non-college educated Whites (including Union Whites) by some amount while losing share of college educated Whites and likely inspiring Hispanic turnout some marginal amount.
What data we have is sketchy but is presented here: Trump attracts “a certain kind of Democrat” - the map of his support is quite
(my bold)
Without questioning some of your other reasoning, this seems an odd assumption to make. There’s only about 14 million union members in the U.S. and that number includes government workers and teachers unions.
OK, got it. Guesswork and extrapolation from a limited amount of data. Thank you for clearing that up.
Not getting why you think it is so odd. Just shy of half White union household voters voted against Obama, inclusive of those government worker and teacher union members. That those same voters are likely to also vote for Trump seems to be a reasonable presumption.
How many of the 53% of White union household voters that voted for Obama are likely to defect to Trump in a Trump Clinton match-up, is the question I guess.
Yes Mr. Nylock both the concern about union members voting for Trump and the thought that those who would most likely did not vote Democratic last time either are based on best guesswork with only limited data to actual extrapolate from. You asked. Happy to have answered.
Well, to be honest, I asked Slackerinc where he got his information from. I was hoping for a link to an insightful article with some amount of intellectual rigor and at least some basic data directly supporting any assertions made. Instead; I got your response, but thank you for trying :).
Well not Slacker to be sure. But I will say it too, with as much credence as any prediction that there is reason to worry about Trump poaching votes from union members who had been Obama supporter: the nearly half of White union household voters who voted against Obama in 2012 will make up the bulk of those White union household voters who would vote for Trump.
The basic data supporting that analysis was included in my response.
Of course that clip of American workers wages are too high will get played lots too.
Yes, as others surmised it is my best estimate based on many years as a seasoned political observer and in particular a student of polling and electoral demographics. I have little doubt that many Trump supporters voted for Bill Clinton in the 1990s, although most likely voted for Perot and of course the Republican candidates. Some may have voted for Gore and Kerry, maybe even Obama in 2008. But to suggest a significant portion of them voted for Obama in 2012 and will now vote for Trump against Hillary Clinton, is just not plausible. Who are these nonracist Trump fans who were happy with the status quo in 2012 but now think things have gone completely awry economically? You’ve got to tell a story here that makes sense and that one does not.
A lot of people with a lot of experience make a lot of predictions. If you show me where you predicted in, say, August, the amount of appeal Trump would have now I will consider your estimates as akin to strong evidence. Barring that I get more excited about data.
Yes, if we were taking bets, I would be betting the same as you - but really all we are doing is speculating.
Just the numbers don’t match up enough to say “much of” those uneducated whites were union members. By your account 62% of 60 million (# who voted against Obama) were uneducated whites, about 38 million. There’s only 14 million total union members in the U.S. - that includes black and educated union member. Istm safe to assume the vast majority of noneducated whites who voted against Obama were NOT union members not “much” of them.
Interesting sample of CSPAN callersafter Trump’s Vet rally that took the place of the debate he quit.
What’s interesting about it?
It shows some strong populist appeal to voters, both Republicans and Dems. It doesn’t seem like skipping the debate hurt him.
Trump has populist appeal, you say? That is indeed very interesting. I thought he only appealed to intellectuals and policy wonks.
Do I detect a faint note of sarcasm?
Actually, the Selzer poll says that Trump is doing well among moderates.
But:
Interesting since Selzer’s Des Moines Register itself leads with:
and later goes onto state
Interesting other bits from that poll -
Trump’ overall unfavorability rating is 47% among likely GOP caucus goers (only Jeb does worse). That unfavorable has been increasing steadily since a low of 35% in August. His net favorable rating has dropped 23.
Of “very unfavorable” he is highest of them all, 27%, up 8 since August.
For the question “For each of these candidates, please tell me how enthusiastic your support would be if the person became the Republican nominee - would you be very enthusiastic, fairly enthusiastic, just OK with it, or not OK with it?” he leads the “not OK” with 37%.
Big deal remains that 45% still felt they were unsure and who shows is a big unknown.
Hank Beecher you expected maybe that those few who tuned into listening to Trump on CSPAN rather than the debate were going to be mostly big Kasich fans?
This bit from the Des Moines *Register *article DSeid quoted just above is both interesting and confusing:
So last time in 2012 38% of likely R voters went to their first caucus. And this time in 2016 it’s expected that 40% of likely R voters are going to their first caucus.
The implication is that 78% of the folks at this year’s (tomorrow’s) caucus were not involved in politics enough to attend any caucus in 2008 or before.
That really boggles my mind. Or said another way, that makes me question the factual accuracy of either what they said or how I understand it.
Iowa doesn’t have very dynamic demographics. Not a lot of new kids aging into the electorate, not a lot of inter-state immigration. But they’re in effect asserting an 80% turnover in their primary season electorate in just two elections.
If true, then Something very Significant is happening to replace the electorate internally. Which implies that substantially everything about the history of Iowa R voters is inapplicable to this caucus season.
Color me confused.
Where’s the “I’d rather cut off my own hand with a butter knife than cast a vote for him” option?