3 ms·

Here are the results for MI, PA, and WI: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan https://www.nyti

by ece 9y ago

Here are the results for MI, PA, and WI: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/pennsylvania https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/pennsylvania In all three cases, the difference between Hillary and Trump was less than what the 3rd party candidates got and what Jill Stein alone got. Given what I've said before, and what happened in 2000 in FL, trying to convince people of actually voting for their 2nd preference (Hillary) or vote trading in such states makes almost as much sense as blaming the Clinton campaign itself (definitely deserves the most blame), Russia, and any number of other reasons why Hillary lost. It's a part of the puzzle, again, given that this is the 2nd time this happened.

ece 9y ago
I also want to mention there were probably specific reasons why the vote was so close in these states. Namely lead in the water in Flint MI, and Scott Walker ending collective bargaining in WI. PA vote is probably most reflective of the decline of unionization. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/campaign-stops/the-destruction-of-progressive-wisconsin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/campaign-stops/th... These issues probably affected presidential democratic turnout in these states as much as any other issue affecting the statewide or national campaigns. Also, millennial turnout was down from 2012 according to exit polls. Not sure how much to believe exit polls. Total turnout was up by little in MI and PA in 2016 compared to 2012, and it was down in WI. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin,_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

by ece 9y ago

ece 9y ago

I also want to mention there were probably specific reasons why the vote was so close in these states. Namely lead in the water in Flint MI, and Scott Walker ending collective bargaining in WI. PA vote is probably most reflective of the decline of unionization. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/campaign-stops/the-destruction-of-progressive-wisconsin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/campaign-stops/th... These issues probably affected presidential democratic turnout in these states as much as any other issue affecting the statewide or national campaigns. Also, millennial turnout was down from 2012 according to exit polls. Not sure how much to believe exit polls. Total turnout was up by little in MI and PA in 2016 compared to 2012, and it was down in WI. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin,_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...