Democrat would need 46% of the vote to become president. A republican: 52%

[evanrick]

Thanks to someone mentioning 538 I was able to confirm that America is a left-leaning nation, we knew that.

But what surprised even me is that if only working class people voted, it would take but 46% of the national vote for the democrat to win as president, and 52% for the republican.

This may point to the fact that democrats hold an edge in 'electoral politics' but this is hypothetical match up would not include any groups that would 'sway' the vote to either side, just economic and racial lines.

If republicans "lost" 62% of this vote nationally they would gain just 23 electoral votes while democrats would claim 103 with the same losing turnout.

Democrats would win 2016 with only 46% of the vote and 275 electoral votes, for president. The bar is much higher for congress. This is because electoral votes are based on population, congressional districts are carved out to lump democrats in single districts.

It also shows how polarized America is, you may think thats good democrats are ahead, but its also pretty sad considering the alternative is doing so 'well' in horrible economic conditions for this voting group. That is the takeaway from these statistics, that so many have extremist beliefs.

Obama won both union and non-union households, meaning unions are more popular than not.

And if Republicans believe they can win with the latino vote, its nearly impossible. They would need 69% of the Latino vote to be competitive, 40% more than last time.

But if republicans want some hope, its Democrats biggest 'vulnerability', if Democrats win blacks at the same rate as Latinos, roughly 70% instead of 93% ,(meaning losing only 30% of the black vote to a republican) say hello to a republican president.

Democrats cannot take black voters for granted by any means, even a moderate softening among black support would devastate democrats nationally.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

 

[hotatlboi]

If Rs get an 8 point popular vote edge (54 to 46) they will win easily. Please stop posting nonsense.

 

[frankfrank]

I don't quite believe that margin, but trying to suss it out makes my head explode. Democrats and Republicans both have huge-population states in their pockets (California and New York; Texas)...and rounding out the Top Four, Florida can go either way, as well as Ohio being a toss-up.

States populated 5 million or less have a VERY strong edge toward going Republican, which is advantageous in electoral votes, but which contribute less to percentages of the nation's population. Because even the smallest state is GUARANTEED three electoral votes, that is also advantageous to Republicans...in some SMALL way. California has about 50 times as many people as Wyoming, for example, but less than 20 times as many electoral votes.

Perhaps the percentages in the study represent voting percentages which would be enough to flip some of the blue or purple states like Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado? (Some of these are small, but ALL do "double time" on the electoral totals, as they would add to Republicans AND subtract from Democrats.)

OFF TOPIC: MSNBC just showed a USA map showing Donald Trump's support across the United States. It's one of the strangest maps that I have ever seen...like somewhat weak in Indiana, nonexistent in Colorado's Western Slope and in Kansas( !), and intense in ALL of upstate New York???

I can't believe Kansas...maybe for some reason it wasn't polled?

EDIT: Donald Trump's home state is New York, so I guess the upstate New York thing makes some sense.

 

[evanrick]

If Rs get an 8 point popular vote edge (54 to 46) they will win easily. Please stop posting nonsense.

oh i didnt post it, i just summarized the statistics on 538. argue with them if you want.

 

[Vitamin]

Your claim is rather odd and unsubstantiated, evanrick. For one, we have no clue what you mean by "working class". There's no group of voters with that label in the interactive chart you referenced, and it makes no sense to attempt to reorganize some of the groups in the chart as "working class" at the exclusion of any of the others.

Secondly, this claim of "46% is all that's needed to win" for the Democrats doesn't seem to be a conclusion that Nate Sliver and others at 538 would actually agree with. In fact, they usually argue that the supposed advantage of the electoral map for the Democrats is overstated.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-demographics-will-shape-the-2016-election/

Funny thing, this is an article that was actually linked to at the top of the page cited by the OP. It was labeled "Read more >>" and was at the end of the introduction.

 

[evanrick]

sorry would u rather i call them uneducated white voters
discussion is moot, dont get why people are against facts.

Democrats
Electoral votes: 275 ✔
Popular vote: 46.1%


Republicans
Electoral votes: 263
Popular vote: 52.1%

 

[Vitamin]

sorry would u rather i call them uneducated white voters
discussion is moot, dont get why people are against facts.

Democrats
Electoral votes: 275 ✔
Popular vote: 46.1%


Republicans
Electoral votes: 263
Popular vote: 52.1%

You have no facts. More than likely you made up stats that felt right to you, and just provided the most confusing interactive you could find on 538 figuring no one would get what you did if they even bothered to click on the link.

 

[hotatlboi]

oh i didnt post it, i just summarized the statistics on 538. argue with them if you want.

You don't know what you are talking about. 538 has posted quite clearly before that any substantial edge in the popular vote will always win the electoral vote. It's a basic fact. It's only with a very close popular vote (within 1-2 points or less) that any potential for a disparity exists.

 

[frankfrank]

Democrats
Electoral votes: 275 ✔
Popular vote: 46.1%


Republicans
Electoral votes: 263
Popular vote: 52.1%

As discussed here, these statistics are suspect. I think it would require a "perfect storm" of rather unlikely scenarios in at least fifteen states, for this to happen, and every one of these scenarios would need to happen. For example, Florida and Virginia "staying blue" but (with the extra Republican votes) perhaps by margins like 48.78% D and 48.75% R. (The remainder is among Independents...)

And, yes, even a "lesser" state like Iowa "flipping" could upset the overall scenario.

But, let's imagine for a minute that they're CORRECT. It could provide a very interesting scenario...the scenario which I've often said would be **IMPOSSIBLE** to ever happen.

If there was actually to be an election where the Republicans were more than 5% up on the Democrats on the popular vote, and still ended up getting "shellacked" in the Electoral College, it's very possible that ALL THOSE SMALLER STATES (many of which hold Republican advantage) could potentially become ready and eager to ratify a 28th Amendment, perhaps adding up to enough states (38) to ratify it and add it to the Constitution? I've always thought that would be impossible, because the Electoral College would be thought to give these often-Republican states a bit of extra clout, which it does...but possibly not enough to offset the many states that don't "turn red" simply because more Republicans turned out.

Changing the Electoral College WOULD NOT AFFECT STATE OFFICES AT ALL, WHATSOEVER...Representatives and Senators would still be elected all-the-same, Electoral College or not, because it is not used for any of those races. But those states may suddenly say "HEY, those big Blue states mean that even with our extra electoral votes we can't get a Republican President!" If this happened, they would probably be rushing to give up their perceived E. C. advantage, in trade for having the next President be a Republican by popular vote.

The fact is, there are MORE Republican (Electoral College) STATES than Democratic ones, though they produce fewer Electors because most are less-populated. If a Democrat went to the White House even though Republicans tallied 5% more, the outrage could just become so pervasive that the stupid system we have, now, would finally be amended out of existence.

My contribution to political science for today. (In these instances, I stay neutral and nonpartisan, lol.)

 

[evanrick]

Wow people are upset lol.
Rrepublican would love to have this advantage.

 

[TX-Beau]

I've stopped trying to predict what will happen.

 

[CoolBlue71]

I don't quite believe that margin, but trying to suss it out makes my head explode. Democrats and Republicans both have huge-population states in their pockets (California and New York; Texas)...and rounding out the Top Four, Florida can go either way, as well as Ohio being a toss-up.States populated 5 million or less have a VERY strong edge toward going Republican, which is advantageous in electoral votes, but which contribute less to percentages of the nation's population. Because even the smallest state is GUARANTEED three electoral votes, that is also advantageous to Republicans...in some SMALL way. California has about 50 times as many people as Wyoming, for example, but less than 20 times as many electoral votes.

Agree with you. I don't buy into the margin. For the Democrats to win only 46 percent of the vote, while the Republicans get either 52 or 53 (leave at least a one-percent buffer for candidates outside the two parties), and win the Electoral College with 275 wouldn't actually play out. The percentage margin is too much.

Over the 2008 and 2012 election cycles, about 130 million votes were cast for president. This means every 1.3 million by which the U.S. Popular Vote is carried account for a full percentage point in margin. A win by six percentage points is 7.8 million votes. (In 2008, the Democratic pickup winner, Barack Obama, won the U.S. Popular Vote by approximately 9.5 million raw votes and a percentage points margin of 7.26.)

Using 2016 as an example, and say a Republican wins a pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote by 6 percentage points, in order to get there (from Mitt Romney's 2012 loss of 3.86 percentage points), there would be a national shift toward the 2016 Republican presidential nominee of nearly 10 percentage points. Using the average estimate (from 2008 and 2012) of about 130 million raw votes cast, that would be shift 13 million from 2012 Democratic to 2016 Republican.

Where does one think the shift of 13 million votes, in order for a Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote (by about 7.8 million), are going to come from? They come from nearly every state in the nation.

In the 1980 Republican pickup year (Ronald Reagan having unseated incumbent Democratic president Jimmy Carter), every state except Vermont shifted Republican. In the 1992 Democratic pickup year (Bill Clinton having unseated incumbent Republican president George Bush), every state except Iowa shifted Democratic. In the 2000 Republican pickup year (George W. Bush, despite not having won the U.S. Popular Vote, over incumbent Democratic vice president Al Gore), every state except Maryland and non-state District of Columbia shifted Republican. In the 2008 Democratic pickup year (Barack Obama, in the open-seat election, over John McCain), 45 states (minus Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia) shifted Democratic. (Ark. and La. were the only conspicuous GOP shifts. Okla., Tenn., and W.Va. moved only slightly.)

In the past, a margin of six percentage points didn't mean as many raw votes. Now, they do. And if one takes a look at all states with double-digit electoral votes, they rank from the No. 1 most-populous state, California (55 electoral votes), to the No. 21 most-populous state, Minnesota (10 electoral votes). Adding those 21 states' electoral votes, and you get 379 of the 538 electoral votes. (In the 2020s, it is likely that Colorado, the most-populous state with single-digit electoral votes, will likely move up to having 10 electoral votes. Right now, I won't count it.) So, a quick math exercise: 379 divided by 538 equals 70.44 percent. So, in other words, 70 percent of the voting electorate, nationwide, come from these Top 21 states. And the notion that a party could win the U.S. Popular Vote by six points nationwide but not get enough of these states, along with the ones which rank between Nos. 22 and 50, does not seem believable.

I don't think it is believable. In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush carried the following Top 21 states (with current electoral votes counted): Texas (38), Florida (29), Ohio (18), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), Indiana (11), Arizona (11), Tennessee (11), and Missouri (10). Those were 172 electoral votes. Meaning, just 98 were needed. And Bush got them. But…

If a Republican is winning the U.S. Popular Vote by six percentage points, you have to look at every state in the nation to get an idea how they would likely carry. You might as well look at what their margins tend to be compared to the national picture. For example, in my home state, Michigan, the Democrats have carried it between 5 and 6 percentage points in every election since after the 1980s with exceptions of 1992 (when it flipped Democratic for Bill Clinton), when it was 2 points more Democratic, and 2008 (Obama's Democratic pickup year and a landslide in the state by D+16.44) when it was 9 points more Democratic than the nation. Six or seven points, nationwide, would be enough for a Republican to flip Michigan. And before Michigan would flip, so too would Pennsylvania. When Republicans win the presidency, Pennsylvania seems have Democratic strength in resisting Republicans (John Kerry lost in the popular vote by 2.46 but won Pa. by the same-level margin; meaning the state was about five points more Democratic than the nation). When Democrats win the presidency, Pennsylvania seems to give Democrats more moderate level support (in 2008, the state was 3 points more Democratic than the nation; in 2012, it was closer to 1.5). So, before Michigan would flip Pa. would deliver.

But it wouldn't stop with Michigan and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin, which was barely carried in 2000 (for Al Gore) and 2004 (for John Kerry), seems like it would fall before either Mich. or Pa. If you put together Mitt Romney's 2012 result of 24 states and 206 electoral votes; shifted the nation nearly 10 percentage points; gave the 2016 Republican nominee a pickup in the U.S. Popular Vote a margin in between six and seven percentage points … these three states would be in position to flip. Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes. Michigan has 16. Wisconsin has 10. That's 46 electoral votes. And then there are the four states which seem to be today's best bellwether states. In alphabetical order: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Ohio (18), and Virginia (13). They combine for 69 electoral votes. Mitt Romney needed to flip all of them to reach a prevailing 270. (His score with those four, and nothing more, would have been 275). By the way: These states aren't the limit. There is also Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5). And there is even the double-digit Minnesota (10) to consider. N.M. carried by 10 points in 2012. Minn. was closer to 8 points for carrying for President Obama. Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire—just like Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia—carried for President Obama by under 6 percentage points.

OFF TOPIC: MSNBC just showed a USA map showing Donald Trump's support across the United States. It's one of the strangest maps that I have ever seen...like somewhat weak in Indiana, nonexistent in Colorado's Western Slope and in Kansas( !), and intense in ALL of upstate New York???

I can't believe Kansas...maybe for some reason it wasn't polled?

EDIT: Donald Trump's home state is New York, so I guess the upstate New York thing makes some sense.

I did not see it. Lately, I've been avoiding the Comcast takeover of MSNBC. But, if this has to do with primaries…I wouldn't take it seriously. Things start to gel more after the early states—Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida (to name three).

 

[CoolBlue71]

…

And if Republicans believe they can win with the latino vote, its nearly impossible. They would need 69% of the Latino vote to be competitive, 40% more than last time.

But if republicans want some hope, its Democrats biggest 'vulnerability', if Democrats win blacks at the same rate as Latinos, roughly 70% instead of 93% ,(meaning losing only 30% of the black vote to a republican) say hello to a republican president.

Democrats cannot take black voters for granted by any means, even a moderate softening among black support would devastate democrats nationally.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

ELECTION 2012—BY RACE
Whites (72): Romney 59% | Obama 39%
Blacks (13): Romney 06% | Obama 93%
Hispanics (10): Romney 27% | Obama 71%
Asians (03): Romney 26% | Obama 73%
Others (02): Romney 38% | Obama 58%

Source: http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/


Let's do some math!

ROMNEY (47.16%)
Whites: +42.48%
Blacks: +00.78%
Hispanics: +02.70%
Asians: +00.78%
Others: +00.76%
Total: 47.50% (from National Exit Poll)

OBAMA (51.02%)
Whites: +28.08%
Blacks: +12.09%
Hispanics: +07.10%
Asians: +02.19%
Others: +01.16%
Total: 50.62% (from National Exit Poll)



evanrick,

A lot of what you mentioned are What Ifs.

If you left these numbers alone, Republicans would need 65 percent of the white vote to eke out winning a Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote. That's because the 72 percent of the share of the vote, nationwide, will likely drop in 2016 to 70 percent. 70 x 0.65 = 45.50%. Taking the fact that Republicans rely on 90 percent of their U.S. Popular Vote's percentage coming from whites…45.50 divided by 0.90 equals 50.55 percent. The Hispanic share of the vote will likely rise. So, this would put the Republicans in the safe zone of estimating what it would take for them to win a pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote just from increased Whites' support.

If you left these numbers alone, and just concentrated on the Hispanics' vote: The Republicans would need to win the U.S. Popular Vote at least with 45 percent from Hispanics. Taking into consideration that Hispanics will likely go for 10 to 12 percent of the share of the vote, nationwide, 12 x 0.45 = 5.40. Take that 2.70 percent difference, and add it to the 47.50 percent total, and you get over 50 percent. Of course, you can scale a bit back to due to decreased share of the vote from Whites.

If you left these numbers alone, and just concentrated on votes from Blacks: The Republicans would need to receive about 26 percent. That would be 13 x 0.26 = 3.38. That's an adjustment of 2.60, from Election 2012, even though one has to do a little scaling back with Whites' share of the national vote.



There are a lot of What Ifs! I think what would actually play out, in a Republican pickup year (U.S. Popular Vote and Electoral College), is that the margins would shift from each racial demographic by the handful of percentage points efficient in making the difference. If 2016 is such a year, adjust the margins by, say, four to six points from all racial demographics would do it.

 

[Benvolio]

As you know, all that changes with the entry of Johnson as a third party candidate. I am guessing he will hurt democrats more than republicans, but it is early to tell which of his positions will gain traction. Even if he were elected, which i consider possible, he is closer in philosphy to Republicans on big government issues and can work with them. A lost of people will dislike Hillary, Sanders and Trump and Johnson may be positioned for a big surprise.

 

[T-Rexx]

As you know, all that changes with the entry of Johnson as a third party candidate.

No, it doesn't. Johnson can't draw more than a tiny fraction of the popular vote from either of the major parties. His candidacy is a footnote to the 2016 election.

I am guessing he will hurt democrats more than republicans,

That's an odd statement. Especially since you agree he is "closer in philosophy to Republicans" and libertarians have historically drawn their support from the Republican Party. And Republicans this year are especially divided about their own candidates, even discussing openly means by which the party might destroy its own front runner.

he is closer in philosphy to Republicans

Even if he were elected, which i consider possible,

Another odd statement, since no independent candidate has ever come remotely close to winning the presidency, and Johnson himself claims he hasn't got a chance of being elected.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/gary-johnson-president-announcement-2016/422964/

 

[CoolBlue71]

In 2012, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson received 1,275,971 million votes nationwide. That was good for 0.99 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote. (President Barack Obama was re-elected with 51.02 percent and 332 electoral votes. Mitt Romney received 47.16 percent and 206 electoral votes. Together, the two-party candidates combined for 98.18 percent of the presidential votes cast in the U.S. Popular Vote.) Gary Johnson's best state, in terms of receiving raw votes, was California with 143,221 votes and 1.10 percent of the state's vote. In terms of percentage support, Johnson performed best in his home state New Mexico with 3.55 percent of that state's vote (27,788 raw votes).

It was in 1992 which marked the last presidential election in which a third-party candidate had impact. But, it was only with the U.S. Popular Vote as independent Ross Perot received 18.91 percent. Incumbent Republican president George Bush received 37.45 percent. And Democratic challenger Bill Clinton unseated Bush, in part, with winning over the U.S. Popular Vote with 43.01 percent. (The two-party vote combined for 80.46 percent. Ross Perot's 18.91 brought that up to 99.35 percent of the presidential votes cast nationwide.) And, despite Perot's showing, he carried no states and won no electoral votes. He ranked second, in fact, in just two states: the Republican hold of Utah (generally the party's best state, since 1976, in percentage margins) and the Democratic pickup of Maine (Perot received 30.44 percent there while Bush, who had carried it among his 40 states in 1988, received 30.39 percent).


I would estimate that a third-party candidate is going to receive at least 25 percent support to have a chance at carrying any states. But, at the rate it's been going lately, in which a third-party candidate receives well under five percent of the U.S. Popular Vote, a reason why that third-party candidate carries no states is because the raw vote is so small he would have to concentrate on campaigning in small-population states where the numbers of presidential votes cast are no great than six figures (like North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, etc.).

 

[Benvolio]

I did say possible, not probable.

 

[hotatlboi]

As you know, all that changes with the entry of Johnson as a third party candidate. I am guessing he will hurt democrats more than republicans, but it is early to tell which of his positions will gain traction. Even if he were elected, which i consider possible, he is closer in philosphy to Republicans on big government issues and can work with them. A lost of people will dislike Hillary, Sanders and Trump and Johnson may be positioned for a big surprise.

A profoundly ignorant post. Johnson was a candidate in 2012 when he failed to register even 1% of the vote. This time will be no different.

 

[Benvolio]

A profoundly ignorant post. Johnson was a candidate in 2012 when he failed to register even 1% of the vote. This time will be no different.

A great deal is different.

 

[hotatlboi]

A great deal is different.

No it isn't.