An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...Jtn7MUApu6975nmhDVZxu7O0K-0YFgy2Wuz7j4Fo4AaDE

The entire article is well worth reading from start to finish IMO because it challenges our assumptions in a good way.

@Statistikhengst @perotista @MrTLegal @JakeStarkey @btthegreat @Andrew Jackson

Given what @perotista has posted in the past I am sure he will recognize himself and those like him who voted as they did in 2016 in the part I have bolded above. It goes directly to the point about why the genuine swing voters (6%) chose 3rd party candidates.

Even more interesting is that Bittcoffer has already made a prediction for 2020 IRRESPECTIVE of whomever is the Dem candidate.

This puts her in similar territory to Nate Silver who essentially came out of nowhere to be recognized as someone who both understands the data and can make accurate predictions based upon it.

Yes, she might be wrong but my own focus on TRENDS tells me that she is correct about WHO turns up to vote being the single most important factor when it comes to predicting the outcome. As I have posted previously the decline in the non college white voter segment is significantly large enough to effect the results nationwide. The net loss of 1.2 million criminal IMPOTUS supporters averages out to 60,000 per state which is more than twice the number that were responsible for the swings in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

While I am not as confident that her 2020 prediction is going to be completely correct I am willing to give her ideas the benefit of the doubt if for no other reason than that her analysis aligns with my own when it comes to voter turnouts.

Your thoughts?

 

Below is the link to Bitecoffer's 2020 Election Prediction Analysis.

http://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/2019/07/01-2020-election-forecast/

 

Quite provoking!

 

Well, if there are no swing voters then the election depends on who decides to stay home instead of vote.

 

That is the premise of the OP concept however it does leave room for those who go and vote to choose a 3rd party instead. That is essentially the point that was made as to why Hillary lost. Those who might otherwise have supported her in 2016 either stayed home or voted 3rd party.

 

Trump was put into office by former Obama supporters turned off by corrupt to the core Hillary and by the DNC's treatment of Bernie. Those two groups stayed home on election day or voted 3rd party in protest. Trump won. Not rocket science. Those people, by the way, were swing voters.

 

I think she's been plagiarizing me.
Way back in 92 I postulated thusly:
One third of the country is listed Democrat, one third Republican, one third independent.
One third of the independents are Republican voters, one third Democrat voters. That leaves 10 or 11% of real voters who might choose either candidate, third party or stay home.
I'm in that middle group: 84 GOP, 88 Libertarian, 92 GOP, 96 GOP, 00 GOP, 04 GOP, 08 Democrat, 12 GOP, 16 Libertarian.
For Governor in Massachusetts I never voted for a Republican, once since I moved to Rhode Island. For the Senate I never voted Democrat in Massachusetts, but twice in Rhode Island. I've had 3 of the worst House members in history, all Democrats, so for that seat I've yet to vote for a Democrat.
I miss some elections and voted only once in a Presidential primary-for a hopeless loser. In one election, the only winners I voted for were the ones who ran unopposed.
To supplement developments since 1992, the large number of safe red and blue districts, safe red and blue states, lopsided poll numbers shoved in our face daily, make it seem pointless to vote.
I was not surprised at all in 2016. When the media assured us of a Hillary win, hoping Republicans would stay home, it made all of them want to vote. Hillary supporters had no enthusiasm and stayed home, especially black voters who cared only when Obama was on the ballot.

 

That's abstaining or protesting. That's legitimate.

Another new thing is people who answer pollsters with lies.

 

I tend to agree with you on the number of genuine swing voters like yourself. One thing we all have in common is a general feeling of disappointment and disillusion with the two major parties.

The current GROWTH in the Independent faction is almost entirely from voters abandoning the two parties they were previously affiliated with. They are what is known in polls as "Leaners" in that they either Lean D or Lean R and tend to vote for the party they left.

Which leaves that small segment of genuine swing voters in the center. By my own estimates it is greater than 6% and less than 15% which more less matches up with your 3rd party or stay home estimate.

Had Bernie been the Dem candidate in 2016 I suspect that he would have appealed to that genuine swing voter segment and won easily. Going by the early results he could get his chance in 2020. As a polarizing candidate I suspect that he will increase turnout on both sides in which case this might be an election where the genuine swing voters do determine the final outcome.

 

Something that only applies to the right since I never heard anyone on the left advocating lying to pollsters.

 

How many of us have actually met someone who fancies him or herself an independent that is really independent? None you say?
That would be most accurate. Every "Independent" I know votes Democrat or Republican 99% of the time only in their own heads are they truly independent.

I have a friend that is a dyed in the wool democrat and he pretends he is independent and yet had never voted for anyone other than a democrat his entire life and he is over 70. Who is he fooling? He likes to pretend he is not beholding to any party, but that is a joke. When I call him a democrat he gets hopping mad. Just admit it for Christ sake.

The advantage of being an independent is that you don't get beat up for political contributions every day.

 

^^^^

 

In case you missed it, there was another thread a bit earlier created to discuss this same article: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-changing-face-of-american-politics.567831/

Now that I've also read over that 2nd one you linked, I have a better appreciation for the detail that went into her analysis and a bit better insight into why she made miscalculations on some of the Senate picks. Still, I would not put a ton of weight into her predictions until they have born out for at least another cycle or two.

There are a couple of notes I would make about the 2nd article you linked where she discussed the prediction itself:

I think the latest pools are up closer to 42%, so that could have an impact on her model were she to factor in approval ratings closer to the vote.

Should Bernie win, it seems she is ready to concede that the earlier prediction may need to be revised. It is at least a acknowledgement that the specific candidate does matter somewhat.

Other than that, I would say her reasoning is sound and I would expect the hyper-partisan nature of the parties to make the actual nominee less important this year than it has been in years past.

 

Thank you for the link to the other thread. While it is true that both are based upon the same source document the goals of the two OP's are not the same IMO. The thread in Political Opinions and Beliefs is focused on the political ramifications whereas this one in Elections & Campaigns is more technically orientated towards polling and predictions.

We agree that Bitecoffer does need to come through again with another accurate prediction in order to gain widespread credibility.

Now that Bernie is emerging as the candidate to beat, and I always suspected that he was going to be anyway because of 2016, I do not believe that if he wins the nomination it will be a major factor for altering her prediction.

What Bitecoffer is looking at is similar to my own Trend Analysis and here is a link that you might be interested in reading which explains what I am looking at.

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...ions/reports/2019/10/24/476315/path-270-2020/

The trend I am referring to can be seen clearly in this chart.



All but one of the demographic voting groups from 2016 will increase in size for 2020. All but one of them had a majority that voted Dem in 2016 and are likely to again in 2020.

The sole exception that had a Republican majority is going to DECLINE in size by 2.3% and that is the white, non-college voter demographic.

While 2.3% looks small in terms of the total electorate it represents 3.5 million voters nationwide who will no longer be voting. 2/3rds of that 3.5 million voted for the criminal IMPOTUS so that means a NET loss of around 1.2 million votes in that demographic alone. The GROWTH in the other voter demographics exacerbate that DECLINE because 2/3rds of them vote Dem.

Those 3.5 million fewer voters are not swing voters and will not be able to change their minds because they are no longer eligible to vote at all.

So with a demographic trend in the electorate of this magnitude looming over the 2020 election Bitecoffer is spot on with her point that it does matter who turns out to vote given that we now know who won't be turning out.

Which brings me back to your point about Bernie and hyperpartisanship. In 2016 Bernie was the only candidate of any note with BIPARTISAN support for his ideas. No less than 12% of his supporters were from the right and they ultimately did vote for the criminal IMPOTUS after Bernie conceded to Hillary.

If Bernie is the candidate and his message resonates among right leaning Independents and Republicans and he pulls only half as many as he did that is another percentage of the electorate voting Dem in 2020 that voted Republican in 2016.

These numbers are still speculation on my part but they go towards supporting what Bitecoffer is observing. The Progressive motivation is both against the criminal IMPOTUS and inspired by Bernie's message. That kicked ass in 2017 and 2018 and is still on track to do so in 2020. Add in the trends discussed above and now we are looking at a potential wave.

What I am still trying to find is the counter to all of these trends. I suspect that I am going to find it on social media but so far it is still relatively low key. Doubtless it will become more apparent the closer we get to the election.

 

Her essential point that:

Everything is Turnout-Driven (in terms of Demographic Groups) is (obviously) True.

The idea that (for the most part) "Demographic Groups" (Based on Age/Race/Sex/Educational Level/Etc.) are going to all vote a certain way.

Thus, it is Strictly a Matter of "WHO Turns Out to Vote".

The Big Problem that Silver (and people like Sabato) made in 2016 were Flawed Models (based on projections, based on previous elections, of which Demographic Groups would show up).

They both used Flawed Historical Models and didn't gauge the influx of New Voters in certain Demographic Groups.

They also failed to factor in the potential Under-performance of Black Voters in places like Detroit and Milwaukee.

 

Agreed!

The Minority voter suppression factor was very much underestimated and it is something that Progressives and actively addressing. Not sure how accurately one can account for it in polling other than the overall aggregate of the Dems needing at least 8% plus more votes just to overcome that suppression.

Post election polling is revealing given that it shows Millennials now voting more than Boomers. Hopefully those are now factored into the 2020 models.

You are right that not every election is identical and I suspect that those who are anticipating that voters will "reward" a "good economy" are ignoring the other factors at play IMO. The Clinton economic boom "raised all boats" but that was BEFORE the GOP's greed based Contract ON America kicked in. Today's economy is shortchanging 25% of hardworking Americans so that is a factor that it would be foolish to ignore IMO.

 

this is the dumbest most bogus bunch of bs ever spewed...

of course every election is determined by whom & how many voters actually vote...

it's always been that way, always will be that way.

not one election has ever been determined by a prediction or a poll... yes, some guessed the winner correctly but they didnt determine who won with their prediction...

geeze, silly sh*t hanging hopes on predictions...

 

Never heard of the concept that KNOWLEDGE is POWER?

Why do you believe that the GOP puts so much effort into Minority Voter Suppression?

Hillary LOST in 2016 because she FAILED to grasp what the GOP was doing to change the outcome in their favor.

So far from being "silly" this knowledge can be used to alter the outcome of an election.

 

Hillary lost Michigan by Less than 11,000 Votes.

Wayne County Michigan (Home of Detroit)

Wayne: 2016 Clinton: 519,444 vs. Trump: 228,993 as compared to
.............2012 Obama 595,846 vs. Romney 213,814.

Hillary Lost Wisconsin by Less than 23,000 Votes

Milwaukee County

Milwaukee: 2016 Clinton 288,822 vs Trump 126,069
....................2012 Obama 332, 438 vs Romney 154, 924

 

dont need that predictor to know that the dnc's only real chance at victory is a klobachur/bernie ticket...

without the progs the dnc loses...

without the established dem voter base the dnc loses...

wallstreet dems will be ok with bernie as a vp...

that's alot of votes when combined...

take away any of those three bases & the dnc loses all three branches...


but by all means, use the predictor to target weak minded, gullable college kids...

 

The Progressives are FORMER disillusioned Dems that were inspired by Bernie's message and kicked GOP ass all through 2017 and 2018. They will vote for whomever get's the Dem nomination.

The Dem base, just like the GOP base, will turn out for their candidate.

The Wall Street Casino Banksters were made IRRELEVANT by the combination of the Progressives and ActBlue. There are not enough of them to make a difference to the outcome.

So it doesn't matter one IOTA who is the Dem nominee given the current primary frontrunners. ALL of them can beat your criminal IMPOTUS in 2020.

The SCOTUS is NOT on the ballot.

The Dems will hold the House and potentially expand their majority.

The GOP's Senate Cowards of the Country now face the CONSEQUENCES of aligning themselves with your criminal IMPOTUS. That is going to make DEFENDING their seats much more difficult. The Dems could potentially take over the Senate with as little as just 3 wins and no losses. That is now well within their reach.

Predictions this far out are speculative but that is the current trend as far as the factors that matter for the next 9 months.

 

The Dem candidate will take Milwaukee and Wayne counties this time.

 

By definition, self-declared Independent voters are swing voters in that they might vote Left OR Right depending on the candidate and his or her promises.

 

So you never bothered to read the OP link.

Got it!

 

You trying to convince the poster you replied to or yourself with that post? Cause is sure seems like it's for your piece of mind with the wording, aggression and capital letters.

A real chance of the Dem party fracturing over Sanders, the Trump rage will help keep it together but still some fracturing. Bernie gets the nod some will not fully support him as being too far left, he does not get he nod the cries of "robbed" will fracture the party. DNC has internal issues galore right now. That will effect the turnout on Nov.