View RSS Feed

Perotista

Trump is president because of the anti-Clinton vote

Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Breakdown of the for and anti-votes via the 2016 CNN exit polling.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

2016 popular vote results: Clinton 48% Trump 46%, third party 6%.
Opinions of candidates, why they voted for the candidate broke down by total electorate percentages and then the percentage received by each candidate of that percentage group.

Strongly Favor 41% of the total vote, Clinton 53%, Trump 41% other 6%
Favor with reservations 32% of the total vote, Clinton 49%, Trump 48%, other 3%
Disliked opponent 25% of the total vote, Clinton 39%, Trump 50%, other 11%

With the above numbers we can figure out the percentage of Clinton’s and Trump vote share which fell into each category.
Strongly favor, Clinton 21.7% of her 48%, Trump 16.8% of his 46%
Favor with reservations, Clinton 15.7% of her 48%, Trump 15.4% of his 46%
Disliked opponent, Clinton 9.8% of her 48% who voted for her because they disliked Trump, 12.5% of his 46% who voted for him because they disliked Clinton.

This accounts for 47.2% of Clinton’s 48% of the vote and 44.7% of Trump’s 46%. Since 98% of the respondents listed one of these three reasons, 2% didn’t, so the vote total for Clinton and Trump won’t add up to exactly what they received. The other category is basically third party voters or those who refused to answer. Even so, we can see that 28% of Trump’s votes were anti-Clinton voters, not necessarily for him, but against Clinton. 21% of Hillary’s total of 48% were anti-Trump voters, not necessarily for her, but against Trump. If we subtract the anti-votes we find 38% of the total electorate voted for Clinton because they were either strongly for or for her with reservations. 33% of the total electorate voted for Trump because they were either strongly for or for him with reservations. Clinton won the for votes by 5 instead of 2 points counting the anti-votes. A lot more people were for Clinton than for Trump, but a lot more people were against or disliked Clinton than they did Trump.

I think this exercise proves Trump won on the backs of the anti-Clinton vote and not on the Pro-Trump vote. This is especially true when it came to the independent vote which Trump won 46-42 over Clinton. Independents were much more anti-Clinton than anti-Trump. The Anti vote for 2016 at 25% of all votes cast more than doubled the anti-votes of 2012 which was 11% of the total electorate. In 2012 people were voting for a candidate, in 2016, they were voting against a candidate or both candidates as seen in the 6% who voted third party against both major party candidates vs. 1.5% in 2012.
Categories
Member Blog

Comments

  1. <alt>doxygen's Avatar
    I also know 2 people who (said they) didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. Both would have voted against Trump if the dems had run someone else. Trump was seen as obnoxious and fake, while Clinton was seen as untrustworthy.

    That's just anecdotal, but Trump didn't win his swing states by large margins.

    Epilogue : Neither of them can stand the Trump administration.
  2. Hawkeye10's Avatar
    The kicker is that the R Elite directed by the data guys decided by early 2015 that Clinton was easy to beat, that is one of the big reasons so many people came out for the R Primary, and most of the so-called journalists who were paying attention laughed at them.

    But they were right, too bad Trump came and stole the party from them...that they never saw coming.
  3. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by <alt>doxygen
    I also know 2 people who (said they) didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. Both would have voted against Trump if the dems had run someone else. Trump was seen as obnoxious and fake, while Clinton was seen as untrustworthy.

    That's just anecdotal, but Trump didn't win his swing states by large margins.

    Epilogue : Neither of them can stand the Trump administration.
    I voted against both and like your friends, would have voted for almost any other Democrat other than Hillary Clinton. It's not that the Democrats weren't warned about Clinton's unfavorable standing among America as a whole. As early as February of 2016 there was a poll showing 56% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone else. But whom the Democrats nominate is their business, not every American. Although the general election becomes every American's business.

    I will admit Trump has done somethings I like, some I don't. Like every other president in my lifetime. But I also can't stand the man. Whenever he comes on TV, I switch channels. Whenever they start talking about one of his tweets, I switch channels.

    As for the future, if Trump runs again, I won't vote for him. Will I vote Democratic, it all depends on whom they nominate. I like to see a young fresh face from the Democratic side, they have a bunch of up and comers. The question becomes, will the democrats be smart enough to nominate one. A young fresh face worked well with Obama, in 1992 Bill Clinton was fair young and fresh to the national political scene as too was Jimmy Carter.
  4. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10
    The kicker is that the R Elite directed by the data guys decided by early 2015 that Clinton was easy to beat, that is one of the big reasons so many people came out for the R Primary, and most of the so-called journalists who were paying attention laughed at them.

    But they were right, too bad Trump came and stole the party from them...that they never saw coming.
    When one latches onto a candidate because that candidate is your favorite and you really, really want him to win, you don't care what other people think or even about his or her chances in the general. I know, I was a huge Goldwater back back in 1964. Several others tried to tell us the Republicans should nominate someone who could win. We didn't listen. Our hearts and minds were set on Goldwater and to heck with everyone else.

    2016 will go down as the most unique election in presidential election history. In that conventional wisdom or history didn't apply. How could it, both major party candidates were so disliked and unwanted by America as a whole, we were in new ground. We were treading where no one had tread before.

    One can usually make a fairly accurate prediction as to whom will win based on the favorable/unfavorable numbers. People usually don't vote for someone they dislike. But how does one predict based on that when both major candidates are disliked by around 60% of all Americans. It boiled down to independents who had a dislike/unfavorable view of Clinton of 70% vs. 57% for Trump. Trump won that group and is now sitting in the White House. But still 12% of all independents did vote third party, voting against both major party candidates.

    But in the end, it was Hillary's laziness, she let Trump way out work and out campaign her. He inept campaign strategy and her ho hum campaign that didn't install enthusiasm among the democratic base. Throw in angry Sanders supporters and you have a Trump victory against big odds.
  5. <alt>doxygen's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista
    When one latches onto a candidate because that candidate is your favorite and you really, really want him to win, you don't care what other people think or even about his or her chances in the general. I know, I was a huge Goldwater back back in 1964. Several others tried to tell us the Republicans should nominate someone who could win. We didn't listen. Our hearts and minds were set on Goldwater and to heck with everyone else.

    2016 will go down as the most unique election in presidential election history. In that conventional wisdom or history didn't apply. How could it, both major party candidates were so disliked and unwanted by America as a whole, we were in new ground. We were treading where no one had tread before.

    One can usually make a fairly accurate prediction as to whom will win based on the favorable/unfavorable numbers. People usually don't vote for someone they dislike. But how does one predict based on that when both major candidates are disliked by around 60% of all Americans. It boiled down to independents who had a dislike/unfavorable view of Clinton of 70% vs. 57% for Trump. Trump won that group and is now sitting in the White House. But still 12% of all independents did vote third party, voting against both major party candidates.

    But in the end, it was Hillary's laziness, she let Trump way out work and out campaign her. He inept campaign strategy and her ho hum campaign that didn't install enthusiasm among the democratic base. Throw in angry Sanders supporters and you have a Trump victory against big odds.
    I really could not agree with you more.

    re Hillary : I thought she was a weak candidate to begin with, and added to that the right had been attacking all things Clinton for the preceding quarter century. I wish the GOP had been able to get someone sane through the primaries and that the dems had run someone both competent and without a truckload of baggage. Obviously, that didn't happen.
  6. Perotista's Avatar
    Isn't strange that most Americans still like Bill Clinton, but can't Hillary. I still think Bill was one of our better presidents in my lifetime. It probably boils down to personality, charisma and believably. Bill exuded charm, charisma, he easily connected with the people. When Bill said, "I feel your pain," most believed him. Hillary, she had the charisma and personality of a wet mop. What she exuded was aloofness, elitism, just the opposite of Bill.

    Our presidential elections are basically a beauty contest. Usually the candidate with the most charisma wins. The candidate that can excite and install enthusiasm in more people than the others. Obama had charisma, fresh, young, energetic. Romney and McCain couldn't hold a candle to Obama when it came to charisma. Gore and Kerry were statues, Bush II really wasn't all that charismatic, but he had more of it than either statue. Bill, charisma all over Bush I and Dole.

    Trump had the ability to excite and install enthusiasm into his followers. His supporters were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Hillary's, they were more ho hum like her. There seemed to be very little enthusiasm or energy in her corner.

    I originally was Jim Webb backer, but when he didn't campaign, I switch to Kasich. When Trump and Hillary won the nominations, it became Gary Johnson time. If we had a redo election today, even knowing everything I know now, I would still vote against Hillary and Trump. Both politically really disgust me.
  7. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by <alt>doxygen
    I really could not agree with you more.

    re Hillary : I thought she was a weak candidate to begin with, and added to that the right had been attacking all things Clinton for the preceding quarter century. I wish the GOP had been able to get someone sane through the primaries and that the dems had run someone both competent and without a truckload of baggage. Obviously, that didn't happen.
    Isn't strange that most Americans still like Bill Clinton, but can't Hillary. I still think Bill was one of our better presidents in my lifetime. It probably boils down to personality, charisma and believably. Bill exuded charm, charisma, he easily connected with the people. When Bill said, "I feel your pain," most believed him. Hillary, she had the charisma and personality of a wet mop. What she exuded was aloofness, elitism, just the opposite of Bill.

    Our presidential elections are basically a beauty contest. Usually the candidate with the most charisma wins. The candidate that can excite and install enthusiasm in more people than the others. Obama had charisma, fresh, young, energetic. Romney and McCain couldn't hold a candle to Obama when it came to charisma. Gore and Kerry were statues, Bush II really wasn't all that charismatic, but he had more of it than either statue. Bill, charisma all over Bush I and Dole.

    Trump had the ability to excite and install enthusiasm into his followers. His supporters were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Hillary's, they were more ho hum like her. There seemed to be very little enthusiasm or energy in her corner.

    I originally was Jim Webb backer, but when he didn't campaign, I switch to Kasich. When Trump and Hillary won the nominations, it became Gary Johnson time. If we had a redo election today, even knowing everything I know now, I would still vote against Hillary and Trump. Both politically really disgust me.
  8. polgara's Avatar
    I just want to thank you again for all the number-crunching you do! I suspect you enjoy doing it, but it's still a lot of work!
  9. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by polgara
    I just want to thank you again for all the number-crunching you do! I suspect you enjoy doing it, but it's still a lot of work!
    I always like to have the numbers, figures to back myself up when I state something. I always thought the reason Trump won was because there was more anti-Clinton voters out there than anti-Trumpers. The numbers back that up.

    Also those of us who voted third party, against both major party candidates. The convention wisdom was we hurt Trump more than Clinton. But thanks to CNN polling, it turns out the opposite. According to CNN if there were no third party candidates, where one was forced to either choose Trump or Clinton. Trump would have received 19% of their vote to 16% for Clinton. The rest wouldn't have voted. The vast majority of third party voters still would have refused to choose, choosing instead to stay home and not vote.

    Yes, I do love it.

Trackbacks

Total Trackbacks 0
Trackback URL: