Here’s the 2016-2020 Presidential swing in Pennsylvania. The main reason Pennsylvania flipped: the bear unanimous leftward swing of the PA ‘Burbs and Exurbs. Along with Pittsburgh area and Erie and Centre counties. https://t.co/76EzC4105E pic.twitter.com/QVCJwDGigd— XNeon ????????? (@xxxneonslavexxx) November 12, 2020
Here’s the 2016-2020 Wisconsin Presidential shift by county. Not too large of shift either way except in the Milwaukee Suburbs and Dane county. Also some larger Democratic gains up north. The increases in suburbs probably what won Biden the state. https://t.co/fVxEul6uuN pic.twitter.com/alhYWRTdfS— XNeon ????????? (@xxxneonslavexxx) November 13, 2020
Here’s the 2016-2020 Presidential shift in Michigan. Biden flipped the state and that was probably due to three distinct areas: the Detroit to Grand Rapids area, the Marquette area and the Traverse City area. https://t.co/3xrZ8WFwO1 pic.twitter.com/cK2worxH8r— XNeon ????????? (@xxxneonslavexxx) November 14, 2020
Okay reposting without the mistake. Here’s the GA presidential shift. And the reason the state flipped. It’s not just Atlanta that’s moving left it’s the entire northern part of the state pretty much along with a lot of the southern areas as well ? https://t.co/pUazNnCCH5 pic.twitter.com/hs3urhwI8Y— XNeon ????????? (@xxxneonslavexxx) November 10, 2020
Another state that flipped in the Presidential level, here’s the 2016-2020 Arizona Presidential shift by county. Pretty much all of central Arizona shifted left as you would expect and counties on the outer edges shifted right… as you would also expect. https://t.co/SdbIx4h2zi pic.twitter.com/z24lmYpbTt— XNeon ????????? (@xxxneonslavexxx) November 14, 2020
Here’s the 2016-2020 Presidential shift in North Carolina. A battleground state that didn’t flip this year. Seemingly because Biden’s gains in urban/suburban areas just weren’t large enough to offset all of his losses in traditionally Democratic areas of the state. https://t.co/0cbaKAhi56 pic.twitter.com/bCjchihqa1— XNeon ????????? (@xxxneonslavexxx) November 15, 2020
David Shor is a data scientist who was run out of the Democratic Party earlier this year during the George Floyd protests for having the audacity to suggest that violent protests were hurting the Democrats.
“I think it’s important for us to be clear-eyed about what happened in 2020. We’re not going to know exactly what happened until there’s more analysis of precinct results. But I think that the county-level data we have tells a pretty clear big-picture story. Which is that we won the presidency because, one, while we lost non-college-educated white voters, we kept those defections to a relatively low level, and two, a bunch of moderate Republicans who had voted for Trump in 2016 decided to vote for Biden this time. …”
Whexit determined the 2020 election.
It came down to two things – White college educated voters, moderates and Independents moving away from Trump and Donald Trump’s diminished margin with White working class voters.
“Yes. If you look at county-level returns in Georgia, it’s pretty clear that nonwhite voters, as a share of the electorate, decreased at a time when the nonwhite share of the state’s population probably increased. Relative to the electorate as a whole, nonwhite turnout fell. And then, among nonwhite voters who turned out, support for the Democratic nominee fell. That’s just not consistent with nonwhite turnout being the decisive factor. The only reason we won is that there were these very large swings toward us among college-educated white people in the Atlanta suburbs. …”
In Georgia, it was White college educated voters in the Atlanta suburbs. The upper middle class flipped to Joe Biden. He also lost support with Independents and the White working class.
“Finally, if you look at 2016, I think people want to tell this story about values. But ultimately, if you look at what the biggest predictors of voter preferences were … there were just a lot of voters who agreed with us about health care but not about immigration. Obama got something like 60 percent of those voters; Clinton got roughly 40. And I think the reason why that happened was that both parties talked about immigration. So I think it does actually matter. …”
In the 2016 election, the Hard-Pressed Skeptics tipped from Obama to Trump. These are voters who agree with the Democrats on health care, but not necessarily Obamacare, but strongly disagree with them on immigration. In the 2020 election, the focus was taken off immigration and that worked in favor of the Democrats who won back more of them in the Center of the electorate.
“The best example though might be Donald Trump. His approval rating rested in a very narrow band, for basically this entire election, particularly among non-college-educated whites. There was only one time that shifted, in the course of his entire presidency, and that was when they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act. His approval rating among non-college whites specifically plummeted. We were tracking Obama-Trump voters; this was the only time when they came home in large numbers. And the reason is that a lot of these voters agree with Democrats on Obamacare, and they were very angry about attempts to repeal it. (And then they stopped being angry because it failed and everyone in politics has a short memory.) …”
Donald Trump’s unpopular position on health care, his failure to deliver on immigration combined with the economic collapse in this already financially strapped group cost him support with Hard-Pressed Skeptics. I strongly suspect that they swung to Joe Biden.
“Yeah, I think there are two separate questions: What actually happened, and why were the polls wrong? We’ll have to see what the final popular vote margin is, but it looks like Biden is going to end up something like 1.5-2 percentage points better than Hillary Clinton in kind of a uniform swing. College-educated white people, in relative terms, swung toward Democrats by a lot, and non-college-educated white people swung, in relative terms, against us. Education polarization ended up being larger than it was in 2016. Hispanic voters swung against us by large margins — though how large and the exact geographic and demographic distribution is going to be unclear until we get more precinct results. That’s the big picture for what happened. …”
It is easy to see why White college educated voters grew so tired of Donald Trump. BTW, Ann Coulter is right about Trumpism without Trump being a winning strategy.
“So, I think the Republicans’ position [in the next four years] has to be: This is the new Republican Party. It will be Trumpism, but we’re getting rid of the eight-year-old,” Coulter proposed.
Republicans should remain focused on populist issues, she advised, “But we’re going to have someone who speaks well, who is articulate, who hates the media, hates political correctness.”
“It’ll be a lot easier to push Trumpism without Trump,” Coulter predicted.
“I’m glad he lost,” she continued. “I’m glad it was very, very narrow. And I’m glad we seem to have held the Senate. … And we have definitely held the House [of Representatives]. That means they [Democrats] couldn’t do anything terrible.”
“My friends in California were warning me when I was totally, totally on the Trump bandwagon, actually in 2015, after he announced [his candidacy for president]. In California they were all saying, ‘Ann, he’s gonna be like Arnold Schwarzenegger. He talks a good game, he’ll get in, he’ll become a liberal,’” Coulter recalled.
She speculated that a Trump second term would have been “even worse” than the former California governor’s.
“This would’ve been Arnold Schwarzenegger’s second term, except even worse,” she said. “Jared Kushner would be out releasing criminals, passing the amnesty … It would have been an unmitigated disaster, and we’d never be able to get the MAGA agenda back.”
“Trumpism without Trump — that is the winning formula,” she concluded.”
“In 2016, we didn’t lose because our get-out-the-vote lists were not sorted well enough. And it wasn’t that we had the wrong kind of digital targeting. We lost because, big picture, we ran a campaign that increased the salience of immigration at a time when marginal voters in swing states in the Midwest disagreed with us on immigration. That’s why we lost. Obviously, it was a close election, and maybe you could have done something different and gotten 0.4 points more in Wisconsin. But big picture, that is what happened. And I think it’s important to not miss the forest for the trees. There are reasonable debates people have about the cost-effectiveness of canvassing or how much we should be spending on digital ads, but ultimately, that’s not what determines elections.”
Trump used immigration as a wedge issue in 2016 to win the election with the Hard-Pressed Skeptics in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. That’s why he won the election.
A winning candidate for Republicans would be a smart, articulate social conservative who isn’t a lightning rod who can win back college-educated White voters and who is moderate on economics and health care. The wildly unpopular True Cons Republican agenda and Trump being an incompetent, blustering idiot are the two albatrosses that have to be dumped by the Right.