Analysis on the numbers

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
u0KRDWd.png


States Sanders won in the democratic primary and Trump won in the general election (13 states, 1 district, 84 electoral votes):

Idaho(4), Montana(3), Wyoming(3), Utah(6), North Dakota(3), Nebraska(5), Kansas(6), Oklahoma(7), Wisconsin(10), Michigan(16), Indiana(11), West Virginia(5), NH 1st District(1), Alaska(3)


States Clinton won in the democratic primary and Clinton won in the general election (11 states + DC, 176 electoral votes):

New Mexico(5), Virginia(13), Maryland(10), Delaware(3), DC(3), New Jersey(14), New York(29), Massachusettes(11), Nevada(6), Illinois(20), California(55), Connecticut(7)


States Sanders won in the democratic primary and Clinton won in the general election (8 states, 52 electoral votes):

Washington(12), Oregon(7), Colorado(9), Minnesota(10), Hawaii(4), Vermont(3), New Hampshire(4), Maine(3)


States Clinton won in the democratic primary and Trump won in the general election (17 states, 223 electoral votes):

Arizona(11), South Dakota(3), Iowa(6), Missouri(10), Arkansas(6), Texas(38 ), Louisiana(8 ), Mississippi(6), Alabama(9), Georgia(16), Florida(29), North Carolina(15), South Carolina(9), Tennessee(11), Kentucky(8 ), Ohio(18 ), Pennsylvania(20)
 
I get what you are trying to say but I think there was not much of a correlation between winning a state in the primary and winning that state in the general election.

States like Idaho (Sanders won) and Mississippi (Clinton won) were never going to turn blue in the general election.

50 is too small a sample size to sort further. but her losses in WI and MI should have been a warning sign.

I do recall a point you made late spring when you said that Clinton's wins in the south might help her win the nomination but were no help in the general election. True, that.

Makes me think that maybe the primary system which doesn't account for past voting record and awards delegates based upon raw primary count might be something to think about changing.
 
Fogdog said:
I get what you are trying to say but I think there was not much of a correlation between winning a state in the primary and winning that state in the general election.
Click to expand...
This is the main point of the thread, and so obviously I disagree with you

I think especially in states like Michigan (47.3% v. 47.6%) and Wisconsin (46.9% v. 47.8%), the difference in rhetoric is what made the difference. White, working class voters flocked to Trump because they feel like they've been left behind by a system that favors the rich. Clinton talks about limiting their livelihood while Trump lies to them and promises a return to the greatness they remember, the kind their fathers talked about and they caught a glimpse of before it was stolen from them by the democrats and illegal immigrants
Fogdog said:
States like Idaho (Sanders won) and Mississippi (Clinton won) were never going to turn blue in the general election.
Click to expand...
Sanders in Salt Lake City:

dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls


19CAMPAIGNsub-master768.jpg


56eced2bdecca.image.jpg


Try finding anything similar of Clinton crowds in Mississippi, I looked, I couldn't find it
Fogdog said:
her losses in WI and MI should have been a warning sign.
Click to expand...
DNC leaks showed how close her campaign was with the mainstream media, I think much of it has to do with the fact they were being manipulated to favor the Clinton campaign's narrative
Fogdog said:
I do recall a point you made late spring when you said that Clinton's wins in the south might help her win the nomination but were no help in the general election. True, that.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, these maps represent that perfectly. Everyone knew Trump was going to win the South, it was troubling Sanders won the north especially since Trump ran a campaign on many of the same criticisms as Sanders. Some of the political programs I frequent called this months before the election, that the only way Clinton could lose is if she abandoned progressive ideals to try to appeal to the moderate conservative base it seemed like Trump was abandoning at the time with all of his extreme rhetoric. That was the fatal flaw in the direction of her campaign.
Fogdog said:
Makes me think that maybe the primary system which doesn't account for past voting record and awards delegates based upon raw primary count might be something to think about changing.
Click to expand...
I'm very proud of you, man. It takes strength to admit when you were wrong. You are a stronger man for it
 
Padawanbater2 said:
This is the main point of the thread, and so obviously I disagree with you

I think especially in states like Michigan (47.3% v. 47.6%) and Wisconsin (46.9% v. 47.8%), the difference in rhetoric is what made the difference. White, working class voters flocked to Trump because they feel like they've been left behind by a system that favors the rich. Clinton talks about limiting their livelihood while Trump lies to them and promises a return to the greatness they remember, the kind their fathers talked about and they caught a glimpse of before it was stolen from them by the democrats and illegal immigrants

Sanders in Salt Lake City:

dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls


19CAMPAIGNsub-master768.jpg


56eced2bdecca.image.jpg


Try finding anything similar of Clinton crowds in Mississippi, I looked, I couldn't find it

DNC leaks showed how close her campaign was with the mainstream media, I think much of it has to do with the fact they were being manipulated to favor the Clinton campaign's narrative

Absolutely, these maps represent that perfectly. Everyone knew Trump was going to win the South, it was troubling Sanders won the north especially since Trump ran a campaign on many of the same criticisms as Sanders. Some of the political programs I frequent called this months before the election, that the only way Clinton could lose is if she abandoned progressive ideals to try to appeal to the moderate conservative base it seemed like Trump was abandoning at the time with all of his extreme rhetoric. That was the fatal flaw in the direction of her campaign.
I'm very proud of you, man. It takes strength to admit when you were wrong. You are a stronger man for it
Click to expand...
The truth can suck but denying it dooms you to a life of suckitude. And so, when I'm wrong and know it, I have no problem with taking the lesson and moving with it. You are right about the current primary system being a poor method to choose a candidate who will win the general.

I don't think you understand statistical correlation. There has to be some predictive relationship to show correlation. The map of primaries show states were Clinton won or lost a state primary. If you overlay that plot on top of the result in the general election, she won states where Bernie lost and she lost states where she won. There is no statistical correlation.

Same with crowd size.

Mississippi: from what you say, small crowds. Clinton won primary. Trump won the general.
Utah: from your picture large crowd. Sanders won primary. Trump won the general.

What am I missing?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
This is the main point of the thread, and so obviously I disagree with you

I think especially in states like Michigan (47.3% v. 47.6%) and Wisconsin (46.9% v. 47.8%), the difference in rhetoric is what made the difference. White, working class voters flocked to Trump because they feel like they've been left behind by a system that favors the rich. Clinton talks about limiting their livelihood while Trump lies to them and promises a return to the greatness they remember, the kind their fathers talked about and they caught a glimpse of before it was stolen from them by the democrats and illegal immigrants

Sanders in Salt Lake City:

dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls


19CAMPAIGNsub-master768.jpg


56eced2bdecca.image.jpg


Try finding anything similar of Clinton crowds in Mississippi, I looked, I couldn't find it

DNC leaks showed how close her campaign was with the mainstream media, I think much of it has to do with the fact they were being manipulated to favor the Clinton campaign's narrative

Absolutely, these maps represent that perfectly. Everyone knew Trump was going to win the South, it was troubling Sanders won the north especially since Trump ran a campaign on many of the same criticisms as Sanders. Some of the political programs I frequent called this months before the election, that the only way Clinton could lose is if she abandoned progressive ideals to try to appeal to the moderate conservative base it seemed like Trump was abandoning at the time with all of his extreme rhetoric. That was the fatal flaw in the direction of her campaign.
I'm very proud of you, man. It takes strength to admit when you were wrong. You are a stronger man for it
Click to expand...


I so wanted to be able to say President Sanders, sigh, but I'd have voted for nearly anyone in hopes of fending off the Drumpf beast. :(
(Not to say I dislike Hil, but she's no Bernie Sanders.)

Former Mayor of my birth city, Senator, steadfast public servant; He certainly has earned it.....

tumblr_inline_nuhwptlJMB1tti4cw_500.jpg

images.jpeg

download.jpeg

Fuckin PIGS latched onto Bern.....never give up, bro...
 
londonfog said:
That Sanders voted for Hillary, but Sanders people voted for him or stayed home. Our way or no way, so now we have Trump
Click to expand...
I don't see a predictive relationship between outcomes in the primary and outcomes in the general.
In Oregon and Washington, both states voted for Bernie and voted for Hillary in the general.
In Florida and North Carolina, both states voted for Clinton in the primary and Trump in the general
We see plenty of examples in all four quadrants of the outcomes matrix. Paddy's table shows that as well.


I have seen a comparison of past elections that looked at how well a candidate fared in the primary compared to their opponent's primary results. It showed a relationship that indicated candidates with strong support in the primary usually do better than an opponent who did less well but still won their own primary. It was pretty good relationship but the analytics only goes back to the early 1900's when the primary system was first used. So, small sample size and not statistically valid. And it is true that Clinton did not do as well in her primary election as Trump did in his.
 
I wonder if the Drumpf has ever been "hauled off in handcuffs"?

Maybe that one time, when he paid those neo-nazi twinks to string him up and pretend to be his scolding father....
 
UPDATED UPDATE: Michigan numbers are in and they are:

Trump 2,275,770 47.6%
Clinton 2,261,153 47.3%

So we are less than 15,000 votes apart now.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
u0KRDWd.png


States Sanders won in the democratic primary and Trump won in the general election (13 states, 1 district, 84 electoral votes):

Idaho(4), Montana(3), Wyoming(3), Utah(6), North Dakota(3), Nebraska(5), Kansas(6), Oklahoma(7), Wisconsin(10), Michigan(16), Indiana(11), West Virginia(5), NH 1st District(1), Alaska(3)


States Clinton won in the democratic primary and Clinton won in the general election (11 states + DC, 176 electoral votes):

New Mexico(5), Virginia(13), Maryland(10), Delaware(3), DC(3), New Jersey(14), New York(29), Massachusettes(11), Nevada(6), Illinois(20), California(55), Connecticut(7)


States Sanders won in the democratic primary and Clinton won in the general election (8 states, 52 electoral votes):

Washington(12), Oregon(7), Colorado(9), Minnesota(10), Hawaii(4), Vermont(3), New Hampshire(4), Maine(3)


States Clinton won in the democratic primary and Trump won in the general election (17 states, 223 electoral votes):

Arizona(11), South Dakota(3), Iowa(6), Missouri(10), Arkansas(6), Texas(38 ), Louisiana(8 ), Mississippi(6), Alabama(9), Georgia(16), Florida(29), North Carolina(15), South Carolina(9), Tennessee(11), Kentucky(8 ), Ohio(18 ), Pennsylvania(20)
Click to expand...
I don't see any analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
Kamala Harris Launches Her Campaign for President
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
13K
compassionateExotic
compassionateExotic
hanimmal
AP News: Trump campaign’s Russia contacts ‘grave’ threat, Senate says
Replies
7
Views
685
hanimmal
hanimmal
yocan
Yocan iCan second phase giveaway event has started
Replies
0
Views
230
yocan
yocan
J
Certain Strains stretching in flower transition
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
GreenGenez421
GreenGenez421
printer
Oh Rudy.
Replies
10
Views
900
DIY-HP-LED
DIY-HP-LED
Back
Top