2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo you LOVE maps?
Check these out! I'm looking at them in terms of the General Election...
Hillary won the yellow areas, Bernie won the green areas.
Final results from the 2012 General Election:
Final results 2008 General Election:
Red State, Blue State, Purple State....Who will win the states that will will the General Election?
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Also, the green spots in VA are a good sign.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)How did that work out?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)in 2016. Let's see how things work out. Bernie could win many of the ones you mentioned.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)President Obama lost a bunch of states in the general election he won during the primary and won a bunch of states in the general election he lost during the primary. That suggests there is no correlation between primary success and failure and general election success and failure.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That is the point of the OP. Do you agree or disagree?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Ohio is "the" KEY state for Hillary.
If she wins, then she draws closer to the magic number.
If she loses, then Bernie will win out for the rest of the primary season.
Everything changed after Michigan.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...she can't win the nomination? Mmmkay.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I was one of them.
On the other hand, Hillary sucks the energy out of them.
And I think you know it.
cyberpj
(10,794 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Please give us Trump. It will be a historic electoral landslide in Clintons favor.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Democrats won't vote for Clinton. The only way one can come to that conclusion is to ignore reality and facts. This reads like a pro Clinton post to me.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Millennials won't.
It's hard to win an election if you're only getting 80 percent of 30 percent of the electorate.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That Trump will beat Clinton. I find the narrative to be laughable with what is currently known.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)He and the chaos that follows him will scare away anybody who is remotely vested in the system and doesn't want to see the country split in two and thrown into a "war of all against all."
The analogue is 1964.
Cavallo
(348 posts)If it is Bernie next, I believe we'll be fine. Anyone else and Barack will be an era that will probably be deeply missed for the rest of my life.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The assertion embodied in the seminal poster's premise is that a candidate who loses a state during the primary will lose it in the general election. Barack Obama lost all the states during the primary that I cited and then won them in the general election. Ironically, many of the states Barack Obama won during the primary he lost during the general election, states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Nebraska, Kansas, and Utah.
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)to state my premise because you have done a terrible job presuming what I intended by this thread.
I find these maps fascinating, especially how they illustrate both subtle and overt changes over time. The thread poses a question and is intended to provoke thought not derisiveness.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)We are probably a general election or two from putting AZ, TX, and GA in play.
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)Check it out! Whoever found these and put this together is GOOD.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97330.0
merrily
(45,251 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The maps in the OP are incredibly misleading and unrepresentative of reality. They remind me of the map Bush supporters were pushing after the Gore v Bush debacle.
merrily
(45,251 posts)not a poster who has ever treated all counties identically.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778561 (Countin' yer county.)
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)But that's exactly what the maps in the OP do. They treat all counties as if they're equal and all margins of victory as if they're equal. Such maps don't even remotely represent what the US actually looks like politically.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)on the virtues of using real maps, rather than a GPS.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)While I very much understand the value and virtues of a GPS, unless you're someone with a genuine deficit in the part of your brain that ought to be able to read maps (and those people exist, I know), you should take a gander at a map of where you're headed before programming in the GPS.
I was recently in communication with someone who not only cannot make sense of maps, but who gets lost very easily because of a genuine inability to recognize landmarks. It makes that person's life difficult and constrained, although they've learned to live with it, because it's been that way their entire life.
Meanwhile, I gleefully read maps and plot my route to somewhere.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I have a thing for many in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The manner in which many were commissioned and the propaganda value at the time really interests me.
I can also read today's maps. Lol
valerief
(53,235 posts)would be interesting to see the Bernie/Hillary map shaded for population (darker means more people).
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)and it has several interesting ones..maybe you can find it here:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97330.0
[link:http://
valerief
(53,235 posts)Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)I went all the way back to the early 1900's and it is amazing. I could look at this stuff all day.
brooklynite
(94,452 posts)...so, probably no chance to win, right?
Kaleva
(36,290 posts)Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)I had trouble with some but will keep trying--I'm kinda old and this is kinda new to me.
Kaleva
(36,290 posts)If i really want to embarrass myself, I'll try and play Call of Duty with my adult step-sons and son-in-law.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Clinton 2016 is not even Clinton 2008.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)would be a comparison of general election outcomes by democratic candidates who lost most of the general election blue states in the primaries. In other words, is there a causal link between winning or losing the general election based on winning percentage of blue state primaries?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Thank you in advance.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)I'm talking real statistical work here, not casual bs.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I am sure there is peer reviewed research out there and I would wager it confirms my casual observation. On the other hand it is so obvious that there is a lack of correlation I wouldn't be surprised to see a dearth of research in that area.
MuseRider
(34,103 posts)by quite a lot but every single county? So Kansas Democrats, though small in numbers voted for the Democratic Socialist? OK, no more talk about the dopes here, yes there are lots of dopes and awful people but the Democrats are pretty solidly Democrats and our Independents are pretty liberal as well.
That said, I hear our Super Delegates are all going to vote for Hillary. There you have it, the people vs the party. I just hope the delegates here for Bernie are actually let through the door unlike what happened to the Kucinich delegates. Something tells me the state party is just going to have to swallow this as much as they do not want to. Again,
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Here's the image Bush supporters loved to show off following the 2000 election: " target="_blank">
Rather misleading, don't you think?
As I shared in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282
When you treat all counties as if they have the same number of people and you treat all margins of victory as the same, you really shouldn't be taken seriously.
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)I found this one later and though you would would appreciate it.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And it's certainly better than the county ones like those in the OP.
But it's still too black-and-white (er, blue-and-red) and doesn't truly represent what the US looks like politically (because it still has the problem of treating all margins of victory the same). Now, in the electoral college, margins of victory don't matter, but it's still good to know which areas may be on the verge of flipping. Plus, electoral college aside, it's good to know what the US actually looks like politically.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Don't matter because they're safely blue. You can't claim one without the other.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Certain Democrats cite the lessons of the President elections of 1972 and 1980 so incorrectly. However, one of those lessons was that Democratic candidates who cannot generate enthusiasm among Democrats can lose supposed guarantied blue states, especially when the GOP candidate does generate excitement.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)If red states in the GE don't matter now, because there is no hope for winning them in the GE, then the other side is also true (Who cares about the blue states in the primaries because they will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.). Either people acknowledge that both red and blue state voters matter in selecting our nominee, or we negate 43 states and only give a shit about the 7 purple states--after all, they're going to decide the president. We should tailor our candidate to their wants before any other.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I won't be offensive and purport to break down my simple post for you, though. I try not to condescend.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)I just disagree with your assessment that Bernie somehow guarantees safe blue states while Hillary doesn't. But that Hillary dominating the South doesn't translate into flipping safe red states because they're safe.
Either both or true or neither is. To diminish the importance of one to prop up the other while altering the rules of the governing assumptions is farcical
And it is not Hillsplaining; it is just logic. On the other hand, the continued insistence of certain people that the South doesn't matter and should have a diminished role in our nomination process is something else entirely.
With all respect, of course.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"Bernie somehow guarantees safe blue states."
Also, did you even read my post for comprehension and think about the Presidential elections of 1972, 1980 and 1984 before claiming my post to you was about guarantied "safe" blue states?
ISUGRADIA
(2,571 posts)The final results map for 2012 is incorrect, Obama won Florida .
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)1912 Democratic
1912 Republican
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97330.0
Wilson, Taft and Teddy Roosevelt...and we got Wilson....
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)Interesting....