2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSo the Ohio poll used 2004
Voter turnout models.
Look I'm not saying we dismiss every thing that is negative and it just drives the point that if we don't want to be led by a talking yam we need to get out and vote.
But, I refuse to believe that the 2016 electorate is going to look anything like an electorate from 12 years ago.
Will Trump carry anywhere near the minority vote that Bush did?
GOTV
kcjohn1
(751 posts)Ohio has not changed dramatically during that time. If anything it is probably older.
Do you think the Clinton campaign is that much superior to Kerry?
ladym55
(2,577 posts)She has three headquarters in my county alone. I was there in 2004 and am there now. There is a big difference between 2004 and today. Kerry had to build his campaign from the ground up in 2004 because the Dems in Ohio were pretty much non-existent. He gave the work he did to Obama, and Obama built on that. Hillary has all that experience and infrastructure in place and is working hard.
The issue in Ohio is rural Ohio, where evangelical churches dominate. In 2004, the notorious Ken Blackwell bragged that they put the same-sex marriage amendment on the ballot to drag out all the homophobes. (Well, he wasn't quite THAT blunt, but not far off.) That hurt Kerry.
I'm not sure how Ohio will go, and the Hillary campaign is taking nothing for granted. The effort includes getting down-ballot Dems elected as well.
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)karynnj
(59,474 posts)Also the actual Ohio turnout in 2004 would reflect all the voter suppression caused by 4 or even 10 hour lines.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's less white (by about two-points), more black and more Hispanic, even if only marginally.
But Bush won Ohio by two-points. A subtle shift in demographics erases that.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)Look at the Ohio primary. 2M voted for GOP candidates vs 1.2M for Dem. In 2008 only 1.2M voted for GOP primary & 2M for Romney in the general.
It is all about turnout. Obama ran great campaign and he brought out minorities (especially AAs) in great numbers. After 8 years, I don't see replicating those turnout efforts. Add to the fact all the white racists are going to be coming out in great enthusiasm plus all the Clinton haters, it doesn't look good.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Obama won because he turned out the black vote in the Cleveland area. If Hillary does, too, she wins.
ChimpersMcSmirkers
(3,328 posts)to shut up and be places that are helpful. I'm not bed wetting, it's the truth.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)that Ohio "has not changed dramatically during that time."
The OP's point was that Ohio HAS changed since 2004.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2015/01/06/101605/the-changing-face-of-americas-electorate/
The demographic changes in the United States are far from being fully realized: Not until 2043 will people of color make up a majority of the U.S. population. Despite the seemingly long trajectory of these changes, the political implications are already being felt in many states. By 2016, demographic shifts will be influential in states such as Florida, where voters of color are an increasingly significant share of the electorate, as well as in states such as Ohio, where elections are close and growth among voters of color is rapidly outpacing the growth of the non-Hispanic white electorate.
SNIP
Two narratives regarding the 2016 elections are already emerging around voters of color. The first storyline is that the growing number of voters of color in battleground states such as Virginia and Ohio will provide Democrats with an electoral windfall and thus an even smoother path to the White House. The first election simulation tests this theory and quantifies how much of an electoral advantage the growing numbers of people of color will likely yield Democrats if turnout rates and party preferences hold constant to 2012 levels.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)JI7
(89,172 posts)To make a difference.
radius777
(3,624 posts)than Kerry had, which could make the difference in swing states like OH.
I agree, that Hillary's campaign at this point is not better (probably worse) than Kerry's, but after all she is Hillary Clinton (an icon for women worldwide, can become the first female president) and does have more cachet than Kerry did, who himself did run a much better campaign than Gore did, with harder odds against him (trying to unseat an incumbent war-time president) than Gore had, and almost succeeded.
Kerry's advantage over Hillary is that he was relatively scandal free, and not really the target of ongoing attacks (from the right and left) of the type that the Clintons get, and of course Hillary has to deal with sexism.
I still think that overall, Hillary (if her campaign gets its act together) will easily be able to drive more of a vote than Kerry did, especially having a popular sitting president and vice president (Obama/Biden) to help her do so, and facing a vile candidate like Trump, who I just see moderates and swing voters voting strongly against when push comes to shove.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)It has a lot of the kind of voters who gravitate towards him. This poll was also taken at a time when Hillary was getting negative press coverage and the infamous "health scare." I think it's an even race in Ohio and the party that GOTV will win the state.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)It randomly polled people and let the chips fall where they may with respect to party ID. There is no turnout model in a Seltzer poll other than asking "Are you likely to vote".
That's all she does.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... under 50?!
no
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)of secret older white voters who will 100% all pull the lever for Trump. There's a New York Times article about it and everything. You know, the NYT, who has been so "fair" and "balanced" during this election?
Of course, the article speaks in terms of the nation, not state-by-state, which means any effect would be spread out nationally, not concentrated specifically in the battleground states that ultimately decide the Electoral College. But what does a little thing like "reality" matter when it's time for a good ol'fashioned FREAKOUT?
I saw somewhere else that another DU remembers September as the time when the board loses their head a bit about the election and polling and whatnot. From many of the posts I've seen today, I'm inclined to believe them now.
ChimpersMcSmirkers
(3,328 posts)OH might be slipping away. Debates/stuff can change this a bit, but it's a serious indicator that shouldn't be poopooed away. Berners abandoning Johnson and Wifi Stein are probably going to make the difference. I don't think they'll do it though.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... voters for instance or cut their 2012 numbers by more than half (like it did under 50) then they would at least try to scramble or prove their sample more.
They usually do less than 1500 people in these polls... they can gut check their numbers when something makes no sense
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)And probably a lot worse with Latinos.
I am not terribly optimistic about turnout though.
I think 2004 is a pessimistic baseline but 2008 or 2012 would be overly optimistic.
DeminPennswoods
(15,246 posts)Did Bloomberg put out the cross tabs for this poll? In states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, WVa there are still many people registered as Dems who are now philosophically and tempermentally Republicans. If you poll these Dems, it makes party registration weights right, but grabs more conservative voters. Here in Pennsylvania, the best state poll done by Franklin & Marshall college, always asks "regardless of party registration, do you consider yourself "liberal, conservative or moderate?". It allows the pollster and the reader to determine if the sample might be capturing a few too many conservatives or liberals. And, in fact, if you were too look at the most recent Keystone/Pennsylvania Poll, the summary points that scenario out.
Ohio is like Pennsylvania in that turnout in Cleveland, Akron, the Lake Erie region and I'm guessing Columbus (Ohio State) are the key to winning the state.