Brane Space: Hard Numbers From Exit Poll - Demographic Analysis Show Extent Of False Assumptions In Election Results

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

Hard Numbers From Exit Poll - Demographic Analysis Show Extent Of False Assumptions In Election Results

That this general election was radically different from all its predecessors is by now self evident. The sheer proportion of Americans who voted in this election - 66.7 percent of the voting eligible population according to the U.S. Election Project- eclipsed all previous general elections. A major reason for the record turnout (over 150 million ballots cast) was the expansion of voting options - many rendered easier by virtue of the pandemic. By this I mean the mail voting option, as well as early voting and online registration. All of which we now understand the Reepos are preparing to limit, given they know ease of voting spells doom for their party and agenda. Hence, their insistence on voter suppression.

The prime target will be mail voting or "postal voting" as WSJ resident nabob Gerald Baker calls it (Dec. 15, p. A19) and he's upset because he insists it has a "notably greater susceptibility to fraud and manipulation" - which canards I slapped down in a previous post, e.g.

Swatting Down More Nonsense About Mail Ballots - I...

So no, there will be no adverse results unless the Reeps continue trying to shame and scuttle mail voting - as opposed to joining the rational voters of the nation. Especially given this pandemic is not ending anytime soon, even with a vaccine.

But let's leave that, given I already dealt with Reep whining about mail ballots in the aforementioned link. In this post I want to focus on some of the total surprises that surfaced after some deep exit poll analysis and excavation of demographic nuances by the American Communities Project. The summary of these findings appeared in Gerald Seib's WSJ column: 'Hard Numbers Tell The Story Behind Election' (December 15, p. A4).

First, what was not a surprise and I mentioned this in my Dec. 4 post on voters' tendency to go for "divided government". This was in trying to explain the huge advantage in Biden numbers, but paired with down ballot Democratic House losses. As I wrote:

What were these "split vote" (divided government) folks thinking? WHO were they anyway? We still don't have all the exit vote assessments to parse these voter backgrounds. But it seems a good many were independent moderates as well as Republicans who turned against Trump - didn't want to see 4 more years of the authoritarian demagogue.

From Seib's piece we learned this hypothesis was basically confirmed, and Biden actually had an advantage in the suburbs with "Americans in the middle of the political spectrum". But while these moderate voters - mainly in the suburbs - did go for Biden- that had "more to do with rejecting Trump than embracing Democrats." Hence, their down ballot Reep choices. Which I do hope they realize will make governing more difficult.

At the same time, the preponderance of these moderate suburban voters meant that "voters on the wings didn't determine the outcome". Hence, to use Seib's parlance: "This means progressives who claim they won the election for Mr. Biden simply weren't reflecting reality." A conclusion that is also validated by the fact so many of those down ballot House seats were lost and barely 1 Senate seat picked up (so far). So if the progressives' claim was true that ought to have translated into down ballot wins as well.

But other genuine surprises also surfaced, including that "Trump actually won a higher share in big city counties than he did four years ago."

Seib notes this was particularly surprising in Philadelphia, where "Trump's share of the vote rose 3.7 percent compared to what it was in 2016."

I suppose that this has something to do with the nutty "defund the police" meme spread after the George Floyd protests in tandem with the civil unrest that erupted including at least one incident in Philly - oh, and Trump's "law and order" blather. Well, there will always be voters that succumb to such dog whistles, especially laden with fear.

Other ballot "surprises" could be rationally explained. For example, the increase in Trump's losing margin in Georgia's Gwinnett County, from 5.8% four years ago to 18.2 % this year. That can almost entirely be explained by Stacy Abrams' 'Fair Fight' mobilization and get out the vote efforts.

Meanwhile, Trump's shrunken victory margin in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin - from 18.8 points in 2016 to 12.2 points this year, can be explained by fewer rural citizens falling for his bunkum. And also, the effects of his tariffs which have hit farmers especially hard in Wisconsin - including many foreclosures.

Probably more troubling than anything else in these analyses were:

1) Biden losing ground in working class counties compared with HRC four years ago, and despite making passionate appeals, and

2) Trump "performing slightly better in heavily Hispanic counties and even in some heavily Black counties in the South."

This tells me more direct outreach is needed for these demographic populations, and certainly a lot more education. In the case of Hispanics, disabusing them of the socialist claptrap pumped into them in this election cycle.

Let us hope the next time around these groups are much better educated and especially equipped with the critical thinking skills to fend off nonsense, propaganda and fear mongering by demagogues and political manipulators.

See also: