HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2020, 6:27 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 8,589
^^ you need to understand, in American upper class minds, denmark/finland/sweden is are a concept rather a than a nation, paradisaical lands of free love, free money, free abortion, and free childcare
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2020, 6:29 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,232
^ sign me up
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2020, 7:00 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
^^ you need to understand, in American upper class minds, denmark/finland/sweden is are a concept rather a than a nation, paradisaical lands of free love, free money, free abortion, and free childcare
I get that Sanders has sold that, I still just don't really understand how/why he picked Denmark to continuously reference. If he were actually pitching Denmark's policies I'd be a huge Bernie bro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2020, 7:05 PM
Omaharocks Omaharocks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Bernie might have won Ohio, but then GA/FL/NC/TX were guaranteed Trump's (Biden on the other hand at a shot at each), and AZ and even maybe VA could have gone red with Bernie on the ballot.

All in all, not a good trade for the Dems IMO.
I mean, it's all speculation, but I think many in this thread are underestimating the level of strict partisanship with the 2020 election, due to the Trump effect.

The data shows a very small # of people switched from how they voted in 2016, and the huge turnout was all about love/hate for Trump. The dems got more people out, and many suburban areas have seen rapid demographic changes. Suburbs flipping blue wasn't the result of soccer mom Karen's switching from red to blue in mass, it's the result of more liberal, diverse voters settling in those same burbs.

It didn't matter who the Democratic candidate was. I strongly believe the results would have been almost the exact same with Bernie instead of Biden, although the "socialist" tag may have stuck a tiny bit in the ATL and PHX suburbs, so those two states may have gone red since they were so close.

I don't think Bernie does any better than Biden in the midwest. Regional intra-party differences show up in primary results, but I don't think they show up to any meaningful extent in the presidential election anymore.

Last edited by Omaharocks; Nov 26, 2020 at 7:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 3:57 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaharocks View Post
I mean, it's all speculation, but I think many in this thread are underestimating the level of strict partisanship with the 2020 election, due to the Trump effect.

The data shows a very small # of people switched from how they voted in 2016, and the huge turnout was all about love/hate for Trump. The dems got more people out, and many suburban areas have seen rapid demographic changes. Suburbs flipping blue wasn't the result of soccer mom Karen's switching from red to blue in mass, it's the result of more liberal, diverse voters settling in those same burbs.

It didn't matter who the Democratic candidate was. I strongly believe the results would have been almost the exact same with Bernie instead of Biden, although the "socialist" tag may have stuck a tiny bit in the ATL and PHX suburbs, so those two states may have gone red since they were so close.

I don't think Bernie does any better than Biden in the midwest. Regional intra-party differences show up in primary results, but I don't think they show up to any meaningful extent in the presidential election anymore.
Yeah, I agree with this comment. It wasn't about the Democratic candidate this time around, although it was about her in 2016. This election was a referendum on Trump. There was very little defecting to third party candidates this time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 4:32 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaharocks View Post

I don't think Bernie does any better than Biden in the midwest. Regional intra-party differences show up in primary results, but I don't think they show up to any meaningful extent in the presidential election anymore.
Bernie would have beaten Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016.

The margins for Trump over Hillary were slim in all three states... less than 80,000 votes combined.

Bernie's "outsider" persona (like Trump's) appealed strongly to the blue collar ethos present in urban, suburban, and rural areas in the region. Bernie was getting those enthusiastic crowds before Trump did... the difference being Bernie's crowds were significantly populated by white, working class Democrats. Bernie's message of corporate greed destroying good-paying manufacturing jobs (like Trump's of message of Washington DC apathy/corruption and China destroying good-paying manufacturing jobs) enjoyed widespread resonance. Who did those voters go with when it was ordained that he would not be the D nominee...?

Hillary, on the other hand, didn't even fucking show up... and the Democratic Party squandered a huge opportunity to build on an economic recovery, and solidify a powerful voting bloc for the forseeable future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 4:42 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
Bernie would have beaten Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016.

The margins for Trump over Hillary were slim in all three states... less than 80,000 votes combined.

Bernie's "outsider" persona (like Trump's) appealed strongly to the blue collar ethos present in urban, suburban, and rural areas in the region. Bernie was getting those enthusiastic crowds before Trump did... the difference being Bernie's crowds were significantly populated by white, working class Democrats. Bernie's message of corporate greed destroying good-paying manufacturing jobs (like Trump's of message of Washington DC apathy/corruption and China destroying good-paying manufacturing jobs) enjoyed widespread resonance.

Hillary, on the other hand, didn't even fucking show up... and squandered a huge opportunity to build on an economic recovery, and solidify a powerful voting bloc for the forseeable future.
I'm not so sure Bernie would've won Michigan. Bernie has never broadly resonated with black voters, which are a critical Democratic voting block in Michigan (he'd have been the 2020 nominee if he had figured out black voters). He also would've repelled newly minted neoliberal suburban voters in Oakland County that have drifted away from the GOP. Bernie would have outperformed Hillary in Macomb County, but I'm not sure he would've done enough to overcome other vulnerabilities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 4:48 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I'm not so sure Bernie would've won Michigan. Bernie has never broadly resonated with black voters, which are a critical Democratic voting block in Michigan (he'd have been the 2020 nominee if he had figured out black voters). He also would've repelled newly minted neoliberal suburban voters in Oakland County that have drifted away from the GOP. Bernie would have outperformed Hillary in Macomb County, but I'm not sure he would've done enough to overcome other vulnerabilities.
You think they would've voted Trump over Bernie (had he been the nominee)?

We're talking like what, 10,000 total votes separating Trump and Hillary in Michigan?

The thing is, whether it was Bernie or Biden in 2016, they would've beaten Trump. But everyone had to kneel down and kiss the ring of Clinton royalty and step aside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 4:53 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
You think they would've voted Trump over Bernie (had he been the nominee)?

We're talking like what, 10,000 total votes separating Trump and Hillary in Michigan?

The thing is, whether it was Bernie or Biden in 2016, they would've beaten Trump. But everyone had to kneel down and kiss the ring of Clinton royalty and step aside.
Yeah, that gap came from black voters not participating at all. In the city of Detroit alone, 40k fewer black voters participated in 2016 than 2012.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 4:54 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
You think they would've voted Trump over Bernie (had he been the nominee)?

We're talking like what, 10,000 total votes separating Trump and Hillary in Michigan?

The thing is, whether it was Bernie or Biden in 2016, they would've beaten Trump. But everyone had to kneel down and kiss the ring of Clinton royalty and step aside.
Bernie was more popular in 2016 than 2020, if you look at national approval ratings. I think his campaign learned the wrong lessons from their 2016 loss, and decided to move away from the "class only" focus, which worked somewhat to their detriment.

Basically, I am sure that Bernie would have won in 2016, but 2020 was so close (if you look at margins in AZ, GA, and WI) I can't be as certain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 5:00 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Yeah, that gap came from black voters not participating at all. In the city of Detroit alone, 40k fewer black voters participated in 2016 than 2012.
I'm not sure what you're saying here... you're saying that group would have voted for Trump over Bernie in 2016...?

And right those types of gaps resulting from a decreased black, urban vote happened all over the place. Having little if nothing to do with Hillary or Bernie, but rather the fact that they were not a very impressive black guy named Barack Obama.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Bernie was more popular in 2016 than 2020, if you look at national approval ratings. I think his campaign learned the wrong lessons from their 2016 loss, and decided to move away from the "class only" focus, which worked somewhat to their detriment.

Basically, I am sure that Bernie would have won in 2016, but 2020 was so close (if you look at margins in AZ, GA, and WI) I can't be as certain.
Right, I'm not talking about 2020. As far as I'm concerned, any progress for the traditional Democratic party was blown apart by Trumpism in 2016 and over the last 4 years, and it's never coming back. And the blame for that can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 5:07 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
I'm not sure what you're saying here... you're saying that group would have voted for Trump over Bernie in 2016...?

And right those types of gaps resulting from a decreased black, urban vote happened all over the place. Having little if nothing to do with Hillary or Bernie, but rather the fact that they were not a very impressive black guy named Barack Obama.
No, what I am saying is that, based on hindsight, I don't see the coalition that Bernie would have built that guaranteed him a win in Michigan. He probably wouldn't have turned out more black voters than Hillary. He probably would've shed more center-left white suburban voters in Oakland County than Hillary. And Trump would've still over performed the average Republican candidate among non-educated white working class voters in Macomb and suburban Wayne.

Bernie had a much better chance of winning Michigan in 2020 because of the Trump referendum/anti-Trump mood. But he was not a very exciting nominee in 2016.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 5:22 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
No, what I am saying is that, based on hindsight, I don't see the coalition that Bernie would have built that guaranteed him a win in Michigan. He probably wouldn't have turned out more black voters than Hillary. He probably would've shed more center-left white suburban voters in Oakland County than Hillary. And Trump would've still over performed the average Republican candidate among non-educated white working class voters in Macomb and suburban Wayne.

Bernie had a much better chance of winning Michigan in 2020 because of the Trump referendum/anti-Trump mood. But he was not a very exciting nominee in 2016.
Ok, I get it now. I guess I'm basing a lot of what I'm saying on the situation in 2016 in PA... and possibly erroneously equating it to an extent with the situation in 2016 in Michigan and Wisconsin. Like what you say about Michigan, I also do not believe that Bernie would have turned out more black voters than Hillary did in PA. Though I don't think Bernie would have shed white, center-left suburban voters in PA... Michigan is likely a bit more conservative in the suburbs than in PA... where much of the population is deeply rooted in ideals of democratic socialism (whether it's known, admitted, or not ), owing to collective organized labor dating back to literally the 1700s. I have zero doubt that Bernie would have won PA in 2016.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 5:38 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
Ok, I get it now. I guess I'm basing a lot of what I'm saying on the situation in 2016 in PA... and possibly erroneously equating it to an extent with the situation in 2016 in Michigan and Wisconsin. Like what you say about Michigan, I also do not believe that Bernie would have turned out more black voters than Hillary did in PA. Though I don't think Bernie would have shed white, center-left suburban voters in PA... Michigan is likely a bit more conservative in the suburbs than in PA... where much of the population is deeply rooted in ideals of democratic socialism (whether it's known, admitted, or not ), owing to collective organized labor dating back to literally the 1700s. I have zero doubt that Bernie would have won PA in 2016.
Yeah, the labor left in Michigan would've been skeptical of the socialist label, but probably would've been receptive to pro-labor policy specifics. Their bosses in Oakland County would've been skeptical of the policy specifics AND the socialist label, lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 11:33 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,147
Interesting to compare Cleveland and Pittsburgh. I suspect the main reasons for the differences are:


Pittsburgh is a much whiter metro than Cleveland

Pittsburgh is Appalachian and includes a bunch of exurban coal counties, Cleveland is Great Lakes/Yankee

Cleveland probably has a less working class white population in the metro and more liberal establishmentarian suburbs (i.e. Shaker Heights, Pepper Pike)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 9:19 PM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is offline
disneypilled verhoevenist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: crystal pepsi tesseract
Posts: 10,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I think this gets to the conflation of Trumpism and conservatism. KC metro is probably more conservative than STL metro, but STL metro appears to be a bit more Trumpist.

Trumpism doesn't align very well with conservatism. There's a high degree of irreligiosity and low levels of educational attainment, among other differences. Upper middle class "soccer mom/golf dad" exurbs are quite conservative, but hostile to Trumpism, while many working class white and Hispanic areas are economically liberal but very amenable to Trumpism.
ha. never thought i’d agree with crawford on a political basis.

st. louis was/is indeed more classic industrial/labor/collectivist working class dem than kc but on a metro basis there was that turn towards trumpism (not conservatism per say) sort of like pittsburgh.

edit: i should say is considering that metro kc was more pro-trump in 2016 and has always voted more to the right.
__________________
At the violet hour, the evening hour that strives
homeward, and brings the sailor home from sea,
The typist home at teatime, clears her breakfast, lights
her stove, and lays out food in tins.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 10:31 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,827
No Democrat was going to win Ohio - not even if Obama was running for a third term. That state is completely within Trump's gravitational pull that yes, even Sherrod Brown likely would have lost the state if he had decided to run for president.

So, no, I don't see Bernie winning Ohio.

I also think a big reason Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were closer than many expected is because of the protests and looting and defund the police narrative that swept through the country in the summer. In that regard, Biden was pretty moderate and able to stake out a position that wasn't wholly controversial. Even still, it hurt him in those states.

Take Kenosha County, Wisconsin. We all know what happened in Kenosha this summer. Trump actually did better in that county in 2020 than he did in 2016. There is no other explanation for that, since his support in the Milwaukee area decreased, other than the fact a good chunk of the downtown was decimated by looters and rioters tied to the Defund Police movement.

I was skeptical of Trump's 'Democrats want to destroy the cities' rhetoric but I absolutely think it had some level of impact. Not in the actual cities, or even the marginal suburbs, but the exburbs and smaller towns.

But I think Biden had just enough appeal to the suburban communities due to his more moderate approach on defunding the police than I think Bernie would have had - even though I don't think Bernie would have ever come out in support of such policy.

Look at Waukesha County, Wisconsin (a suburban county to Milwaukee). This is a county Trump won by 27 points over Hillary in 2016. he still won the county by a lot in 2020, but by 21 points this go around. That six-point difference doesn't seem like a lot but considering how close Wisconsin was in 2016, and how close it was again in 2020, it likely was the difference. Had Clinton lost it by that margin in 2016, she wins the state (though, of course, not the presidency).

I am skeptical Bernie does as well as Biden did in that county.

In fact, Biden actually did better in this county than Obama did in 2012 (by 13 points).

I think you'd see similar trends in Pennsylvania, where Biden did much better than Hillary in suburban Philadelphia counties like Chester, which Hillary won by ten in 2016 and Biden carried by 17 in 2020. Even in Bucks County, a county Hillary barely won in 2016 (by .8 points, Biden won by 4.3), there was enough shift to deliver him the state. I am skeptical Bernie has the suburban appeal needed to counter the likely surge of support Trump still sees in the rural areas of these states.

I think Bernie may have played better in Texas, though. Enough to win the state? Unlikely. But I think he would have done better along the border than Biden did. Conversely, I also think he loses Florida by a wider margin, as it's very clear Biden was dinged by the socialism label and Bernie absolutely would have had a bigger problem with it.

States I think Bernie wins that Biden won:

Michigan (maybe)
Arizona
Nevada
Virginia

States Biden won that I think Bernie would have lost:

Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Georgia

I am skeptical Bernie would have been able to get out the Black vote in Georgia like Biden did. Maybe he could have, especially with a Black running-mate, but I don't know ... and that could have also kneecapped him in Michigan, as well.

I don't see him winning a state Biden didn't win, however.

And unfortunately for Bernie, even with Arizona, that map doesn't get him to 270. He would need to win Pennsylvania, or win Wisconsin +NE2 (which I think he could have done) and that latter map gets him right at 270 and with all the fraud claims from Team Trump, it only takes one faithless elector to throw a race that close to the House.

Biden put together a very unique coalition of urban Blacks and suburban voters that won him this race. I do not know if any other candidate running on the Democratic side, outside maybe Corey Booker, could have done something similar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 10:49 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,147
Did Obama win Ohio more because he had strong WWC appeal, or because Romney did not have it (too establishmentarian)?

How would a Trump vs. Obama match in 2012 have gone in Ohio?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 10:55 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 3,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Did Obama win Ohio more because he had strong WWC appeal, or because Romney did not have it (too establishmentarian)?

How would a Trump vs. Obama match in 2012 have gone in Ohio?
I think Trump would have certainly won.

Romney is not just too establishmentarian, but he comes off an out-of-touch rich person in a way that is probably not great at connecting with WWC voters. Even though Trump is (supposedly) richer, he doesn't act like it...
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 11:07 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Did Obama win Ohio more because he had strong WWC appeal, or because Romney did not have it (too establishmentarian)?

How would a Trump vs. Obama match in 2012 have gone in Ohio?
I think Romney absolutely was the wrong Republican candidate to win the state. We won't really compare things to 2008, as that was an outlier election that saw a very unpopular incumbent party and a fairly unpopular Republican nominee who didn't have much of a strong base of support.

But in 2012, an election very similar to 2020, Obama went after Romney hard on his association with Bain Capital and definitely hit a populist bent there that almost kind of felt out of step with what his administration really had accomplished (though, Obama also ran on saving the auto industry, which helped significantly in parts of Ohio).

But at the end of the day, Obama didn't do much better than Biden did among white voters in Ohio. Obama lost this group 57-41 in 2012 and Biden lost this group 58-41, so, a one-point difference.

The big difference is that white voters made up more of the electorate in 2020 than they did in 2012 - they were 79% of the electorate in 2012 and 84% in 2020. That's a five-point difference.

So, Obama's winning Ohio was not a direct result of doing better among white voters than Biden did - but driving out Black support. I guess it's entirely possible, against Trump, he replicates those numbers (in 2012, Blacks, made up 15% of the vote, compared to 11% in 2020) - but here's the question: was Black turnout actually down in 2020 compared to 2012 or was it that white turnout was actually up in 2020?

If it's the former, Obama may have just enough of a coalition to win Ohio. If it's the latter, Obama probably loses Ohio in a head-to-head with Trump because it's clear Trump drove up white support in that state.

Based on the fact fewer voters in Cuyahoga County voted in 2020 than 2012, I'd wager Black turnout was down in Ohio - despite likely being up in places like Detroit, Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

But there was also less emphasis on Ohio by Biden. He barely campaigned there, where as Obama spent much of the campaign traveling through Ohio in 2012.

Either way, Obama probably does better than Biden, but I don't know if it's enough to flip the state against Trump.

And I think this hits home to why Trump was successful in a lot of these rustbelt states. Unlike Romney and McCain and even Bush, who lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in both his elections (though won Ohio), Trump actively set up an us vs them narrative, using certain groups as scapegoats for white plight. And I think that was very effective. These voters were angry and wanted someone to blame for their lot in life. Trump is the first Republican since Reagan to effectively demagogue in a way that rallied those voters. It's the darkside of populism. It's why, in 1968, George Wallace was, for a spell, so popular.

My life sucks. Why does it suck? It's got to be the fault of the Black woman on welfare, who's taking and taking and taking. Or it's the fault of the Chinese for allowing COVID to happen. Or it's the fault of the illegal immigrant who's taking all our jobs.

It's an effective message when it's not subtle. Republicans in the past, guys like Bush and McCain and Romney, they didn't whip out that bullhorn and openly blame certain segments of the population. They may have used more coded language but it was watered down and it created a watered down response. Trump, though? He basically was telling voters if you elect Democrats, they're going to send poor Black men into the suburbs. If you elect Democrats, they're going to send ANTIFA into the cities to burn 'em down ... and then they'll come for you.

A scared voter is a motivated voter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:11 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.