Happy New Year! As we
wrap up another successful year of the statistics blog (now with >50k
followers), we would be remiss not to recognize some nice friends
who are still feeling disappointed over the outcome of the recent U.S.
election. It is worth exploring a little more about the election results,
based on the most updated voting records. Particularly as the Democrats
have pivoted the tête-à-tête from recount and FBI director Comey, to popular
vote and Russian president Putin. What does it mean to now imply that "most Americans" voted for Democratic ideals, given the results (ex-post looked
at through the prism of a popular vote tabulation) showed Hillary Clinton
won by only a couple percent? It turns out that this sort of conclusion is
false, and instead it leads to one party presuming to hold a mighty moral
high-ground from their ¼ voting share. From a peak in 2008, now
through 2016, those not caring
to vote (in white below) continuously rose to 45% (from
43%). This is a higher voter apathy than in virtually all other advanced
countries. And frankly, it is the largest
American segment of 114m (up
from 99m). Last-minute undecideds (including me) rose.
Additionally, the voting share for the popular vote "winner" (in blue below) fell to 48% (from 53%), or as a portion of the entire eligible population (as opposed to as a portion of voters) it fell to 26% (from 30%). So on net, even as the population grew, a small fraction voted (and within that an even smaller fraction voted for the popular vote "winner"). This results in Hillary Clinton not epitomizing the views of "most Americans" even if she "won the popular vote", but rather supported by only 66 million Americans (down from 70 million who voted for Barack Obama in 2008). I'm with her? Observe the changes in the blue share of the pie, below! Democrats have simply seen a continuously dwindling virtuous-mandate to speak for all Americans, even as the population has grown in the past 8 years. Note that red is for anyone voting for someone other than the popular vote winner, which for this time series are mostly but not always Republicans.
So now back to my friends who are still feeling sour over the Presidential election and looking for relief. I feel a particular sense of responsibility since my polling probability research was read by millions and continuously solicited/shared by one party, and always properly showed Donald Trump had much stronger odds (~3x) versus what MSM polls or Nate Silver were "scientifically" suggesting. It is worth noting something here at year-end: it's an acutely individual loss, to not see that there are so many tremendous and long-term opportunities we get to enjoy, just living in a great nation such as the United States. We get most things right, most of the time. We get to argue about politics and not worry about a knock on our door in the middle of the night.
The rest of the world has already moved on, as they should. As you should. They really never cared as much about you: or your candidate (just as ½ of our own country didn't, per above). That was mainstream media conspiracy that had fooled you. And having worked for many years, in and out of Washington, we can assure you that well over 90% of people have issues so much larger than who was or will be in the White House. Yet it's captivating, nonetheless, the amount of attention spent in social circles defying this actuality, and presuming moral high-ground by falsely twisting statistics to suit private needs. By setting some simple statistics straight, we honestly hope 2017 ushers in a new era of knowledge, contentment and worldly views, as we leave the disparaging partisan choke-hold of the 2016 elections behind.
Additionally, the voting share for the popular vote "winner" (in blue below) fell to 48% (from 53%), or as a portion of the entire eligible population (as opposed to as a portion of voters) it fell to 26% (from 30%). So on net, even as the population grew, a small fraction voted (and within that an even smaller fraction voted for the popular vote "winner"). This results in Hillary Clinton not epitomizing the views of "most Americans" even if she "won the popular vote", but rather supported by only 66 million Americans (down from 70 million who voted for Barack Obama in 2008). I'm with her? Observe the changes in the blue share of the pie, below! Democrats have simply seen a continuously dwindling virtuous-mandate to speak for all Americans, even as the population has grown in the past 8 years. Note that red is for anyone voting for someone other than the popular vote winner, which for this time series are mostly but not always Republicans.
So now back to my friends who are still feeling sour over the Presidential election and looking for relief. I feel a particular sense of responsibility since my polling probability research was read by millions and continuously solicited/shared by one party, and always properly showed Donald Trump had much stronger odds (~3x) versus what MSM polls or Nate Silver were "scientifically" suggesting. It is worth noting something here at year-end: it's an acutely individual loss, to not see that there are so many tremendous and long-term opportunities we get to enjoy, just living in a great nation such as the United States. We get most things right, most of the time. We get to argue about politics and not worry about a knock on our door in the middle of the night.
The rest of the world has already moved on, as they should. As you should. They really never cared as much about you: or your candidate (just as ½ of our own country didn't, per above). That was mainstream media conspiracy that had fooled you. And having worked for many years, in and out of Washington, we can assure you that well over 90% of people have issues so much larger than who was or will be in the White House. Yet it's captivating, nonetheless, the amount of attention spent in social circles defying this actuality, and presuming moral high-ground by falsely twisting statistics to suit private needs. By setting some simple statistics straight, we honestly hope 2017 ushers in a new era of knowledge, contentment and worldly views, as we leave the disparaging partisan choke-hold of the 2016 elections behind.
Thank you for providing some wonderful insight. So it's true, every vote counts after all.
ReplyDeleteThanks much MG Blogger, and hope the election worked out for you. This was also the last article for Zero Hedge so far this year and on track to be one of their Top articles again (also note we were their first for 2016 New Year's Day, back in January). Enjoy! http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/narrative-smashed-stats-most-americans-did-not-vote-hillary-clinton
DeleteThank you for providing some wonderful insight. So it's true, every vote counts after all.
ReplyDeleteI'm not certain I understand the chart. Does Blue represent registered Democrats who voted, with Red representing Registered Republicans who voted? That doesn't make sense, since there is no sliver even for Independent voters, as small as it may be, who we know voted in numbers greater than 2% of the vote (and hence should at least be visible on that chart). Red cannot represent votes for Trump, because that segment is greater, at 28%, than the 26% for Blue, and we know Hillary got the popular vote… And we know there was some amount of cross-over voting, that was significant enough to be noticed, especially from Sanders voters swinging to Trump or Johnson or Stein. Or, since all the numbers don't add up to 100%, is there a hidden 1% that isn't discussed? (I'd think the registered voter party sizes, Independents would have accounted for more than 1%.)
ReplyDeleteSo… I'm confused.
Hi Scott, and happy new year. Per text, the white is the portion of eligible voting population who did not vote. And blue is the portion for the popular vote "winner"; which happens to be Democrats in 2008 through 2016. Therefore the remaining segment in red represents the portion of population voting for someone other than the "winner".
DeleteAll this was explained clearly in the blog post!
DeleteThanks Gene! Hope all is well, and happy new year.
DeleteThanks. Given the common color scheme of red and blue states we struggled to make sense of the blue ...
ReplyDeleteThanks Rick2. You are correct!
DeleteInteresting choice of drawing for the pie chart. You could have picked blue to the left, red to the right, and white for the bottom. However, that would have shown the truth of the main point of Democrats, which is that most of the votes of the people who voted went for their party. Instead, you pick an issue with the fact that most people who could vote, didn't. True, but that doesn't strengthen Trump's position at all. Given Trump's unprecedented unpopularity, it suggests that, had people those people who didn't vote been mandated to vote, he would have lost.
ReplyDeleteHi Doly, thanks for the note. You are putting up a hybrid of statements. Some of which I already acknowledge in my article. And others I debunked in this even more popular article: http://statisticalideas.blogspot.com/2016/12/popular-vote-besotted.html
Delete"which is that most of the votes of the people who voted went for their party. "
DeleteDoly, that is false: Clinton got 48% of the pop. vote, which is certainly not *most* of it! Most > 50%.
Thanks for the comment Gene. It would be great if more people took the time to absorb the broader picture of my research articles, the way you have. Also wanted to offer you and everyone something spotted in Silicon Investor today: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=30913446 http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readreplies.aspx?subjectid=53920&msgid=30913446 http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readreplies.aspx?msgid=30913674&subjectid=53920
DeleteWho has tried to make the argument that most Americans voted for Democrats? This seems like a straw man to me.
ReplyDeleteJust accept your loss. It didn't take long to find material that clearly deflates your ill-prepared comment: [Still, it does matter that Clinton received more votes than Trump in the U.S. presidential election. It means that the majority of Americans are not Trump supporters—not even a plurality of Americans are Trump supporters. And it punctures the argument that Trump "has been given a mandate," as his campaign manager claimed Wednesday.] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/18/all_you_need_to_know_about_the_electoral_college_vote_that_is_likely_to.html
DeleteWhy can you not defend your thesis? You published this article. Back it up.
DeleteIt's implied, and IMO, the idea is to discredit the presidential election outcome. The war didn't end on Nov. 9.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that most people didn't vote for the Republicans also came up in the 2010 mid terms, when Obama used the idea that he still heard the voices of those that didn't vote.
Well said, anonymous. Incidentally this article was #1 on zero hedge (1/4 million reads so far across all platforms, and >1000 shares.) Not bad for new year's.
DeleteWho are you quoting as saying "most Americans" voted for Hillary Clinton?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you have done enough research? This is everywhere, for example: [“I think Democrats, people that voted for Hillary, first of all: feel good about the fact that the majority of Americans did not want Donald J. Trump as their president,” Moore said, referring to her victory in the popular vote but loss with the electoral vote. "Take some comfort that your fellow Americans are with you.”] by Michael Moore, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-moore-majority-americans-did-not-want-donald-j-trump-953612
DeleteSo in 2016 why does the total number of voters not add up to 100 (%)?
ReplyDelete2008 30+27+43 = 100
2012 28+27+45 = 100
2016 26+28+45 = 99 that 1% either voted for somebody, or voted for nobody - where should the missing 1% be allotted?
Thanks
Thanks for the great question anonymous. So 45.46% didn't vote at all! 26.22% voted for the popular vote "winner"; and the balance voted for the popular vote "loser(s)". So if forced to assign the 1% of the eligible population to anyone, then it would added to those who didn't vote (making such segment even larger than what may have been expected).
DeleteGoing to dig up the vote tallies and make a bar graph, I want to see each vote-getters "piece of the pie", Dems, Repubs, Other parties, Did Not Vote. for the elections. No matter what, you can see the trend downward for Dems which appears to fly in the face of the "voter demographic changes" we have been hearing about. And yet, those who choose not to participate are still the plurality, which is incredible. Next time somebody bitches at me about who they think I voted for, I will tell them to find a non-voter to talk to.
DeleteI tweeted such a graph earlier tied to this question, not anon, just don't have your comment type of accounts, twitter @jeffreyhayner thanks for the response.
1. Mentioning a "mainstream media conspiracy" makes you sound like a loon. I hope that's not the case. 2. The world cares about this quite a bit. All of our allies are despondent. How on earth did you draw the conclusion that they don't? 3. It's not that half the population doesn't care about voting. It's that they are working themselves to death, have to run to catch the train home to take care of their kids, can't afford the child care to go out to the pools, and, unlike you, have unpaid bills keeping them from sleeping well.
ReplyDeleteAs for "your friends" who are upset by this election, 75% of the country is, and 90% of the world. The fact that you're not is very telling. Thanks for the flip advice to just "move on."
Dear endgame, as an ineffectual nitwit, you have no business being on a popular mathematical website.
Delete