In the course of wondering about the impact of Clinton’s “we’re gonna put a lot more coal miners out of business” comment, followed quickly by “we’ve got to move away from all fossil fuels”, I thought about comparing how she did in the primaries compared to how she had done in 2008, which was the most recent contested Democrat presidential primary before 2016.
Wow, was that a good call or what!
Short answer: the shift in votes from Obama’s victory in 2012 to rejecting Clinton in 2016 … had already occurred by the time of the primaries. And, therefore, was not driven by Comey or Wikileaks disclosures which began in July. Here’s the data in five key states.
|State||Obama vs. Romney 2012
|Result inferred from 2016 primaries||Trump vs. Clinton 2016
|DEM by 450,000||REP by 12,000|
|Looking pretty good for DEM; after turnout in last seven primaries for statewide office had been 80% of the REP turnout, this time it was 91% of REP turnout. Clinton lost this primary to Sanders, but overall there was no hint that MI would go any differently than it had been going. No specific estimate because 2008 in MI gave no baseline.|
|3/13 Coal miner comment followed by clarification about all fossil fuels|
|DEM by 75,000||REP by 107,000||REP by 113,000|
|Clinton got 230,000 more than in 2008 primary even though DEM total was down 39,000. However, REP turnout was up 412,000. Comparing the 412 to the 230, this indicates an improvement of 182 for the REP candidate.|
|DEM by 167,000||REP by 396,000||REP by 447,000|
|Clinton got 563,000 fewer than in 2008 while DEM total was down over 1.1 million. Meanwhile, REP turnout was up 877,000 from 2008. The reduction in Clinton support alone produces the swing to “REP by 396,000”.|
|DEM by 213,000||REP by 115,000||REP by 22,000|
|Clinton got 20,000 fewer than in 2008 while DEM total was down 107,000. Meanwhile, REP turnout was up 695,000 from 2008. The shift here we calculated as the change in margin from Clinton vs. the top REP vote-getter. In 2008 primary, she was +229,000; in 2016, she was -99,000. That’s a swing of 328,000.|
|DEM by 310,000||REP by 30,000||REP by 44,000|
|Clinton got 340,000 fewer than in 2008 while DEM total was down 655,000. Meanwhile, REP turnout was up 778,000 from 2008. The reduction in Clinton support alone produces the swing to “REP by 30,000”.|
The Michigan vote – taken BEFORE the “coal miner” comment – shows the DEM cruising as usual, with no hint of anything different in the works. AFTER the “coal miner” comment, the bottom fell out for DEM. Massive reduction of support for Clinton compared to 2008 in the major coal-mining states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, and decreased turnout for DEM overall in Florida and Wisconsin while REP turnout soared.
Clinton support dropped in WI, consistent with the manufacturing industries tied to fossil fuel use feeling their jobs threatened by her comment. One can reasonably infer that the “coal miner” comment had an impact on Michigan voters similar to its impact on Wisconsin voters, which they demonstrated in November.
To sum it up, the shift away from Clinton had already occurred by the time of the primaries in March and April. It was not caused by Russians or Wikileaks or Comey – those disclosures began in July. It was caused by rejection of her policies.
What about the polls which continued to show her leading? Two things. She was leading in the popular vote nationally. That just happens to be irrelevant to determining the winner of the electoral votes! And, second, think about what happens to people based on revealing their political preference. Those who declare support for Clinton … get applauded by media and the Obama administration for their wisdom and patriotism.
But those who declare support for Trump … get ridiculed as “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, ignorant, uneducated, deplorable, hate-filled, war-mongering, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals clinging to their guns and Bibles”! They get investigated by IRS, FBI, DOJ and the intelligence community. They get their products boycotted. Their bosses get pressured with PR campaigns to fire those employees.
We’ve seen all of these tactics used by DEM and media in their frenzy to destroy conservatives and Trump supporters. Why would people invite that kind of trouble by revealing that they support Trump? The polls were wrong because of two factors: they weren’t structured to predict electoral votes, and they weren’t unbiased – to some material degree, Trump supporters would not have felt safe revealing their preference.
Of course, the media could have used the primary results as the best poll available – it covered the entire electorate and was by secret ballot so respondents felt completely safe and gave their honest opinion in the voting booth! And using the primary results would have predicted exactly the electoral vote outcomes we saw in November, as shown in these five key states.
ERpundit – 06/16/18