posted Nov 10, 2016, 9:12 AM by Daniel Laurison
- If you’re
trying to understand who voted how, remember what the vote counts actually
are (with not-quite-all precincts reporting): Clinton won (just barely)
the popular vote – 47.7% vs 47.5%. Turnout is estimated at 56.3% of the
voter-eligible population, which means that of the adult citizens over 18
in this country (who don’t live in Puerto Rico and haven’t been
disenfranchised due to a felony conviction), about 27% voted for Clinton,
26% voted for Trump, 3.4% voted for someone else, and 43.7% stayed home.
- Groups are
not people – watch out for the ecological fallacy. “Ecological fallacy” is the tendency to
impute to individual members of a group the characteristics of the
whole. When you look at the election
map, you see Pennsylvania in red. If you live in Pennsylvania, or followed
the returns, you know that Pennsylvania was actually very close, and
something like 48% of voters in PA voted for Clinton (it should be purple,
and will be when this year’s purple maps
come out). If you hear about the voting patterns of groups you don’t know
or aren’t part of, try to remember that those groups are (almost) all
mixed, too. A few examples:
without a college degree supported Trump” – it looks like about 67% of
those who voted did, which means 33% *didn’t*.
- The rust
belt shifted to Trump – we know that many states that were “blue” last
time are “red” this time; we don’t know (yet) whether that’s due to
individuals who voted Obama last time voting Trump this time, or
different people turning out vs staying home; probably some of both.
who are harassing and assaulting visible minorities & Muslims seem to
be vocal Trump supporters. It’s awful
that Trump’s victory seems to be emboldening these people, and many of us
opposed Trump because we were worried this would happen. Most people who
voted for Trump are not doing this, and a substantial portion of them
would oppose it.
single-factor explanations. Just
because if one thing *had* been different (and everything else had
remained the same) the outcome would be different, does NOT mean that that
factor is the cause of the result.
So, in a few states Clinton lost, the Jill Stein vote was larger
than the Trump-Clinton difference.
Sure, if each and every one of those Stein voters had voted Clinton
instead, Clinton would have won.
But Clinton *also* would have won if turnout among committed
Democrats in that state had been % higher, or if a few more white women
had voted for Clinton instead of Trump, or any number of other shifts of
just a few percentage points. People will jump to their favorite
explanation, and especially this early after the election, it’s pretty
easy to find a single data point to back up most single-factor