Trump’s Victory in Wisconsin: An Analysis

 
By Ali Zifan - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link
By Ali ZifanOwn work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

At first glance, it appears that Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin due to Democrats staying home. The numbers I’m looking at (link to politico) show Trump with essentially identical vote totals to Romney in 2012. By contrast, Obama received about 230,000 more votes in 2012 than Clinton did last week.

However, breaking down the margins by “region” is more revealing. I use scare quotes because this is only a very rough, very high level break out. If I have time, I’ll do a deeper, more thorough break out of regions, but for now I think this is worthwhile.

Conservative Region

This region includes three suburban counties surrounding Milwaukee (Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee). This is where Republicans run up the score in off-year elections, is the region that gave Senator Ted Cruz a victory in the primary. This is also where you’re most likely to find pockets of NeverTrump resistance on the Right.

Total Votes Cast (includes both Democrat and Republican totals):

2012: 375,207
2016: 365,883 (-2.5%)

Republican Margin:

Romney 2012: +132,439
Trump 2016: +107,486

Marxist Region

Dane County is where Madison is located. Its residents are state government employees, millennial university students, and 60’s burnouts who never stopped protesting.

Total Votes Cast:

2012: 302,854
2016: 304,729 (+0.6%)

Republican Margin

Romney 2012: -131,930
Trump 2016: -146,236

Milwaukee Region

Milwaukee County is separate from the Marxist Region, because the dynamics of a massive black voter base are different from the lily-white Dane County electorate. Obviously, it would be expected for margins to fall off here with no black candidate on the ballot.

Total Votes Cast:

2012: 490,944
2016: 434,970 (-11.4%)

Republican Margin

Romney 2012: -169,660
Trump 2016: -162,895

Rural Region

This is every other county in the state. Obviously, there are cities included in here, but none of them are as predictable and reliable in their vote margins as the previous three regions. Only one (Green Bay, population 105,000) has a population over one hundred thousand. Some pockets lean Democrat, some lean Republican and the region often swings back and forth.

Total Votes Cast:

2012: 1,887,617
2016: 1,839,038 (-2.6%)

Republican Margin

Romney 2012: -36,053
Trump 2016: +228,902

Conclusion

In comparison to 2012, Trump did worse with the conservative base, while Clinton improved with the Marxist base, but lost some votes in Milwaukee (while holding her margin there). Trump cleaned house in the non-ideological, small-city/rural swing portions of the state, though this was despite slightly reduced turn-out in those regions. I do not believe that Ted Cruz could have won Wisconsin, and if he had been the nominee I do not believe that Ron Johnson would have won reelection to the Senate. For the record, I voted for Cruz in the primary.

Bonus Region

Just for fun, I offer up Menominee County, an Indian Reservation. They tend to vote for Democrats in similar proportions to blacks. In 2012, Romney received 13% of the vote (179 total votes). In 2016, Trump received 21% of the vote (269 total votes). So it wasn’t entirely a “whitelash.”

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 47 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. DocJay Inactive

    Ted Cruz, although someone I admire, would have lost this election.

    • #1
    • November 15, 2016, at 9:34 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. WI Con Member

    I think your Regions are a very serviceable model. I travel a fair amount and Fond du Lac, Door County and Eau Claire & Green Bay were total Trump country based upon yard signs. Be interested in Kenosha, Racine & Janesville to see how they went.

    • #2
    • November 15, 2016, at 9:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Miffed White Male Member

    WI Con:I think your Regions are a very serviceable model. I travel a fair amount and Fond du Lac, Door County and Eau Claire & Green Bay were total Trump country based upon yard signs. Be interested in Kenosha, Racine & Janesville to see how they went.

    Interesting analysis by MBF, not sure I’d lump Kenosha/Racine counties into “rural”. It’d be interesting to see the margins for what are presumably pretty heavily unionized areas.

    I went to school at UWEC back in the early 80s, still have a few former students and faculty members as facebook friends, they’re near suicidal. But I wouldn’t consider them representative of the area. Nearly dumped a couple of them during the Walker wars, but they eventually calmed down (one of the most vocal even went so far as to die of cancer since then, but I don’t think it’s related.)

    • #3
    • November 15, 2016, at 10:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Vectorman Thatcher

    Wisconsin has very loose voting laws, allowing same day registration. Examples:

    • Any identification card issued by an employer in the normal course of business and bearing a photo of the card holder, but not including a business card.
    • A real estate tax bill or receipt for the current year or the year preceding the date of the election.
    • A residential lease that is effective on date of registration
    • A university, college or technical institute identification card (must include photo), ONLY if the voter provides a fee receipt dated within the last nine months or the institution provides a certified housing list to the municipal clerk.
    • A gas, electric or telephone service statement (utility bill) for the period commencing no earlier than 90 days before election day.
    • Bank statement or Paycheck

    None of these really “prove” that the voter is a resident. Thus many can (and do) vote in other states, especially the college students.

    With Scott Walker as governor and Project Veritas, True the Vote, etc., watching, maybe additional cheaters were hesitant to vote for Hillary and potentially be caught.

    • #4
    • November 15, 2016, at 10:27 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. PHenry Member

    I have no evidence, but isn’t it also possible that a roughly equal number of Republicans stayed home as Democrats crossed over to vote Trump?

    We know that NeverTrump didn’t vote for either, in most cases. So you would expect some drop off of Republican votes. Something seems to have filled that void. Could they be ‘Trump Democrats’?

    • #5
    • November 15, 2016, at 10:30 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. EDISONPARKS Member

    Unrelated. (or barely related)

    Robin Yount is my favorite baseball player ever. (I lived in WI during late 70’s and early 80’s = Bambis Bombers/Harvey’s Wallbangers).

    Without the shoulder issues that sat him down parts of two seasons and eventually moved him from shortstop to center field, Yount could have collected even more hits than the 3142 he amassed in his Hall of Fame career. (maybe could have caught Molitor = 3319 career hits)

    • #6
    • November 15, 2016, at 10:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Miffed White Male Member

    EDISONPARKS:Unrelated. (or barely related)

    Robin Yount is my favorite baseball player ever. (I lived in WI during late 70’s and early 80’s = Bambis Bombers/Harvey’s Wallbangers).

    Without the shoulder issues that sat him down parts of two seasons and eventually moved him from shortstop to center field, Yount could have collected even more hits than the 3142 he amassed in his Hall of Fame career. (maybe could have caught Molitor = 3319 career hits)

    In 1983 I helped install the lawn sprinkler system at Paul Molitor’s house. I even stole a soda out of his garage (I left a quarter). They were on a road-trip so I never got to meet him.

    I have met Robin Yount on a couple of occasions, he’s a *really* nice approachable guy, exactly like his image would lead you to expect.

    • #7
    • November 15, 2016, at 10:40 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw Member

    PHenry:I have no evidence, but isn’t it also possible that a roughly equal number of Republicans stayed home as Democrats crossed over to vote Trump?

    We know that NeverTrump didn’t vote for either, in most cases. So you would expect some drop off of Republican votes. Something seems to have filled that void. Could they be ‘Trump Democrats’?

    Probably. The dropoff in MBF’s conservative region is probably mostly due to NeverTrump, there was probably a smaller but noticeable effect elsewhere.

    The change in the rural region I would expect to be Trump Democrats. Normally driving through the northcentral and northwestern parts of the state I’d expect to see about half R/half D yard signs. This year it was probably 3 to 1 in favor of Trump. Plus many of them were much larger, for what that’s worth.

    • #8
    • November 15, 2016, at 10:46 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. RyanFalcone Member

    DocJay:Ted Cruz, although someone I admire, would have lost this election.

    Cruz would’ve won PA, OH and FLA by larger numbers (as well as Texas but who cares). Wiscy and Mich? Who knows but doubtful.

    He also would’ve won NH and possibly put Colorado in play for both himself and the Senate seat (same with Nevada).

    Cruz wins easily in the EC but maybe not as much as Trump but Cruz wins the popular vote and likely brings more Senate and House seats.

    • #9
    • November 15, 2016, at 11:14 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. MBF Member
    MBF Post author

    WI Con:I think your Regions are a very serviceable model. I travel a fair amount and Fond du Lac, Door County and Eau Claire & Green Bay were total Trump country based upon yard signs. Be interested in Kenosha, Racine & Janesville to see how they went.

    Racine, Kenosha, and Rock (Janesville) counties are certainly not rural for the most part. They might be more accurately referred to as “Former UAW Region.” Medium sized midwest cities that used to have a major presence of unionized factory workers.

    Romney 2012

    Racine: -3,714

    Kenosha: -9,896

    Rock: -18,666

    Trump 2016

    Racine: +4,114

    Kenosha: +255

    Rock: -7,853

    • #10
    • November 15, 2016, at 11:16 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. MBF Member
    MBF Post author

    Matt Balzer:

    PHenry:I have no evidence, but isn’t it also possible that a roughly equal number of Republicans stayed home as Democrats crossed over to vote Trump?

    We know that NeverTrump didn’t vote for either, in most cases. So you would expect some drop off of Republican votes. Something seems to have filled that void. Could they be ‘Trump Democrats’?

    Probably. The dropoff in MBF’s conservative region is probably mostly due to NeverTrump, there was probably a smaller but noticeable effect elsewhere.

    The change in the rural region I would expect to be Trump Democrats. Normally driving through the northcentral and northwestern parts of the state I’d expect to see about half R/half D yard signs. This year it was probably 3 to 1 in favor of Trump. Plus many of them were much larger, for what that’s worth.

    The NeverTrump effect was probably most prevalent in Conservative and Milwaukee regions. Even though Milwaukee is a Democrat stronghold, there are still tens of thousands of Republican voters due to sheer size of the region.

    I do not believe that the NeverTrump and rural enthusiasm/Democrat crossover vote were equivalent phenomenon. If you give Cruz every single NeverTrump vote, he still doesn’t have enough appeal in the Rural region to make up the difference.

    • #11
    • November 15, 2016, at 11:24 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. MBF Member
    MBF Post author

    Vectorman:Wisconsin has very loose voting laws, allowing same day registration. Examples:

    • Any identification card issued by an employer in the normal course of business and bearing a photo of the card holder, but not including a business card.
    • A real estate tax bill or receipt for the current year or the year preceding the date of the election.
    • A residential lease that is effective on date of registration
    • A university, college or technical institute identification card (must include photo), ONLY if the voter provides a fee receipt dated within the last nine months or the institution provides a certified housing list to the municipal clerk.
    • A gas, electric or telephone service statement (utility bill) for the period commencing no earlier than 90 days before election day.
    • Bank statement or Paycheck

    None of these really “prove” that the voter is a resident. Thus many can (and do) vote in other states, especially the college students.

    With Scott Walker as governor and Project Veritas, True the Vote, etc., watching, maybe additional cheaters were hesitant to vote for Hillary and potentially be caught.

    We did finally have the voter ID requirement in effect for this election. It was initially passed by the GOP/Walker back in 2011. Of course it was immediately ruled “Not Fair,” sorry, ruled “Unconstitutional” by a liberal judge. It has been in limbo ever since, with this being the first major election that it was in effect.

    • #12
    • November 15, 2016, at 11:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Contributor

    Interesting, but I want to make sure I have this right:

    1. Trump won the conservative region, but by 25,000 fewer votes than Romney did.
    2. Trump lost the Marxist region by 15,000 vote more votes than Romney
    3. Trump lost Milwaukee by nearly the same margin as Romney
    4. Trump won the rural region with a margin more than 230,000 votes greater than Romeny’s

    …but ended up with a total of just 1,500 more votes than Romney got.

    Given the relative stability of the first three, am I correct in assuming that rural Democrats stayed home, rather than voting for Clinton?

    • #13
    • November 15, 2016, at 1:04 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. Valiuth Member

    Fascinating so again you have a Rural Revolt more so than voter Urban Apathy to go with my own vocabulary from the Main Feed. The question I have which I can not tell from your analysis is was there voter drop off in those Marxist centers. Hillary might have had a better margin but that is a relative measurement. What matters is vote total. In my analysis of Michigan Hillary had good voter margins in the the suburban areas around Detroit. Better than Obama. But Democrats literally had less people vote in 2016 in Detroit proper. That would not show up in the margin.

    • #14
    • November 15, 2016, at 1:17 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Valiuth Member

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:Interesting, but I want to make sure I have this right:

    1. Trump won the conservative region, but by 25,000 fewer votes than Romney did.
    2. Trump lost the Marxist region by 15,000 vote more votes than Romney
    3. Trump lost Milwaukee by nearly the same margin as Romney
    4. Trump won the rural region with a margin more than 230,000 votes greater than Romeny’s

    …but ended up with a total of just 1,500 more votes than Romney got.

    Given the relative stability of the first three, am I correct in assuming that rural Democrats stayed home, rather than voting for Clinton?

    You could also have Urban Democrats stay home too. The margin is a relative assessment. 800-600 has the same margin as 400-200 after all. But if you only get 400 votes as opposed to 800 that is a deep problem when your opponent surges in a different area.

    • #15
    • November 15, 2016, at 1:20 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Leigh Member

    So those are some of the same numbers I’ve been looking at, and I haven’t had time to drill down quite as deep into those percentages.

    But you’re leaving out the highly relevant factor that downballot Republicans — most notably Ron Johnson and Mike Gallagher — outperformed Trump rather significantly. (Gallagher’s race had its own dynamic and he clearly convinced some Democrats to split their tickets — a massive win for a swing district.)

    If you’re a Wisconsin Democrat, you don’t look at these numbers in context and say “only Trump could’ve beat us.” You look at these numbers and say “We’ve got problems.” 

    If you look county-by-county where Trump won, it looks rather like where Walker won… though clearly it was somewhat of a unique winning coalition. But the final results will also reflect strategy: state operatives recognized Trump’s relative strengths and weaknesses and targeted accordingly. (Senate Majority Leader Jeff Fitzgerald recognized Trump’s potential strength in rural areas early on.) So it’s hard to say what a more traditional race would’ve looked like.

    • #16
    • November 15, 2016, at 2:58 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. MBF Member
    MBF Post author

    Note:

    For the sake of clarity, parts of this comment were integrated into the original post.

    Voter turnout by region (2012; 2016; +/-)

    • Conservative: 375,207; 365,883; -2.5%
    • Marxist: 302,854; 304,729; +0.6%
    • Milwaukee: 490,944; 434,970; -11.4%
    • Rural: 1,887,617; 1,839,038; -2.6%

    The impossible thing to answer from these results is how much of Rural vote was (1) New Trump voters replacing Stay-Home Democrat voters vs (2) former Obama voters crossing over to vote Trump. Regardless, I don’t see Cruz running up a margin in this region exceeding 100k, much less 230k.

    The Milwaukee region showed the most significant decrease in voter turn out. Interestingly, on a percentage basis, Trump saw a much steeper decline in Milwaukee than did Clinton.

    Milwaukee Region Votes by Year (2012; 2016; +/-)

    • GOP: 158,430; 126,091; -20.4%
    • DEM: 328,090; 288,986; -11.9%

    Toss Cruz another 50,000 NeverTrump votes from Milwaukee and Conservative regions. Add that to his (generously) presumed 100,000 margin from the Rural region, and he loses by 50,000.

    Obviously a bunch of speculation and assertions thrown around here for entertainment purposes. But I honestly don’t see a path for Ted Cruz to winning Wisconsin.

    • #17
    • November 15, 2016, at 2:58 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. Leigh Member

    Just looked again. Your numbers don’t at all match what I’d seen from Milwaukee County elsewhere — I’d seen something like a 10% drop reported (which would indicate much more of an urban collapse than you indicate). I don’t know why Politico would differ or if someone is out of date, and I’ll try to look at it later tonight.

    • #18
    • November 15, 2016, at 2:59 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. MBF Member
    MBF Post author

    Leigh:So those are some of the same numbers I’ve been looking at, and I haven’t had time to drill down quite as deep into those percentages.

    But you’re leaving out the highly relevant factor that downballot Republicans — most notably Ron Johnson and Mike Gallagher — outperformed Trump rather significantly. (Gallagher’s race had its own dynamic and he clearly convinced some Democrats to split their tickets — a massive win for a swing district.)

    If you’re a Wisconsin Democrat, you don’t look at these numbers in context and say “only Trump could’ve beat us.” You look at these numbers and say “We’ve got problems.”

    If you look county-by-county where Trump won, it looks rather like where Walker won… though clearly it was somewhat of a unique winning coalition. But the final results will also reflect strategy: state operatives recognized Trump’s relative strengths and weaknesses and targeted accordingly. (Senate Majority Leader Jeff Fitzgerald recognized Trump’s potential strength in rural areas early on.) So it’s hard to say what a more traditional race would’ve looked like.

    How many Ron Johnson votes only showed up because of Trump? Impossible to say, but seems like a valid question to consider.

    If I have time later tonight I’ll throw in comparisons to the Johnson race.

    • #19
    • November 15, 2016, at 3:16 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. Leigh Member

    We cross-posted… I asked some questions after you answered them.

    I never thought Ted Cruz was likely to win Wisconsin and said so. But I also said that about Trump — and while I saw the rural vote coming, and saw the falloff in the WOW counties coming, I didn’t see the low Milwaukee turnout coming. It put him over the top. I’m not prepared to say absolutely Cruz couldn’t have won. As I recall Marquette had a poll showing him quite competitive at the time of the primary — which could mean all sorts of things. The race would have been too different. We don’t know. The one thing Trump clearly won is undecideds who disliked both candidates.

    I never perceived Cruz as a particularly strong general election candidate, so I don’t have him specifically in mind, but it’s pretty clear the more traditional Republican path to victory in WI still holds good, and that a conservative presidential candidate could follow it.

    If Trump keeps his act together he’s in decent shape here in 2020. If he governs recognizably as a Republican he’ll get a more traditional Republican turnout in the WOW counties, and that will give him some margin for error which he may need — seeing the Democratic candidate will probably bother to actually visit.

    • #20
    • November 15, 2016, at 3:18 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. MBF Member
    MBF Post author

    Leigh:Just looked again. Your numbers don’t at all match what I’d seen from Milwaukee County elsewhere — I’d seen something like a 10% drop reported (which would indicate much more of an urban collapse than you indicate). I don’t know why Politico would differ or if someone is out of date, and I’ll try to look at it later tonight.

    I’m showing an 11.4% drop in total turnout in Milwaukee County. Percentage wise it was a bigger loss of votes for Trump. Maybe I have a typo somewhere above. Can you be specific about which numbers seem off?

    • #21
    • November 15, 2016, at 3:19 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. Leigh Member

    MBF:How many Ron Johnson votes only showed up because of Trump? Impossible to say, but seems like a valid question to consider.

    If I have time later tonight I’ll throw in comparisons to the Johnson race.

    Agree, but some of the reverse is also quite plausible.

    Honestly, I’d have to say the Republican operation in the state basically did a superb job in getting the votes they needed for everyone. They got reluctant Trump voters to the polls. They turned out Trump fans for Trump and Johnson and Gallagher. They turned out #NeverTrump for Johnson and Gallagher. They kept Trump’s weaknesses from hurting them anywhere and leveraged his strengths to pick up a seat.

    Just looking at all that, I’m guessing they would’ve torn down Clinton’s Wisconsin firewall with any Republican.

    • #22
    • November 15, 2016, at 3:31 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Vectorman Thatcher

    Leigh: If Trump keeps his act together he’s in decent shape here in 2020. If he governs recognizably as a Republican he’ll get a more traditional Republican turnout in the WOW counties, and that will give him some margin for error which he may need — seeing the Democratic candidate will probably bother to actually visit.

    As posted earlier, if Wisconsin can keep down the potential vote fraud, I think it will emulate another Midwestern state with similar Electoral votes, that is Indiana. Here we have mostly voted Republican in Presidential Elections, but many times have had Democrat Senators and Governors. If the rural population can permanently shake off the La Follette / Democrat Farm-Labor (DFL) roots, it would probably go Republican in Presidential Elections.

    • #23
    • November 15, 2016, at 3:39 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. Leigh Member

    MBF:

    Leigh:Just looked again. Your numbers don’t at all match what I’d seen from Milwaukee County elsewhere — I’d seen something like a 10% drop reported (which would indicate much more of an urban collapse than you indicate). I don’t know why Politico would differ or if someone is out of date, and I’ll try to look at it later tonight.

    I’m showing an 11.4% drop in total turnout in Milwaukee County. Percentage wise it was a bigger loss of votes for Trump. Maybe I have a typo somewhere above. Can you be specific about which numbers seem off?

    Numerically it was a bigger loss of votes for Clinton, though, compared to Obama 2012. That’s where I failed to follow you.

    Incidentally, the city and the county are lumped together in data, but we’re talking about two separate things. What we’re really seeing in the Milwaukee numbers is presumably two separate phenomena — Clinton’s decreased turnout in the city on the one hand, and Trump’s weaknesses in the WOW county extending into the Milwaukee suburbs. Those are two separate variables in play in considering how another candidate would have performed.

    I don’t have the article I need in front of me. I really will try to hunt it up later. Need to go do some things.

    • #24
    • November 15, 2016, at 3:44 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Contributor

    MBF:oter turnout by region (2012; 2016; +/-)

    • Conservative: 375,207; 365,883; -2.5%
    • Marxist: 302,854; 304,729; +0.6%
    • Milwaukee: 490,944; 434,970; -11.4%
    • Rural: 1,887,617; 1,839,038; -2.6%

    Thank you. This is extremely interesting.

    • #25
    • November 15, 2016, at 3:45 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Contributor

    Valiuth: Fascinating so again you have a Rural Revolt more so than voter Urban Apathy to go with my own vocabulary from the Main Feed.

    Given the figures below, it seems like it was a combination of general Democratic apathy: Milwaukee being very down, the Marxist region holding nearly steady, and — as far as I can tell — rural Democrats either staying home or switching.

    • #26
    • November 16, 2016, at 7:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. Valiuth Member

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Valiuth: Fascinating so again you have a Rural Revolt more so than voter Urban Apathy to go with my own vocabulary from the Main Feed.

    Given the figures below, it seems like it was a combination of general Democratic apathy: Milwaukee being very down, the Marxist region holding nearly steady, and — as far as I can tell — rural Democrats either staying home or switching.

    So it is much like Michigan then.

    The Rural Revolt put Trump in a winning position but you needed urban apathy to let him win.

    • #27
    • November 16, 2016, at 8:41 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. Valiuth Member

    I guess with respect to alternate candidates the question that needs to be asked is how much of Hillary’s poor showing is just her? Did these working class whites in rural areas not vote for her because she is Hillary Clinton or did they ditch her because they loved Trump? Then the other thing to ponder is would the urban vote have been even less motivated to turn out to vote against Rubio if they were so uninterested in stopping Donald Trump despite all the race fear mongering thrown at him? Would undecided women have broken even more strongly for a young hansom guy like Rubio against mean old Hillary? In the end despite his flaws far more many picked Trump over woman power.

    • #28
    • November 16, 2016, at 8:48 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. Joe P Member

    RyanFalcone:

    DocJay:Ted Cruz, although someone I admire, would have lost this election.

    Cruz would’ve won PA, OH and FLA by larger numbers (as well as Texas but who cares). Wiscy and Mich? Who knows but doubtful.

    He also would’ve won NH and possibly put Colorado in play for both himself and the Senate seat (same with Nevada).

    Have you done or seen analyses similar to this one for all of those states you mention? Because this assertion that Cruz would win PA by a larger margin is rather dubious when considering that I’ve read in several places that Trump’s victory was a result of Obama voters flipping.

    Cruz wins easily in the EC but maybe not as much as Trump but Cruz wins the popular vote and likely brings more Senate and House seats.

    More Senate seats? GOP only lost two. IL was probably not saveable because the guy was a jerk who sunk himself. NH was a knife fight, and I’m skeptical that Cruz would have helped Ayotte keep it (though she did seem to be hurt by her not backing Trump).

    • #29
    • November 16, 2016, at 8:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Contributor

    Valiuth:

    I guess with respect to alternate candidates the question that needs to be asked is how much of Hillary’s poor showing is just her? Did these working class whites in rural areas not vote for her because she is Hillary Clinton or did they ditch her because they loved Trump? Then the other thing to ponder is would the urban vote have been even less motivated to turn out to vote against Rubio if they were so uninterested in stopping Donald Trump despite all the race fear mongering thrown at him? Would undecided women have broken even more strongly for a young hansom guy like Rubio against mean old Hillary? In the end despite his flaws far more many picked Trump over woman power.

    I was wondering along those lines as well.

    • #30
    • November 16, 2016, at 9:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2