![]() Comey said days later that the newly identified emails would not change his previous conclusion that there was no evidence to warrant indicting Clinton. Comey, saying that he heavily influenced the outcome with his disclosure, 10 days before the election, that the bureau was looking at a trove of emails that might be related to Clinton’s handling of classified data while secretary of State. Pollsters for both the Trump and Clinton campaigns say their internal data found similar results.Ĭlinton aides blame that late surge for Trump on FBI Director James B. That finding suggests that voters who were undecided, or only weakly committed, late in the campaign broke toward Trump. But among the smaller group who were still uncertain about their vote in late October - people who said, for example, that they were only 60% likely to vote for their favored candidate, Trump did notably better than Clinton. Those who had said they were certain about which way they would vote almost all followed through as predicted. ![]() The poll, which tracked roughly 3,200 people through the campaign, resurveyed them after the vote. The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times “Daybreak” tracking poll of the election provides evidence on that score. Like the “where” of Trump’s victory, the “when” is also fairly clear: He won heavily among voters who made up their minds in the final two weeks of the campaign. The danger for Republicans is that if Trump fails to improve his standing in the suburbs, “there are a bunch of GOP representatives from those districts” who could suddenly be at risk. The danger for Democrats is that “if Trump can bring those suburban Republicans back into the fold” without losing his core support among blue-collar, white voters, “he could win a pretty significant victory” in the next election, Trende said. Trump’s weakness in those suburban counties, which in the past have often sided with Republicans, provides “a big red, flashing sign for both parties,” said Trende. Indeed, the share of the white population with a college degree or higher turned out to be one of the strongest predictors of which candidate would win a particular area this year. “When I look at those blue-collar areas, I’m still kind of in awe” over how dramatic the change was, said Sean Trende, election analyst for the RealClearPolitics website.Ĭlinton actually did better than Obama in counties that have high levels of education - Orange County being a prime example - as well as suburban counties outside Philadelphia, Atlanta, Houston and several other major cities. In many such counties, Clinton’s vote was 15 percentage points or more below what Obama received in his reelection. One big, consistent piece of the problem was that Clinton performed worse than Obama did in blue-collar, predominantly white communities outside of major cities such as the counties that include Scranton and Erie, Pa. Similarly, in Florida, Clinton won heavily in nearly all the places that Democrats generally count on, but lost because of a huge election-day upsurge in heavily white, nonurban counties of the central part of the state, according to an analysis by Democratic strategist Steve Schale. In Pennsylvania, by contrast, that image may be more accurate - turnout rose significantly across the state. In Ohio and Wisconsin, for example, turnout fell, belying the image of an army of previously hidden Trump voters storming the polls. The reasons that happened varied from state to state, Bonier and other analysts note. Trump narrowly eked out the victories he needed in key states of nation’s industrial belt, taking Michigan by 10,704, according to final returns, Wisconsin by 22,717 and Pennsylvania by just under 45,000, according to a compilation of the latest data maintained by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. Clinton piled up similarly “wasted” votes in some big, Republican states - notably Georgia and Texas - in which she did significantly better than recent Democratic nominees, but not well enough to win any electoral votes.īy contrast, Trump’s vote “was incredibly efficient,” said Tom Bonier of TargetSmart, a Democratic data and strategy firm based in Washington. ![]() A candidate gets all of a state’s electoral votes whether she wins by four or 4 million, so in the national picture, the huge size of Clinton’s majority in California, as well as a similarly lopsided margin in New York, did her no good.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |