Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, it's NOT that simple. You are assuming that the Millennial vote total was the same size w/r/t the voting public as a whole in 2006 as in 2010, and that's an unproven assumption and apparently incorrect. If young voters constituted a larger portion of the potential electorate in 2010 than in 2006, that could account for the facts, both demonstrated, that a smaller proportion of young people voted in 2010 than in 2006 (20% versus 25%), AND that they constituted the same percentage of the total electorate (about 11%).

Right, got it. So you're arguing that the overall outcome would have been different if more Millenials voted. I thought you were disputing the fact that they had shifted away from the Democrats by ~5%. Which the polls clearly show to be the case.

Whether we're talking Xers or Boomers, your assertion that young people always vote to the left of the electorate as a whole is not consistent with this observation.

Boomers are by no means clearly a "liberal" generation; we're severely divided, and younger Boomers tend to be more conservative than older ones (obviously I'm an exception to that rule). If young voters came out more strongly for Reagan than older ones, that shows a clear conservative bent among late boomers/early Xers (or "Jonesers" if you will) in their youth, which runs solidly against your argument that today's liberal youth voting pattern is age-based rather than generational.

There were 9 presidential elections between 1976-2008. In only one did the 18-29 vote go right of the overall vote. I call that an anomaly. More specifically, I attribute it to Reagan's personal qualities and the dramatic success he had produced by the time he ran for re-election. There is a reason why Democrats always target young voters. Like "Rock the Vote" which was originally aimed at Xers. It's because the younger the voter is, the more likely they are to vote for Democrats. In every generation.

Remember I said above that Millennials are actually culturally conservative, but in reference to a changed cultural status quo? The same, I believe, was true of GIs, which is why our Awakening made the country significantly more liberal in particular ways than they were comfortable with. This doesn't show a shift in GI attitudes to the right as they got older; it shows, if anything, a failure to keep up with the nation's changes, particularly in areas of culture and values. The main political achievements of their lifetime that were visible to GIs were Social Security, civil rights, Medicare, and America's superpower status. Reagan did not challenge any of the first three, and actually strengthened the third. (There were other things that Reagan did which were more damaging to the New Deal economic system, but those went mostly invisible and misunderstood, and didn't impact retired people significantly anyway.)

If Millennials follow a similar pattern, they may in the late Awakening to come vote for a conservative backlash candidate who nevertheless leaves the significant liberal achievements of this saeculum untouched, and mostly calls for a halt to the Awakening turmoil (which is really what Reagan did). If the nation makes sufficient progress between now and then to push Millennials into the role of old fogies, that will be satisfactory.

Oh, and GIs voted for Clinton, too. Just thought I'd point that out in passing.

My point was that the GIs' "liberalism" ended in 1952 at the earliest, and 1968 at the latest. Which coincides with midlife.

More importantly, I will state this again: even if you can argue that generations lean one way or the other, that leaning is not determinative of who wins elections. Boomers (particularly early wave ones) were the largest generational group, and leaned left, throughout the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. That didn't stop them from winning three elections by wide margins. If generations deviate from the overall vote, it's almost always by a small margin. In other words, if Millenials lean left and Xers lean right, Boomers continue to lean right, and potentially Homelanders lean right (although we have no way of knowing that), the Millenial leaning will not be enough to guarantee victories for Democrats any time in the near future, even if they are the largest single group.

Finally, considering that the last 4T consisted of a period of overwhelming dominance for the Democrats and this one clearly has not, the 4T status quo the Millenials will supposedly be defending is not necessarily one that favors the Democrats.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Right, got it. So you're arguing that the overall outcome would have been different if more Millenials voted.

Of course it would. If 25% of them had voted as in 2006 rather than 20% as actually happened, the Democrats would probably have kept the House, especially if the same thing applied to Democratic voters in general. The number of seats that changed hands can be misleading; this election was actually pretty close, and a shift nationwide of a few percentage points would have changed the outcome of a great many races. A five-point shift in Democratic voter turnout would probably have seen the Democrats gain seats in the House.

That was, of course, the basis of my incorrect prediction that the losses would be less than they were: I expected liberal voters to vote two or three points more than the polls were predicting. I was wrong about that, but really only about that. If liberal voters had behaved as I hoped they would, the outcome of the election would have been very different.

My point was that the GIs' "liberalism" ended in 1952 at the earliest, and 1968 at the latest. Which coincides with midlife.

What you need to show is that the GIs actually moved to the right thereafter, as opposed to staying put while the nation moved to the left of them on certain issues that had never been their signature.

Let me offer you another observation. Look at what's happened as the last two "dominant" archetype generations, GIs and Boomers, have moved through their life phases. From the time GIs came of age until they started to die off rapidly in the mid 1980s, the nation enacted more and more strongly liberal and progressive legislation in the area of economics: the Wagner Act, progressive taxation, Social Security, the interstate highways, civil rights laws, Medicare, poverty assistance, affirmative action, the EPA/Clean Air Act/Clean Water Act, fuel-economy standards. You can't measure this always by which party won elections; what happened is that whether Democrats or Republicans won and governed, the tide still swept left. A great deal more of a progressive nature was enacted under Nixon than under Carter.

Boomers have had a different but equally progressive effect. From the time we began coming of age in the 1960s, the nation's culture has progressed more and more towards the new values regime our progressive edge introduced in the Awakening: women's equality, a retreat from nationalism and empire, an environmentalist ethic, a new sexual morality, gay rights, an altered religious consciousness. Being Idealists rather than Civics, the culture and values rather than politics and economics are our areas of strength; we haven't accomplished so much in the civic arena -- but we have radically transformed the culture. Again, and even more obviously, this has nothing to do with who wins elections. Elections in which not only did Republicans win, but the religious right had reason to believe that they had won, did not even significantly slow down the evolution of American culture and values. At this point, the culture war is over and we have won.

Is there any good reason to believe that we will not see the same phenomenon happening over the Millennial lifetime?

Finally, considering that the last 4T consisted of a period of overwhelming dominance for the Democrats and this one clearly has not

The last one had not consisted of a period of overwhelming Democratic dominance by 1930, which is where we are now. Besides, as I've already pointed out in several places, politically this Crisis bears a much stronger resemblance to the 1860s, with the Democratic losses this year very much resembling the Republican losses in 1862.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As I said when I posted it, Pew is a very left wing organization, and it generally "interprets" its data in the most favorable way possible for the left. So keep that in mind.

Your projection of an electoral trend based on extrapolating the difference between the 2008 and 2010 elections to the 2012 election has no justification. If the average temperature in Detroit in January one year is 25F and the average temperature in July the following year in Detroit is 73F, then do you have cause to believe that the average temperature in the following January will be 121F?


It may be the 2006 election that was the oddity because of the nearly-complete dicreditation of the President, the Congressional GOP, and such figures as Jack Abramoff and Karl Rogue. Democrats had relatively few possibilities for picking up Senate seats, and they picked up six of the seven that had a reasonable chance to flip that year. It could be that the demographics of the 2010 election were more like those of 2002 than of 2006.

Many conservative-leaning people failed to go to the polls in 2008 because they were confused, and in 2010 they came back. In 2012? That depends upon several factors:

1. How well does the GOP perform, especially in the House? If it proves the ideologues that I think it does, then the GOP loses badly in 2012.

2. How much does the Religious right weaken? It is old -- almost entirely Boom and older. It isn't winning enough converts among younger Americans to replace the dying among the Religious Right. Anything skewed elderly that doesn't tend to replace itself tends to die off. Because judgmental religion has no tendency to increase with age (I can imagine people seeking reassurance in their own End becoming more attractive and Schadenfreude toward those that they despise becoming less relevant), it's hard to see the Religious Right getting stronger.

3. Can the Democrats learn from their mistakes between now and 2012? Can they become as well-organized that year as they were in 2008?

4. How is the economy doing, and who gets the credit or blame?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Of course it would. If 25% of them had voted as in 2006 rather than 20% as actually happened, the Democrats would probably have kept the House, especially if the same thing applied to Democratic voters in general. The number of seats that changed hands can be misleading; this election was actually pretty close, and a shift nationwide of a few percentage points would have changed the outcome of a great many races. A five-point shift in Democratic voter turnout would probably have seen the Democrats gain seats in the House.

A 5 point increase in Millenial turnout would only have barely increased the Democrat numbers. We're talking maybe 1%. A 5% increase in all Democrats would have made a difference, but again would not have prevented the Republicans from winning control of the House. You seem to be ignoring the magnitude of the Republican victory. They have a 51 seat margin as of right now (4 seats still outstanding).

By far, the largest factor was the massive shift among Independents from 2006 to 2010. It was not a matter of Millenial turnout or Democrat turnout. It was Independents abandoning the Democrats and voting for Republicans.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

A 5 point increase in Millenial turnout would only have barely increased the Democrat numbers. We're talking maybe 1%. A 5% increase in all Democrats would have made a difference, but again would not have prevented the Republicans from winning control of the House. You seem to be ignoring the magnitude of the Republican victory. They have a 51 seat margin as of right now (4 seats still outstanding).

Senate seats in Illinois and Pennsylvania? A Governorship in Florida?

Are you delighted with the fact that the House of Representatives, should the GOP vote in lockstep, will effectively represent the economic interests of only about 5% of the American people?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

A 5 point increase in Millenial turnout would only have barely increased the Democrat numbers. We're talking maybe 1%. A 5% increase in all Democrats would have made a difference, but again would not have prevented the Republicans from winning control of the House. You seem to be ignoring the magnitude of the Republican victory. They have a 51 seat margin as of right now (4 seats still outstanding).

I'm not ignoring it. I'm describing it correctly, in that most of the races making up that surge were close. If 5 percentage points more Democratic voters had voted, that would have swung a lot more than 5% of the races that went Republican. It would have swung virtually all of them, if not in fact all of them, and a few close races which don't currently count as Republican pickups because the GOP held them already. (I was, of course, assuming -- as we should -- that anything bringing out 5 points more Millennial voters would have brought out 5 more points of Democrats across the board.) 5 points this years would not have been a small swing. It would have been huge.

I wasn't expecting that, but I was expecting a two- to three-point shift in the Democrats' favor from what the polls predicted. That was based on the theory that the "enthusiasm gap" would have less of an effect on actual voting by Democratic voters than the pollsters were assuming in their likely-voter models. That theory has been disproven of course, but the underlying math was right. A few points of difference across the board would have resulted in a LOT more blue and a LOT less red. Three points would certainly have kept the House for the Democrats. Two points would have had about a fifty-fifty chance.

By far, the largest factor was the massive shift among Independents from 2006 to 2010. It was not a matter of Millenial turnout or Democrat turnout. It was Independents abandoning the Democrats and voting for Republicans.

No. You're misreading what that "independent" self-label means. It means someone who doesn't call himself a Democrat or Republican, not someone who objectively, in terms of voting patterns, isn't one. The great majority of "independent" voters have voting patterns indistinguishable from either Democrats or Republicans. I like to call those Democratic-indies and Republican-indies and they make up something like 80 to 90% of independents. The remaining 10-20% are what might be called "true" indies, moderate voters who really do swing, exhibiting voting patterns measurably different from self-labeled Dems or Goppers.

It's easy to see which group of "independents" voted Republican this year by comparing that exit-poll result with the 55/42 by which the Democrats won "moderate" voters. True independents are a subset of "moderates" (some moderates bear party labels and therefore aren't independents, but all true indies are moderates), and therefore it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that won the true indie vote.

Now in complete fairness and honesty, the Dems won the moderate vote by a smaller percentage than they did in 2008. So that did contribute to their loss. But not as much as the fact that both Repulbicans AND Republican-indies went to the polls in numbers exceeding both Democrats AND Democratic-indies. And that's why the Republicans won the "independent" vote even though they lost the "moderate" vote: because this year, "independents" who voted were skewed towards the Republican-indies, since the Democratic-indies (like labeled Democrats) disproportionately stayed home.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't have much more patience for this. The facts are there for you to look at it. I've posted them and explained them multiple times, and you don't even grasp what I'm saying. If you're determined to ignore the numbers and construct your own fictional account of what happened, knock yourself out.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

2006

2010

The key changes:

- Ideology. In 2006 voters called themselves 20% Liberal, 47% Moderate, 32% Conservative. In 2010 it was 20% Liberal, 38% Moderate, 42% Conservative. In addition to that shift, Democrats lost ground among both Moderates and Conservatives, while doing better among Liberals in 2010.

- Independents. Party ID remained roughly the same. Self-identified Republicans and Democrats voted basically the same as in 2006. There was only a slight shift to Republicans among those voters. But in 2006 Democrats won Independents 57-39%. In 2010 Republicans won them by 56-37%.

- Seniors. The composition of the electorate by age did not change. In 2006, Democrats won all age groups except 65+, where they tied 49-49%. In 2010 Republicans won all age groups except 18-29, although they did 5 points better in that group than they did in 2006. There was a massive shift toward the Republicans among 65+ in 2010, and they won them 59-38%.

I know how the left will interpret the last number. "See, it's old people, and they'll die off, and then everybody will vote for Democrats!". The reality is that every generational cohort for which there is polling data has started out voting for Democrats in their youth and voted increasingly for Republicans as they age. Voting patterns are not static over people's lives, especially among Independents, who made up almost a third of the electorate in 2010. Indeed, the fact that there was a massive shift among seniors from 2006 to 2010 is proof in itself that people's voting patterns are not set in stone even at an advanced age.

As far as other groups go:

- Sex. In 2006 Democrats won Men by 50-47% and Women by 55-43%. In 2010 Republicans won Men by 55-41% and Women by 49-48%.

- Race. All groups shifted toward Republicans in 2010 except African-Americans. They did 7 points better among Whites, 8 points better among Latinos, and 3 points better among Asians.

These discussions always go down rabbit holes, but this post sums up the reality of what happened. The three factors I listed are the three huge changes from 2006 that made the difference.

It's really not that complicated. Look at the two sets of numbers. Look at what changed, and what didn't. If you think some sort of lopsided turnout was a factor, look at separate polls done of the nation at large on those issues. If the Party ID, ideology and demographics match those in the public as a whole, then it was not turnout, it was a shift in the views of the public as a whole that was reflected in the voting. Which it was. As anybody with a brain who lives in the real world (maybe not California) knows.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The exit polls I posted are the only ones there are. It's done by one organization, on behalf of all the major news outlets. Voters 18-29 went for Democrats 60-38% in 2006, and only 55-42% in 2010. That is in elections for the House. I mean, you could argue that Millenials replaced Xers, but that would mean Millenials are more conservative than late wave Xers are...

Exit polls are horribly inaccurate, you do know that, right?

They predicted Kerry winning Ohio with comfort.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Exit polls are horribly inaccurate, you do know that, right?

They predicted Kerry winning Ohio with comfort.

Wasn't there evidence for election rigging in Ohio in 2004?

Originally Posted by Odin

Wasn't there evidence for election rigging in Ohio in 2004?

Much screwy stuff was going on. The Republicans made sure to have extensive checks of voter documents in largely-black districts (but safe conservative districts had no such problem), too few voting machines in liberal-leaning college towns, and in one case the seizure of voting materials due to an ill-explained "terrorist threat".

President Obama went on a beat-the-cheat strategy that did not depend upon winning 'just enough votes' in any one critical State, the mistake of both Gore and Kerry.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't have much more patience for this. The facts are there for you to look at it. I've posted them and explained them multiple times, and you don't even grasp what I'm saying.

Yes, I do. I just also grasp some other things that you apparently don't, which make you wrong. We disagree not because of what you understand that I don't (that's the empty set), but because of what I understand that you don't. You may, of course, call it quits whenever you want.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

These discussions always go down rabbit holes, but this post sums up the reality of what happened.

No, only part of it.

The three factors I listed are the three huge changes from 2006 that made the difference.

But the problem here is that you have misinterpreted all three.

It's really not that complicated.

Yes, actually it is. But not incomprehensible.

If you think some sort of lopsided turnout was a factor, look at separate polls done of the nation at large on those issues.

The only thing to look at to judge this is voter turnout results. I already linked one such datum, for Millennial voters, showing that their turnout was substantially lower for 2010 than for 2006. Your reasoning leads you to the conclusion that it could not have been lower, but in reality it was. Therefore your reasoning is mistaken. I explained your mistake below.

If the Party ID, ideology and demographics match those in the public as a whole, then it was not turnout

False. I already explained why this conclusion does not follow. You are assuming that the overall relative numbers of the demographics remained the same over a four year period. That is neither likely, nor in fact true as far as we have evidence to show.

Simply put, we know that as a portion of the electorate, young voters, blacks, and especially Hispanics are larger demographics than they were in 2006, while whites are smaller. If the exit polls show those demographics holding relatively the same, then the turnout for these demographics must have been lower.

You see, it's as I said: not things that you see that I don't understand (I understood every word), but things that you are not seeing that I do. I disagree not because my eyes are shut but because they are open.

Originally Posted by Odin

Wasn't there evidence for election rigging in Ohio in 2004?

I'm pretty sure the exit poll was one big peice of "evidence." Exit polls really aren't viable for much, because they have huge potential to be biased since most people who stop for exit polls are people who are enthusiastic for a particular candidate.

After 2000 all major news broadcasters stopped using them to decide whether to call races on election nights, and for a good reason: because they are practically useless.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, only part of it.

But the problem here is that you have misinterpreted all three.

Yes, actually it is. But not incomprehensible.

The only thing to look at to judge this is voter turnout results. I already linked one such datum, for Millennial voters, showing that their turnout was substantially lower for 2010 than for 2006. Your reasoning leads you to the conclusion that it could not have been lower, but in reality it was. Therefore your reasoning is mistaken. I explained your mistake below.

False. I already explained why this conclusion does not follow. You are assuming that the overall relative numbers of the demographics remained the same over a four year period. That is neither likely, nor in fact true as far as we have evidence to show.

Simply put, we know that as a portion of the electorate, young voters, blacks, and especially Hispanics are larger demographics than they were in 2006, while whites are smaller. If the exit polls show those demographics holding relatively the same, then the turnout for these demographics must have been lower.

You see, it's as I said: not things that you see that I don't understand (I understood every word), but things that you are not seeing that I do. I disagree not because my eyes are shut but because they are open.

Nope. I understand exactly what you're saying. The difference is that I have provided proof for every single assertion I've made, and you have provided none. You have made claims, and provided absolutely no evidence to support them. Facts. Numbers. Data. You have none. The only claim you've made that has any support is that Millenials had slightly lower turnout. But the difference that would have made, as I said, was 1% at most.

If you had looked at the data I provided, which you clearly have not, you would know that whites were in fact a slightly smaller share of the electorate in 2010. But Republicans also did 8 points better among Hispanics than they did in 2006.

You're taking tiny caveats and trying to expand them into some kind of argument that Democrats didn't really get massively repudiated by the voters, and simultaneously ignoring the gigantic shifts in voter allegiance that occurred. It's a joke. It no longer merits a response, not because you've made arguments that can't be disputed, but because you haven't really made any arguments at all. You have no basis for what you're saying other than your imagination.

The Republicans just made the biggest gains they've made in any House election since 1938. I don't know what part of that you don't understand. You're trying to construct a fantasy world for yourself. You can keep doing that. I'm done.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Nope. I understand exactly what you're saying. The difference is that I have provided proof for every single assertion I've made, and you have provided none.

Incorrect. I provided proof that 20% of young voters (18-29) cast their ballots in 2010, versus 25% of the same demographic in 2006. Some things follow from this, strictly regarding youth vote, which completely invalidate your "proof" in regard to that demographic.

It's simply a matter of math from there.

In 2006:

42% of the total electorate cast their ballots.
12% of those were voters age 18-29.
Those voters constituted 25% of the potential youth vote.

In 2010:

41% of the total electorate cast their ballots.
12% of those were voters age 18-29.
Those voters constituted 20% of the potential youth vote.

In each case, to find the potential youth vote as a percentage of the total electorate: divide the youth vote as a percent of the total ballots cast by the youth voter turnout percentage, and then multiply the result by the total voter turnout.

In 2006: (.12/.25) x .42 = 20.16%
In 2010: (.12/.2) x .41 = 24.6%

Thus: in 2006, 18-29 year olds (voting and nonvoting) constituted 20.16% of the total electorate (voting and nonvoting). In 2010, they constituted 24.6% -- a larger share of the total.

That's not conjecture. That's FACT.

What it means is that your belief, taken from the exit polls for the two years, that youth voter turnout was identical from one election to the next, is FALSE. That's also not conjecture. That's also FACT. And since your entire line of reasoning depended on the youth voter turnout being the same, so that we must conclude that Millennials changed their votes rather than staying home, that conclusion is also FALSE. Millennials DID NOT change their votes. They DID stay home. Their portion of the change in the result from 2006 to 2010 is due to voter turnout, not to Millennials becoming more conservative.

Now: I don't have similar facts in regard to other typical Democratic-voting demographic groups, but I do know that Hispanic voters at least constitute an increased share of the electorate in 2010 than they did in 2006. Not so sure about black voters, but that may not matter; it looks like black voters came out in the same numbers in 2010 as in 2006 and voted the same way. So although I can't crunch the numbers with the same precision, it stands to reason, given that FACT, that you are wrong about them in exactly the same way.

So: smaller voter turnout among Hispanics and youth voters; also, given the "enthusiasm gap" it stands to reason that the slide in turnout was disproportionately due to Democratic voters staying home. That is, those Millennials and Hispanics who did vote were weighted towards those who voted Republican.

In short, you've proven nothing. You took a likely-looking statistic and ran with it, failing to double-check it against any other available data. Other available data shows your mistake.

This is not conjecture. These are not "tiny caveats." These are facts which you did not consider, and which invalidate all of the proof you claimed to present.

Some corporations were caught demanding that employees even in ill-paid, dead-end jobs vote Republican, and I can imagine many who got the message either voted for the appointed stooges of their corporate bosses contrary to their desires or abstained from voting. One was McDonald's, at least in Ohio.

Now let's consider the poll on Millennial party identification, which shows that identification with the Democrats has declined over the past couple of years while identification with the Republicans has increased. Does this show that Millennials have become more conservative, that they've switched parties?

No. It would show that if there were no non-affiliated Millennials, but there are, and this represents a pool from which Republicans can be taken or into which Democrats can be deposited.

There's a simplistic model of the change, or a more complex and probably true model. The simplistic model is a one-Millennial model. It envisions a young voter who saw how liberal the Democrats were over the past two years and decided to vote Republican instead. The decline in Democrats and increase in Republicans is explained by this single change of mind.

The more complex model is a two-Millennial model. It envisions one very liberal young voter and another, more conservatively inclined. In 2008, the liberal Millennial saw himself as a Democrat and voted for Obama. The more conservative Millie didn't see himself as affiliated with either party; he either voted for Obama as well or didn't vote. Over the past two years, the liberal Millie has seen how the Democrats are often just as much on the corporate take as the Republicans, and is asking, "Where's the change?" And so now he says, "Fuck those assholes, I'm not a Democrat. They're all crooks." And now he becomes one of the non-affiliated.

Meanwhile, the more conservative Millennial looks around at the messed-up economy, and decides the Democrats haven't done shit to fix things, so maybe he'll go with the Republicans. So one of the non-affiliated has gone to the GOP.

In many cases, data admit of more than one interpretation. When that's the case, more data are helpful in resolving which interpretation is the correct one.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Incorrect. I provided proof that 20% of young voters (18-29) cast their ballots in 2010, versus 25% of the same demographic in 2006. Some things follow from this, strictly regarding youth vote, which completely invalidate your "proof" in regard to that demographic.

It's simply a matter of math from there.

In 2006:

42% of the total electorate cast their ballots.
12% of those were voters age 18-29.
Those voters constituted 25% of the potential youth vote.

In 2010:

41% of the total electorate cast their ballots.
12% of those were voters age 18-29.
Those voters constituted 20% of the potential youth vote.

In each case, to find the potential youth vote as a percentage of the total electorate: divide the youth vote as a percent of the total ballots cast by the youth voter turnout percentage, and then multiply the result by the total voter turnout.

In 2006: (.12/.25) x .42 = 20.16%
In 2010: (.12/.2) x .41 = 24.6%

Thus: in 2006, 18-29 year olds (voting and nonvoting) constituted 20.16% of the total electorate (voting and nonvoting). In 2010, they constituted 24.6% -- a larger share of the total.

That's not conjecture. That's FACT.

...The way you figure out the impact of an increase in Millenial turnout from 20% to 25% is to look at the total respondents in the exit poll. Multiply that number by the 18-29 vote percentage. Then multiply that number by 5, and divide it by 4. Then multiply that number by the (R)/(D) vote percentage of 18-19. Then subtract the original numbers from the total respondents and add in the new ones. It results in about a 1% increase in the Democrat vote. If that.

The problem is that you are claiming if there had been a 5 point increase in the Millenial vote, all of those voters would have voted for Democrats. That's absurd.

How do we know? Because as I showed you both through polls (and there are plenty of other polls out there besides the ones I posted) and news stories full of anecdotal evidence, Millenial Party ID has shifted about 5 points away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans since 2008. That shift matches exactly with the way Millenials voted in 2010.

Your claim:

Their portion of the change in the result from 2006 to 2010 is due to voter turnout, not to Millennials becoming more conservative.

Is false. I don't know how many other ways to explain it to you. If the way Millenials (or other groups) voted according to exit polls matches the leaning of those groups according to public opinion polls, you have no basis for claiming that those groups were disproportionately conservative, and if more of them had voted, they would have voted for Democrats.

More importantly, the impact of a 5 point increase in Millenial turnout, even if every one of those extra voters had voted for Democrats (which they wouldn't have) is dwarfed by the categories I showed you. Independents were roughly 1/3 of the electorate, and they had about a 20 point shift from the Democrats to the Republicans. You're taking one tiny "what if" scenario and trying to hold that up against documented, massive shifts in voter behavior elsewhere.

The long and the short of it (obviously) is that you are trying to manufacture an explanation for why the Democrats lost that attributes it to them not being left wing enough, which caused Democrat voters to stay home. You don't want to accept the reality that it was because their policies were too far left, failed to bring about any improvement in the economy, and have thrown the government into a fiscal crisis.

Honestly, I encourage you to go on believing what you want to believe. If enough people like you stick with it and exert enough pressure on the Democrat rump in Congress, you will guarantee their ongoing failure in the future. So have at it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

...The way you figure out the impact of an increase in Millenial turnout from 20% to 25% is to look at the total respondents in the exit poll. Multiply that number by the 18-29 vote percentage. Then multiply that number by 5, and divide it by 4.

LOL spin, spin, spin.

Look, dude. Your entire argument hinged on that fact that the core Democratic constituent demographics voted in the same percentages of the total electorate (approximately) in 2010 as in 2006. It has nothing to do with "the impact of an increase in Millennial turnout" blah blah blah. Here's how it goes, simple logic:

1) You are arguing that the 2010 election result shows that the Democrats overreached to the left, and that the American electorate is more conservative than I think it is.

2) My position and that of others here is that, rather than overreaching to the left, the Democrats offended their voters by not being progressive enough, and so many of those voters stayed home this year, ceding the election to the Republicans.

3) In attempting to disprove this, you have asserted that voter turnout among core Democratic groups was NOT lower in 2010 than it was in 2006 (the last mid-term election, which the Democrats won), and so the only way the outcome could have occurred as it did was for Democratic voters in 2006 to have changed their minds in 2010.

4) Your proof of this was that the core Democratic constituent groups (young voters, blacks, Hispanics) constituted approximately the same percentage of the electorate in 2010 that they did in 2006.

And that's the only significance of that fact to this discussion. You are asserting that it means voter turnout among Democratic voters didn't drop between the two. But you're wrong: it did. We know that because the size of these groups has grown over the last four years, so the same approximate contribution to the electorate means that voter turnout for that demographic dropped, not that it remained the same.

With respect to Millennial voters, I showed this precisely. I haven't done that for Hispanics. Do you question the fact that Hispanics constitute a larger percentage of the total electorate today than they did in 2006? I believe that's common knowledge, but if you do question it I'll look for facts to back it up.

The problem is that you are claiming if there had been a 5 point increase in the Millenial vote, all of those voters would have voted for Democrats. That's absurd.

No, you're not understanding my argument there. Obviously if we had a 5 point increase in Millennial votes and that's all that happened, it wouldn't have made a huge difference, but what made the Millies stay home? Disillusion with the Democrats (I'm saying from the left, not the right). Well, disillusion with the Democrats is not something confined to Millennials, is it? So if something had brought the Millennials out to vote in similar percentages as in 2006, it would also have brought non-Millennial Democratic voters out to do the same. And that would have given us a 2006-like outcome.

The change in voter turnout for Millennials isn't something I'm presenting as a sole cause of the election outcome; it's an indicator of a larger trend: the fact that Democratic voters stayed home in larger numbers than Republican voters. That, I'm saying, is why the Republicans won this election.

So far, you haven't offered any real evidence to the contrary. I understand why you thought the exit-poll results showed otherwise, but you were mistaken for reasons explained above.

Millenial Party ID has shifted about 5 points away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans since 2008. That shift matches exactly with the way Millenials voted in 2010.

Please see my last post on this exact subject. You are misinterpreting that fact, too, apparently using the one-Millennial model to explain it when the two-Millennial model is much more likely to be true.

Honestly, I encourage you to go on believing what you want to believe.

If that was really your motivation, you'd shut up. You actually had me doubting for a moment with that exit-poll data until I figured out what it really meant.

Given the fact that you keep arguing, your "encouragement" lacks all credibility. Obviously you do NOT encourage me to do anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

LOL spin, spin, spin.

Math, math, math.

Look, dude. Your entire argument hinged on that fact that the core Democratic constituent demographics voted in the same percentages of the total electorate (approximately) in 2010 as in 2006. It has nothing to do with "the impact of an increase in Millennial turnout" blah blah blah. Here's how it goes, simple logic:

1) You are arguing that the 2010 election result shows that the Democrats overreached to the left, and that the American electorate is more conservative than I think it is.

2) My position and that of others here is that, rather than overreaching to the left, the Democrats offended their voters by not being progressive enough, and so many of those voters stayed home this year, ceding the election to the Republicans.

3) In attempting to disprove this, you have asserted that voter turnout among core Democratic groups was NOT lower in 2010 than it was in 2006 (the last mid-term election, which the Democrats won), and so the only way the outcome could have occurred as it did was for Democratic voters in 2006 to have changed their minds in 2010.

4) Your proof of this was that the core Democratic constituent groups (young voters, blacks, Hispanics) constituted approximately the same percentage of the electorate in 2010 that they did in 2006.

And that's the only significance of that fact to this discussion. You are asserting that it means voter turnout among Democratic voters didn't drop between the two. But you're wrong: it did. We know that because the size of these groups has grown over the last four years, so the same approximate contribution to the electorate means that voter turnout for that demographic dropped, not that it remained the same.

I'm not asserting that there was no drop. I am asserting that since the numbers were roughly the same, the drop was small, and decreased Democrat turnout was a minor factor compared to the major shifts in ideology, Independent voters, and seniors that I pointed out.

With respect to Millennial voters, I showed this precisely. I haven't done that for Hispanics. Do you question the fact that Hispanics constitute a larger percentage of the total electorate today than they did in 2006? I believe that's common knowledge, but if you do question it I'll look for facts to back it up.

No, you're not understanding my argument there. Obviously if we had a 5 point increase in Millennial votes and that's all that happened, it wouldn't have made a huge difference, but what made the Millies stay home? Disillusion with the Democrats (I'm saying from the left, not the right). Well, disillusion with the Democrats is not something confined to Millennials, is it? So if something had brought the Millennials out to vote in similar percentages as in 2006, it would also have brought non-Millennial Democratic voters out to do the same. And that would have given us a 2006-like outcome.

The change in voter turnout for Millennials isn't something I'm presenting as a sole cause of the election outcome; it's an indicator of a larger trend: the fact that Democratic voters stayed home in larger numbers than Republican voters. That, I'm saying, is why the Republicans won this election.

So far, you haven't offered any real evidence to the contrary. I understand why you thought the exit-poll results showed otherwise, but you were mistaken for reasons explained above.

Please see my last post on this exact subject. You are misinterpreting that fact, too, apparently using the one-Millennial model to explain it when the two-Millennial model is much more likely to be true.



If that was really your motivation, you'd shut up. You actually had me doubting for a moment with that exit-poll data until I figured out what it really meant.

Given the fact that you keep arguing, your "encouragement" lacks all credibility. Obviously you do NOT encourage me to do anything of the sort.

In order to prove your point, you have to show several things:

1) The share of the total population made up by the Democrat-leaning groups you're talking about increased.

2) By how much that share increased from 2006-2010.

3) How that increase (assuming there was one) relates to the pool of registered voters.

4) That the turnout percentage of each of those groups was lower than in 2006, and by how much.

5) How a turnout similar to 2006 would have impacted the overall outcome in 2010.

Having not done those things, you cannot claim to have made a serious argument. I did the math for a 5 point increase in Millenial turnout. The impact was negligible. It was less than a 1 point improvement for the Democrats.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Math, math, math.

Yeah, we've established a long time ago that that's not your strong suit.

I'm not asserting that there was no drop. I am asserting that since the numbers were roughly the same, the drop was small

Case in point. That doesn't follow. A 5-point drop in the Millennial turnout has been established. That isn't small; it's actually enough, if reflected throughout the entire electorate, to have turned the election into a Democratic victory had it been reversed.

EDIT: The real significance of the large drop in Millennial turnout lies in the fact that Millennials are such heavy Democratic voters, and therefore what this probably indicates about the drop in turnout for Democratic voters. The real story of this election is that Republican voters were energized and came to the polls, while Democratic voters were disgusted and stayed home. In some demographics, which are split pretty evenly down the middle, that should show up as little or no change in overall voter turnout, because while the Democratic voters in that demographic would have seen reduced turnout the Republican voters would have seen increased turnout. Same for Millennials, but because Millies are lopsided in their party votes, a strong net drop in voter turnout should be expected if I'm right.

In other words, I'm not saying that what we are seeing here is a decline in young people voting. I'm saying that what we're seeing is a decline in Democrats voting. That translates to a decline in Millie votes only because most Millies vote Democratic. So this is useful as a piece of evidence supporting the real underlying argument I'm making, which is not about Millennial votes but about Democratic ones.

In order to prove your point, you have to show several things:

Yes, if I were really trying to prove it. I'm satisfied that it's true from evidence I've already seen, so I'm content to deep-six the challenge to the idea that you presented.

Incidentally, it wouldn't be necessary to show any complicated relationship between, say, total Hispanic population and total number of Hispanic voters, all I'd really need to do is use voter turnout figures for Hispanics and calculate from other data already known the same way I did for Millies. The fact that I'm dealing with voter turnout figures already excludes those not registered to vote. What's more, because Hispanics, although they do lean to the Democrats, don't do so by such wide margins, we might not see all that big an overall drop in Hispanic turnout, because the large minority of Republican Hispanic voters would turn out in enough numbers to offset the small majority of Democratic ones voting in reduced percentages.

Having not done those things, you cannot claim to have made a serious argument.

I can, however, claim to have made a serious counter-argument, and to have shown that your own reasoning was invalid. You are the one claiming that an election with voter turnout in the low 40s shows a major shift in national attitude to the right, which is inherently improbable on the face of it, so I think the burden here is on you, not me.

EDIT: By the way, I got the overall turnout figures reversed in my calculations above, it seems, which means that I understated the growth in Millennial voter numbers. 2006 saw a voter turnout at 40%, while 2010's was 41.5%.

EDIT: Frustratingly, I can't find figures on black voter turnout this election, which could be more revealing even than the Millennial turnout. A lot of the commentators seem to be getting it stupidly wrong, saying things like "African-American voter turnout was 10% this year when it was 13% in 2008," when obviously what they're referring to is the black vote as a percentage of the total vote, not as a percentage of the potential black vote -- the idea that only 10% of blacks voted this years is absurd. But I can't find the real figures, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes, if I were really trying to prove it. I'm satisfied that it's true from evidence I've already seen, so I'm content to deep-six the challenge to the idea that you presented.

That pretty much says it all. You're making an assertion you cannot prove, refusing to even attempt to do so, and then declaring yourself "winner of the argument" based solely on your own refusal to acknowledge reality, no matter how thoroughly it's presented to you. All you have proven (once again) is that there is no point in engaging you in a rational discussion.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That pretty much says it all. You're making an assertion you cannot prove

I've proven it to my own satisfaction and that of any reasonable person not trying to push a right-wing narrative. It's not as if I had presented no evidence or argument in support. If I haven't proven it to yours, or sufficiently to get into a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I can't really worry about that.

I did try to find figures on the African-American voter turnout, but they don't seem to be available. As it is, all the evidence I've seen (including what you presented) supports the narrative I'm presenting for this election. If I see evidence that doesn't support it I'll rethink that narrative. Until then, I see no reason to worry about it.

All you have proven (once again) is that there is no point in engaging you in a rational discussion.

(Shrug.) Other people have no difficulty doing so. But fine, if that's the way you see it, there's a real simple solution.

Shut up and go away. Problem solved.

Brian, it's no use trying to reason with him. Quit banging your head against the wall.