Wednesday, February 9, 2022
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
US Elections 2020: Why Trump can lose in a landslide
The key to understanding how the 2020 Presidential election would go lies in understanding what really happened in the 2016 election when Trump won the Republican nomination from a wide field and beat the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by a 306-232 electoral college vote scoreline. Almost all opinion polls , pundits and media opinion projected that Hillary Clinton would beat Trump in the general election. But earlier in this same blog, on September 28th, 2016, I had written that almost everyone was reading the national poll numbers wrong, and how there were many reasons why Hillary Clinton could actually lose the election, despite being ahead in all the national polls on popular vote. That's what happened and Donald Trump won the election on November 8th, 2016, stunning most pollsters, public , journalists and political commentators. Understanding why Trump won and why Hillary lost in 2016 is the basic foundation for understanding what might happen in 2020, next week.
Although the actual election date is on November 3rd, the election has been underway for the past 2 weeks with early voting and mail in voting. At this time more than 60-65 million voters have already voted with another 5 days to go for the poll date. This is a record breaking number and could well go beyond 90- 95 million votes cast even before Dixville Notch, New Hampshire,casts its traditional first vote at the stroke of midnight of November 3rd. The issue of mail in ballots itself has been the subject of lawsuits in various states like Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin etc, with the Republicans trying to prevent or lessen the mail in votes. It's widely perceived that the mail in and early voting largely tends Democratic and a bigger share of the Republican vote would be on the day of poll, November 3rd.
The 2016 vote and how Trump won the election because of 3 rust belt states, PA, MI, WI
Trump won the 2016 election by an electoral college vote of 306-232. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 50 states by a margin of 3 million votes approximately, with Trump getting around 62.5 million votes and Hillary Clinton around 65.5 million votes. Yet Hillary Clinton lost to Trump largely because of the 3 states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, which together gave Trump 46 electoral votes in an upset victory in what were normally considered Democratic states. Trump won all the 3 states by pretty narrow margins of 0.77% points or lesser. No one really expected Trump to win all the 3 Blue or Democratic states, but there were some reasons why he did, or rather why Hillary lost, we will come to that later as those factors are what will play a very important role in this 2020 Trump Biden face off and possibly settle the Presidential election.
Let’s take a look at the numbers in those 3 states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. It is also important to remember that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party Candidate Jill Stein secured a substantial number of votes in these 3 states, as they did in many other battleground states.
Trump won Pennsylvania ( 20 electoral votes) by a margin of 44,000 votes , just 0.72% margin of the nearly 6 million votes cast. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein polled almost 200,000 votes together.
Trump won Michigan (16 electoral votes) by a narrow margin of 11,000 votes, just 0.23% margin of the 4.7 million votes cast. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got 225,000 votes between themselves.
Trump won Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) by just 23,000 votes, 0.77% of the 2.8 million votes cast, with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein polling 137,000 votes between themselves.
Just a mere 78,000 votes spread across 3 states, decided the election for Trump in 3 Democratic states that were expected to go for Hillary Clinton by everyone, by giving Trump 46 electoral votes and taking his tally to 306, with 270 needed to win the White House.
Battleground states of Florida, North Carolina and Ohio
Apart from the above 3 rust belt states of PA, MI and WI, Trump won the states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, which had all been generally swing states over past several election cycles with both Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates having won these states a few times in the past couple of decades, and typical battleground states. Florida (29 electoral votes), North Carolina (15 electoral votes), and Ohio (18 electoral votes) together contribute 62 electoral college votes, and together with the 46 electoral votes from Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, these 108 electoral votes from 6 states would in all likelihood determine the result of the Presidential election. Trump who won a total of 306 electoral votes in 2016, cannot afford to lose more than 36 electoral votes in these 6 states as that would taken his electoral votes tally to less than 270 and he would lose the election. In other words, Trump has to necessarily win at least 4 out of these 6 states just to scrape through to a narrow electoral college win.
Trump won Florida (29 electoral votes) in 2016 by 113,000 votes, a margin 1.2% of the 9.4 million votes cast in Florida. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein secured 271,000 votes between themselves.
Trump won North Carolina (15 electoral votes) in 2016 by 173,000 votes, a margin of 3.66% of the 4.7 million votes cast. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got 142,000 votes between them.
Trump won Ohio (18 electoral votes) by 447,000 votes, a margin of 8.13% of the 5.5 million votes cast. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got 220,000 votes between them.
Now, what do opinion polls say for all the above 6 states in 2020 ? We know that almost all opinion polls in 2016 got the final outcome of many of these states wrong and it may not be such a reliable indicator even now. It’s a far better approach to take to see what has happened since 2016 that impacts the political mood in a major way and how that may impact the outcome in these 6 states now in 2020. The question we need to be answering is :
“what’s the difference on the ground between the Trump-Hillary contest of 2016 and the Trump-Biden contest now in 2020?”
In the context of the above question, let’s take a look at what most opinion polls have been saying about a Trump Biden matchup in the past few months. On an average, Biden leads Trump in all the 6 states with the leads being anywhere between 3% to 12% in most of the polls and has consistently been holding the lead.
What is needed for Biden to win the elections decisively is just a shift of about 1% vote away from Trump and to Biden in just the 3 states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, 46 electoral votes, and Biden wins the Presidency 278-260 even if Trump carries every other state he won in 2016.
But what are all the factors that have changed from 2016 to now, that makes a far bigger shift and change in vote possible, even probable, in not just the above 3 states, but in all the 6 states , Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, let’s list and compare them between 2016 and 2020, as each factor contributes to more and more shift in vote away from Trump, and an addition to the vote of the Democrats in each state.
1. Hillary Clinton is not running against Trump, It’s Joe Biden.
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were very disliked candidates. There was a feeling of discontent in both the Democratic and Republican parties, with their supporters feeling that the party establishment had hijacked the party and didn’t reflect the actual feelings of the respective parties. This is evident from the fact that Trump, an outsider, beat 10 establishment Republican contenders to clinch the Republican nomination. Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator running for the Democratic nomination, a liberal politician who fired up the young people and ran on purely public contributions, secured 20% of the votes, almost 15 million votes in the Democratic primaries. His supporters calling themselves “Bernie or bust” booed Hillary Clinton at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for sabotaging Sanders and many of them publicly vowed to stay away from voting for the Democratic nominee Hillary or even vote for Trump.
Hillary Clinton represented the establishment, having been First Lady for 8 years, senator, and later the Secretary of State. Her candidature came after 8 years of a Democratic White House with Obama, and people wanted a change. Hillary was no Obama, had a baggage of scandals and considered dishonest. Finally she had an FBI investigation opened into the leaked emails and email server scandal just 4-5 days before the election, where she was seen to have accepted political contributions from foreign sources (when she was Secretary of State) inimical to American interests, and was seen as conflict of interest. Most importantly, African Americans voters were not much interested in supporting Hillary Clinton after 8 heady years of Obama, the first African American President. There was a drop of more than 10-15% in the African American vote for the Democrats across several states, and a majority of African Americans traditionally vote Democrats. Many Democratic voters and independents too, voted for Trump only for the reason they disliked Hillary more, and even Trump was a better option. As many said after the polls , “I held my nose and voted for Trump”
None of the above factors apply to Joe Biden now. Biden is a non controversial long time Democrat, former Vice President to Obama, is liked and trusted much more than Hillary. He has no controversy or scandal attached to himself, he has been popular with the African American community for many years, and most importantly he is the challenger now, running for change and Trump is the incumbent and the establishment. Biden has the support of the entire Democratic establishment and their voters and there are no dissent voters like Hillary did in 2016.
2. The COVID 19 pandemic and the Trump Presidency.
The last 2 years of the Trump Presidency had been rocked by 3 events.
The impeachment proceedings initiated by the Democrats in 2019, for Trump abusing his office to try and influence the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, in an effort to smear Joe Biden, who was widely perceived to be Trump’s challenger even in 2019. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives, but acquitted by a Republican dominated senate and escaped having to resign. It exposed Trump to months of bad publicity and he was seen as a liar by the majority of the public. It also made traditional Democratic voters angry and many independent voters unhappy, and some Republican voters uncomfortable that a Republican President was actually impeached but escaped conviction.
The year 2020 that began with the Trump impeachment vote was soon rocked by the worldwide COVID 19 Pandemic. A raging virus from Wuhan, China swept across the globe from February, infecting millions in every country. A virus that had no cure or vaccine yet, brought the world to its knees, infecting and killing tens of thousands of people in many countries, crippling the economy, paralysed governments, kept most of the world in a virtual state of imprisonment at home, scared and anxious about contracting the virus, and clueless and helpless. America was particularly affected on a mammoth scale. Millions were infected and till date more than 200,000 people are dead. 20 million jobs were lost, 100,000 businesses closed permanently, and the entire country was badly shaken to its core by this unprecedented crisis that affected the very lives and livelihoods of every American. Although no American blamed the Trump administration for the actual virus, a huge majority of Americans were extremely angry with the manner in which Trump dealt with the crisis. From outright denying the existence of the virus in February, to underplaying it in March/April, to doing nothing at all to prevent its spread in the summer, to not enforcing national safety measures like wearing masks or social distancing, Trump lurched from crisis to crisis on a weekly basis. He seemed to have absolutely no idea of how to deal with the massive health crisis, had zero regard for scientific opinion, denied the spread of the virus as fake news, and more importantly stayed stubborn himself and refused to listen to the sensible advice given from all quarters.
Trump himself became the national example of what not to do, he rejected masks, social distancing, held crowded meetings and rallies, mocked at scientists, made fun of those taking precautions, promoted quack cures and measures and to cap it all, actually suggested ingestion and injection of disinfectants to kill the virus, on national media. It shocked the nation and made headlines across the world, triggering millions of memes and videos , with Trump becoming the object of ridicule, anger, and total disdain across the world, and particularly among large sections of the American public. From being called the COVID-19’s best ally in America in April, the common refrain in October has become “ Trump is not the best ally of the virus, Trump is the virus”. It all snowballed to Trump hosting super spreader events, and eventually contracting the virus himself, an event that highlighted his totally inept handling of the Pandemic. Democrats, Republicans and independent unaffiliated voters, all alike , condemned the handling of the crisis by Trump across the board, with most opinion polls showing more than 60% of America disapproved his handling of the COVID crisis, and less than 30% being satisfied, mostly Trump’s core base of White supremacist , conservative Christian and southern voters, most of whom vote Republican anyway. It is of immense significance that the big majority of those affected by the virus were the African American and Latino communities, disproportionately, with far more of these people losing their jobs and their lives.
3. Trump Presidency and racism
The 3rd major event that has become a major national issue and possibly one of the biggest election issues that may decide the presidential election is the Racist inequality issue assuming huge proportions over the past several months leading to the polls. That Trump was always perceived as a racist and silently supporting white supremacy was never in doubt, everyone knew it but till this year it wasn’t a major issue or hit headlines in a manner so as to occupy centre stage. All that changed by the last week of May, when George Floyd , an African American was detained by the police in Minneapolis, Minnesota ,on a minor suspicion of a counterfeit $20 bill. Floyd was handcuffed and held to the ground and 3 white police officers on him. One of them put his knee on Floyd’s neck, suffocating him and despite the pleas of Floyd to release him as he couldn’t breathe , he was held down by the knee on his neck for a full 8 minutes, and when he stopped breathing, help was called and George Floyd had died. Videos of this horrific incident made headlines across the world media, played again and again by all TV channels millions of times. George Floyd in his death had become a household name across the world, and the words “ I can’t breathe” echoed across the globe, sending waves of revulsion everywhere and attracting universal condemnation. America was perceived as racist and white supremacist across the world, and Trump was the focus of such negative opinion. Trump , who was just seen as a silent supporter of white supremacist racism, was now seen as the cause of it. And Trump added fuel to fire by not condemning this incident unequivocally. “ Black lives matter” movement gained momentum across America and tens of thousands of African Americans protested and marched across America, a massive rage had built up. It was not African Americans alone, ordinary white Americans were equally shocked and joined the movement and lent their solidarity, no normal white American wanted to be associated even remotely with such blatant racism, and everyone from rock stars, actors, football and hockey teams joined in and “took a knee” as an expression of protest against racism that targeted African Americans. It made waves and waves of headlines across America and polarised an already divided nation. Trump, instead of putting down the flames, stoked them as he is wont to, by focusing on incidents of some riots and looting that had happened in some cities. Blaming the left liberal criminal elements, as he called them, he made it a law and order issue instead of addressing the core issue of racism, and boxed himself into a corner from where there can be no reversal. Trump in fact played to the sentiments of his core support base of white supremacist racist voters, and never condemned racism, and stayed unapologetic and with no empathy at all. Trump had given all African Americans a solid and single minded purpose of coming out to the polls and voting him out, as well as alienating moderate white Americans, Democratic, Republicans and independents. Very soon many other such incidents, Breonna Taylor an African American shot dead in her home by white police officers and recently Walter Wallace another African American shot dead in Philadelphia by white police officers added to the growing anger against blatant and rampant racism.
In short, America was hit by the virus, crippled by the economy, divided by racism and The President was asleep at the wheel. Those who didn’t understand the phrase “ Nero was fiddling while Rome was burning” now did so, they were seeing it.
Will these 6 states change their voting from 2016?
Now, applying the above reasons and factors into the voting decisions of people who are voting now, let’s try to answer the following questions with a Yes, No or Maybe, and see where it takes us.
In just the 6 states discussed above , Pennsylvania, Michigan,Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina, will many more African American voters come to the polls to vote ? YES
Will Trump get each and every vote he got in 2016 in these 6 states ? NO
Will those who voted for Trump in 2016 only because they did not want to vote for Hillary change their vote to Biden ? YES
Will those who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in these 6 states in 2016 only because they disliked Trump and Hillary equally now consider voting for Biden ? MAYBE
Will those moderate and independent white voters in these 6 states who are basically against racism but voted for Trump in 2016 change their vote to Biden now . YES
Will those people who did not vote Trump or did not vote at all in 2016 now find any new reason to vote for Trump that is due to his performance as President ? NO
Will moderate Republican and conservative voters who voted for Trump in 2016 only because he was the Republican nominee now hesitate to vote for him again ? MAYBE
Applying the above answers to the 6 states, and the voting numbers of 2016, there can be only one conclusion.
Trump is certainly not winning 4 out of 6 states, in fact it appears very highly likely that Trump will lose at least 4 and probably 5 states out of the above 6 states. It’s quite possible that he loses all the above 6 states and by considerable margins, considering he won all these states by quite narrow margins in 2016 when the conditions were far more favorable to him than now.
What have the polls been saying on the demographics ?
An important thing to look at in all the opinion polls , much more than actual numbers, would be the different demographic groups and what they have been saying, compared to how they voted in 2016. The following points have stood out consistently in almost all the polls.
More number of college educated white voters have decided to vote Biden than those who voted for Hillary in 2016
More women voters support Biden now than they did Hillary in 2016
Trump’s support among suburban women, a key factor behind his win in 2016, has considerably reduced now in 2020, more so among college educated white woman voters
Trump’s support among white college educated voters has reduced from the 2016 levels
Trump’s support among non college white voters has almost remained same, especially white rural voters.
The Latino vote, for the first time in US history has exceeded the African American vote as the biggest non white voting group.
Far more African Americans voters have registered to vote in 2020 than did in 2016.
Trump’s support among evangelical Christian voters is almost same it was in 2016
Trump’s support among independent and unaffiliated voters has reduced greatly from 2016.
Trump’s support among moderate Republican leaning voters who are traditional conservative voters has reduced now compared to 2016.
Far more numbers of African American and Latino voters are leaning Democratic than they did in 2016.
Trump’s support among senior citizens has reduced compared to 2016
Trump’s support among those who are dependent on affordable healthcare has drastically reduced and Trump having no alternative healthcare plan is a major factor among big sections of voters
What do the above numbers and possible voting inclinations of various demographics mean
If all the above shift in the voting preferences of various demographics hold good, and applied across the 6 states discussed above, and the 2016 results as a reference base, it’s almost certain that Biden will win all the 3 states in the rust belt, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, giving him 46 electoral votes more than what Hillary got in 2016 ( 232 ), and win the Presidency with 278 electoral college votes. He doesn’t need to win anything more. This is the least expected tally for Biden, a very minimum expectation.
In addition, if Biden wins either Florida (29) or North Carolina (15) , something that is more than probable given the consistent opinion polls over months, Biden would be heading for a very comfortable win with 293 electoral votes ( winning North Carolina alone ) or 307 electoral votes ( winning Florida alone ), a more comfortable win. Winning both Florida and North Carolina would give Biden a 322-216 win , a better margin than what Trump had in 2016 over Hillary Clinton. Ohio is possibly the only state of the above 6, where Trump has a better and realistic chance of holding on, although it may only be by a small wafer thin margin. And if Biden has the momentum to win even Ohio, as many opinion polls show him with a small lead or dead even with Trump, Biden would be headed towards a very big 340-198 victory and this is quite possible, as none of the 6 states we considered are safe Republican states, all are states won by Democrats a few times in recent elections and also Biden is leading in most of them with either clear or decent leads
Can Biden challenge safe Republican states Arizona, Georgia and Texas ?
This is a very big question as all these 3 states, Arizona , Georgia and Texas have been Republican strongholds for quite a few election cycles.
Arizona has been won by the Democrats only once after 1960: by Bill Clinton in 1996, just once in the past 60 years, every other election has been won by Republican candidates.
Georgia has been won by the Democrats only once after 1980 : by Bill Clinton in 1996, just once in 40 years, all other elections went to the Republicans.
Texas hasn’t been won by a Democrat since Jimmy Carter won it last in 1976, Republicans have won every election after 1976 and have sent 2 Presidents to White House, Bush Sr and Bush jr.
So why are we even talking about these 3 states ? It’s because that all these 3 states have shown very significant demographic shifts over the past 4-6 years, and particularly so over the past 2-3 years. These states have become more diverse in ethnicity , color and also age. All these 3 states have shown an increased number of voters of color, African American, Latino, Asian Indian and have also a younger voting population than before. A combination that’s very friendly to the Democrats. Further the recent election numbers for Senate, US house, Governor elections etc show a big shift from the Republican Party to Democrats.
Arizona (11 electoral votes) was won by Mitt Romney in 2012, by a 10% margin and 220,000 votes over Obama. In 2016, Trump won Arizona by a margin of 90,000 and just 3.5% and a reduction in margin by 130,000 votes. In 2018 senate election in Arizona caused by the death of Senator John McCain, Krysten Sinema the Democratic candidate snatched the seat by defeating Republican candidate Martha McSally by a margin of 56,000 votes and 2.5%. Arizona has been becoming more Democratic and all the opinion polls in the past few months have been showing a dead heat or a slight lead for Biden. So Arizona is very much in play for Biden and just a very small shift away from Trump, less than 3% towards Biden, can win Arizona for Biden and it’s 11 electoral votes.
Georgia (15 electoral votes) was won by Mitt Romney, Republican in 2012, he beat Obama by 305,000 votes and a 7.8% margin. In 2016, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by 211,000 votes and a 4.85% margin, it had come down significantly. In the 2018 Georgia Governor elections, Republican candidate Brian Kemp defeated Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams by just 55,000 votes and a margin of just 1.4%. Georgia has the largest proportion of African American voters in any state and there had been several instances of voter suppression over many years. Now the Democrats had been registering large numbers of African American voters and there is increasing enthusiasm and optimism among Georgia Democrats. The opinion polls over several months too have shown Trump and Biden in a very close fight and some polls show Biden or Trump barely leading by 1%. So Biden will be seriously looking for a win in Georgia and does have a very good chance to win its 15 electoral votes.
Texas (38 electoral votes) was won by Mitt Romney (R) who defeated Obama by a margin of 1.25 million votes and a 16% margin in 2012. In 2016, Trump won Texas by defeating Hillary Clinton by 800,000 votes and a 9% margin, a much reduced margin from 2012. Also, in the 2018 Senate race in Texas, Senator Ted Cruz of the Republican Party beat a tough challenge from Beto O’Rourke, Democratic candidate, winning by just 215,000 votes, 1/5th of the margin Romney had in 2012, and 1/4th of the margin Trump had in 2016.
What had been changing in Texas past 4 years is largely due to a very big change in the demographics of Texas. The state has seen a large influx of Asian Americans and non whites, qualified professionals from other states who had settled down in Texas, and this is a largely democratic constituency. There has been a huge increase in the voting age Latinos as well, and also many Latinos who have registered to vote for the first time. For the first time in US history the Latino voters have become the biggest minority voting community nationwide at 12% overtaking African Americans at 11%.
Trump may still win Texas, but its not going to be easy, at best it can be a very narrow margin. And there is a very good possibility that Biden can make history and flip Texas to Democrats. If the voter turnout is very high as early voting numbers appear to suggest, this unthinkable upset may well happen, and if it does, it’s game over for Trump, Texas with its 38 electoral votes, will settle the presidency for Biden even if he doesn’t win a single other state that Trump wrested from the Democrats in 2016, although those would be bonuses. ( my personal guess: Texas will throw up a big upset)
What will the result be ?
Let’s get to the all important question. Who will win the election? 270 electoral votes is the winning bar. Based on all the above numbers and political factors and electoral issues, my expectation is there is a 90-95% probability that Joe Biden will win the election to become the 46th President of the United States. There is a very small chance that somehow Trump will squeak through to a barely thin electoral college victory, but it’s extremely difficult and very less number of ways this can happen, given that Trump has to retain almost every single state he won in 2016, and he has been trailing in most battleground states for several months. And also, Trump’s approval ratings have been less than 45% and in the low 40% levels for almost a year and with more than 50% disapproval rating for the same time, and no incumbent President with such low ratings consistently has ever been re-elected. And there is a 90-95% chance of Biden winning by at least the 278-260 margin.
Can Biden get to the levels nearer 300-238 margins ? Certainly it’s highly probable that Biden will win at least 293 electoral votes just by adding North Carolina , and if he wins Florida, he will win 322-216, and there is certainly a 80% probability he will. Florida is a very close race and Trump is very competitive in Florida and can win narrowly too, but Biden leads narrowly in most polls. And if Biden can flip and win the last of the 6th battleground state we looked at, Ohio, Biden wins by a margin of 340-198. As Ohio is a little more difficult for Biden to flip compared to other battleground states, I shall give this scenario a 65-70% probability.
Now to address the main question of this article , Can Trump lose in a landslide ?
I would call anything close to 400-138 win as a landslide. For this to happen , Biden has to flip all the 3 Republican leaning states of Arizona, Georgia and Texas. It is possible for Biden to flip maybe one or two of this 3, and get closer to 380 votes. Flipping Texas too will take a major upset, and that would mean this is a wave election. Any such indication ? Hard to say but the early voting % breaking records and posting unprecedented levels maybe an indicator. Also I think that this election will see an overall record turnout of more than 150 millions ( 137 millions voted in 2016).
There is a chance, a possibility , maybe around 40% probability that Biden will win with a big margin and Trump can lose the election in a landslide.
Friday, December 8, 2017
Gujarat 2017 : Why Modi can lose Gujarat
But this is December 2017, and Gujarat goes to the polls to vote in the first phase of the 2 phase polls tomorrow. Even now nobody dares to suggest something as outrageous as BJP under Modi-Shah combine actually losing to a Congress led by newly elevated president Rahul Gandhi. But now, in December 2017, if this is suggested, there are not that many laughs, and a few people actually have that look that says "well ....surely it can't happen ... but ...hmmm ..maybe they will win ..but close ..yeah ..possible but who knows...but surely Modi can't lose Gujarat, and that too to Rahul Gandhi ". This sums up the entire scenario. Irrespective of what happens in this election, that such a possibility is not totally dismissed by itself explains why Modi-Shah are anxious...no, they are more than anxious, they are worried, and seriously worried. Two things indicate their extreme worry, their facial expressions while addressing rallies, and the foolish bravado of 150-160 seats that they claim they will win. The face and the eyes don't match the words. They know they are in trouble, and this bravado betrays their desperate hope of blustering their way out of a hole, which admittedly they have dug for themselves.
The key to analysing the electoral trend for 2017 Gujarat, and making hazardous predictions is to understand the progression from 2002, 2007, 2012, till now. Obviously 2012 will be the key as that was the last occasion when Gujarat voted for a state government. I'm not considering the 2014 Lok Sabha polls as any major indicator, as everyone and his uncle wanted to vote for BJP and Narendra Modi as PM, but even 2014 is 3 1/2 years behind. The key is the movement of the popular vote in Gujarat from 2007 till now. In 2007 BJP, with Modi as the sitting CM, having been CM for 5 years ( post the 2002 Godhra Gujarat riots and elections ), secured 64% vote share for the BJP and the Congress got 32%. It was a non contest as anyone will tell you, but the fact remains Congress secured 32% or 1 out of every 3 votes in an election where Modi and BJP were nearly at their peak political high. If even in those times Congress got 1/3rd of the vote, one can assume its rock bottom level is that. Its this number that we have to keep as the basis of all analysis here on. The Congress got 59 seats, approximately 1/3rd of the 182 member assembly even in its worst possible performance. BJP got 117 and Congress 59 seats in 2007, and in 2012 BJP got 115 seats and Congress 61 seats, a shift of 2 seats towards Congress, but the key factor is the BJP's vote share in 2012 had slipped to 48% from 64% and the Congress vote share had increased to 39% from 32%. The gap in vote share had reduced from 32% in 2007 to just 9% in 2012, but this was not taken note of in a bigger way as the seat difference wasn't much (just a 2 seat gain for Congress). Later on, we are going to see how important this vote share gap could mean.
Analysing the 2012 Gujarat Elections
Now on to 2012, let's see what the numbers actually tell us. While projecting and predicting voter behavior and the results from that we can expect tomorrow is an essential part of psephology, and could turn out right or wrong, it's dependant a great deal on what had happened in the past. Thats the reference point from where the present and the future can be understood. And that's the reason why 2012 holds the key to understanding what could possibly happen in 2017. Now, what was the situation in 2012 when BJP faced the Gujarat polls under Narendra Modi ?
* BJP and Narendra Modi were at a political peak in Gujarat.
* Modi was the sitting CM and contesting as a clear CM candidate himself
* Congress had been in power at the centre from 2004, and in 2012 the corruption scandals against Congress/UPA Govt were daily headlines, like 2G , Coalgate etc, and were facing massive public backlash in view of the same.
* Narendra Modi was projected as a possible PM candidate for the next Lok Sabha polls in 2014, when Gujarat went for Assembly polls in December 2012.
* A strong showing in the Gujarat Assembly polls was expected to boost and strengthen Narendra Modi's PM chances in 2014 and the election agenda itself was scripted around this theme.
* Keshubhai Patel, that veteran BJP strongman and former CM of Gujarat had split from the BJP and floated his own Gujarat Parivartan party and contested 165 assembly seats in 2012.
And it was in this scenario that the Congress in Gujarat took on the sitting BJP state govt under Narendra Modi. One would normally expect the Congress to slip further and the BJP to gain even more, compared to 2007. But most surprisingly the BJP lost 16% vote share from 2007 and the Congress gained 7% from their 2007 vote share. The vote share difference came down from 64%-32% ( 32%) to 48%-39% (9%), a whopping reduction of 23% in the popular vote difference compared to 2007.
With Narendra Modi as sitting Chief Minister and as the CM candidate and also as a possible PM candidate , and with Congress/UPA at its lowest, still the voting share shifted in favor of Congress from the earlier state election in 2007. Despite all the favourable factors the BJP had, it still lost 16% vote share from 2007. Even in this scenario, the BJP-Congress gap was just 9% in 2012 election , compared to 32% in 2007.
So what do the actual raw numbers of the 2012 Gujarat elections say ? It's very interesting. The BJP won 115 Assembly seats and captured power again, lost 2 from its 2007 tally of 117. The Congress increased its tally from 59 to 61 seats, and it's electoral ally NCP won 2 seats, making the alliance win 63 seats. The Keshubhai Patel Gujarat Parivartan Party, fighting against Narendra Modi and BJP as rebels, secured 10 lakh votes across 165 seats and actually won 2 assembly seats. This 10 lakh votes was 3.6% of the vote share.
Here are the actual vote numbers in 2012 :
Total votes polled in all 182 Gujarat assembly seats : 2.71 crores
BJP : 1.31 crores votes (48%)
Congress 1.06 crore votes (39%)
NCP (Congress ally): 2.7 lakh votes (1%)
Gujarat Parivartan party ( BJP rebel Keshubhai Patel ) 10 lakh votes (3.6%)
Absolute vote difference between Congress and BJP = 24.5 Lakh votes. ( The actual difference between Congress +NCP and BJP is 21.8 lakh votes)
Effective difference between BJP and Congress alliance = 8.07%
The seats position in 2012 is as follows.
BJP: 115/182 seats
Congress: 61/182 seats
NCP(Cong alliance): 2/182 seats
GPP (Keshubhai Patel) : 2/182 seats
How BJP won its 115 seats in 2012 and by what margins is the most critical factor here that holds the key to any kind of guesswork or estimate we can venture into for 2017.
Margin wise breakdown of the 115 seats won by BJP
0-3000 votes: 7 seats
3000-6000 votes: 13 seats
6000-10,000 votes: 11 seats
10,000-15,000 votes: 9 seats
15,000-20,000 votes: 21 seats
20,000-30,000 votes: 13 seats
Now is the most important statistic of the 2012 elections. The seats won by BJP by more than 30,000 vote margin.
30,000-40,000 vote margin: BJP had won 15 seats in this band, and the sum of the victory margins in these 15 seats adds up to 5 lakh votes.
40,000-50,000 vote margin: 7 seats with the sum of the victory margins in these 7 seats adds up to 2.93 lakh votes.
Above 50,000 vote margin: 19 seats with the sum of the victory margins in these 19 seats adding up to 12.47 Lakh votes.
This is the key statistic : The BJP had won 41 of its 115 seats by huge margins, the total of the victory margins in these 41 seats is 20.4 lakh votes . If we see a little earlier in this article, we would see that the total vote difference between the BJP and the Congress alliance was 21.8 lakh votes in 2012 , in all 182 seats put together. So effectively, of this 21.8 lakh votes, 20.4 lakh votes are highly concentrated only among the 41 seats won by the BJP. This means that the effective difference between BJP and Congress in the remaining 141 seats ( of the total 182) is just 1.4 lakh votes.
There is not a shadow of doubt that BJP will retain these 41 seats that it had won in 2012 with margins above 30,000. Perhaps the margins may be a bit reduced in these seats, but the BJP is 100% sure to retain all these seats. So the real analysis has to be among the 141 remaining seats.
I want to point out here that in this very same blog I had written an article in September 2016, analysing what could possibly happen in the US Presidential elections, Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump. While almost the entire US media and the world media and opinion polls were projecting a big Hillary win based on opinion polls that consistently showed Hillary with a 3-5% minimum lead in the national popular vote, I had estimated the Election a little differently. Hillary had enjoyed big vote margins in the 3 heavily democratic and populous states of New York, California and Illinois. She was absolutely sure to carry all these 3 states, hence I gave it to her and analysed only the remaining 47 states. In these states the margins between Republicans and Democrats were extremely lower, with the Republicans winning several of these states. In other words, the popular vote of the Republicans was better spread out to enable them to win more states. Hence , using this model (along with a few other voting factors) , I had projected a massive Trump win. And against all the opinion polls, Trump did win in a landslide and captured the White House.
https://harisampath.blogspot.in/2016/09/us-elections-2016.html?m=1
I think there are many similarities between the US Presidential elections of 2016 and the Gujarat Election of 2017. Obama was a powerful candidate in 2008 and won the election in a landslide. He was a powerful orator. He was seen as a successful President who again won in 2012, by a very slightly reduced margin, but this was the beginning point of Hillary's defeat in 2016. As Obama won comfortably in 2012, not many people noticed the reduced vote share in several states. In 2016, the Democrats had been in the White House for 8 years, and suddenly there was no Obama as candidate, but Hillary Clinton, who is no Obama by any stretch. So many Obama voters either turned away to Republicans or just didn't vote. Even Obama campaigning heavily for Hillary made no difference, as the people knew they were not going to get Obama for President. Here in Gujarat now, Modi who was a very successful CM and now PM, is also a powerful orator and had won 3 elections in Gujarat. He is campaigning heavily for the BJP, but Gujarat voters know they are not getting Modi for the CM, and the BJP has been having their vote share gradually reduced over the past 2 elections, even with Modi at the helm. And added to that is the anti incumbency, and hence the challenger Congress is very well placed to pull off a major upset.
Let's get back to the numbers. We have seen how the real battle is in the 141 seats where BJP just enjoyed a lead of 1.4 lakh votes in 2012. Of these 141 seats, the Congress plus NCP won 61+2 seats respectively in 2012. The NCP got a vote share of 1% which was 2.5 lakh votes, but this was essentially the Congress vote. Now the NCP is contesting alone, but won't get as many votes as it has zero possibility of winning.
My major premise for analysing the 63 seats won by the Congress alliance in 2012 is as follows : A Congress vote in 2012 is going to stay a Congress vote in 2017. This is because, if with Modi as sitting CM, himself as the CM candidate, with Congress/UPA facing heavy anti incumbency at the centre in 2012, as well as major corruption charges, if a voter had still voted for the Congress in Gujarat 2012 elections, there is no reason for that voter to switch his vote to BJP now, especially with no Modi as CM candidate and also in the current situation in Gujarat. This is a staunch anti Modi vote and shall remain so, hence I am assuming with reasonable confidence that Congress will retain all the 63 seats it won in 2012.
So this leaves us the remaining 141-63= 78 seats, which in reality is going to determine which way this 2017 election would go. If you see above in this article (vote margins of seats that BJP won in 2012), 40 seats were won by BJP with vote margins less than 15,000 votes.
0-3000 votes: 7 seats
3000-6000 votes: 13 seats
6000-10,000 votes: 11 seats
10,000-15,000 votes: 9 seats
These are the very vulnerable seats for BJP and how many of these the Congress can capture is going to determine their final tally. All it takes is just one out of ten BJP voters of 2012 to shift their vote to Congress in these 40 seats. The BJP got between 50,000 to 70,000 votes in most of these 40 seats and 1 out of 10 BJP votes shifting from BJP to Congress effectively means that 5000 to 7000 votes get reduced for BJP and 5000-7000 votes increase for the Congress. This will effectively wipe out all the 40 seats for the BJP. Even 1 out of 20 BJP voters shifting their vote to Congress, will wipe out 20 of these 40 seats for the BJP. Hence I am concluding that at the very least, with just this one factor alone, not even considering anything else (and there are plenty more factors to consider), the Congress will get a minimum of 83-103 seats range.
Other factors:
Hardik Patel may well emerge as the man of the elections for Congress. The patidars comprise about 15% of the voting population in Gujarat. But the Patels have long been loyal voters of the BJP, till it changed recently. Not all Patels vote identically. The Leuva Patels are economically well off and traditionally vote BJP. It's the Kadava Patels who are not that well off economically as well as educationally. It's this section of the Kadava Patels who have turned very badly against the BJP government and Hardik Patel has been organising a massive anti BJP movement for the past 2 years, demanding that the Patels be included in the OBCs for a 10% quota in reservations. Hardik Patel gained a massive following in 2015, mostly the youth, and he was jailed for 10 months under sedition charges. 14 Patel youth were shot and killed in police firing during the Patidar movement. Hardik Patel has addressed 260 rallies in Gujarat, mostly in the 70 seats where Patels are a decisive factor. Lakhs of people turn up for his rallies and roadshows. The BJP released a "sex CD" of Hardik Patel supposedly and tried to discredit him, showing they were panicking, but that increased his popularity and the youth started seeing the BJP as "sleaze politicians". With anything between 10,000-70,000 votes in more than 70 seats, the Patel votes and the Hardik Patel factor is sure to help the Congress as Hardik Patel has announced his total support for Congress to oust the BJP. The anger of the Patidar community is certainly going to hurt the BJP significantly in this election.
Alpesh Thakor, is a very popular OBC Kshatriya leader who has a big influence among his community voters. The OBC Kshatriyas comprise 22% of the electorate and have been traditional supporters of the Congress. Alpesh has joined the Congress and is contesting on a Congress ticket. This is bound to consolidate the OBC Kshatriyas vote even more behind the Congress. This could have decisive impact in most parts of North and Central Gujarat.
Jignesh Mevani , another young leader from the Dalit community has been leading big movements against the BJP. There had been a huge wave of anger against the BJP govt when 4 dalits were flogged by so called "cow protectors". Dalits have a 8% share of the total vote and in significant numbers in North and Central Gujarat. Jignesh himself is contesting as an Independent candidate with Congress support and in combination with the Alpesh Thakor vote, can cause serious damage to the BJP in North and Central Gujarat.
Keshubhai Patel factor
This is a very significant factor in this election although Keshubhai Patel himself is not in active politics now. The former CM and BJP strongman is a major force in Gujarat, especially among the Patel community. He broke away from the BJP in 2012, rebelling against Modi, and formed the Gujarat Parivartan Party, contesting 165 seats. He won 2 seats, but polled 10 lakh votes, ranging from 2000 to 30,000 votes in many constituencies. Later, after the election, the GPP was dissolved and merged with the BJP. But this section of the BJP voters, especially Patels, had shown even in 2012 that they were willing to vote against Modi. It's this section of the Patel vote that Hardik Patel has been gathering around him. Keshubhai Patel even supported Hardik Patel and the Patidar movement against the BJP in 2015. Hence it's quite certain that the Keshubhai Patel vote which is 10 lakhs will vote against the BJP now, and the Congress will gain that. 10 lakh votes that Keshubhai got in 2015 is more than 3.5% of the total vote and could decisively swing the election in favor of Congress.
GST and demonetization
Gujarat is largely a trading and manufacturing state. Gujarat was one of the hardest hit states by demonetization, and large sections of the trading community haven't recovered still from the impact of DeMo. A lot is said about Gujrati Asmita, Gujarati pride and a Gujarati Narendra Modi being the PM. And it's true to a large extent as well. But however much the Gujaratis love Narendra Modi, they love money more. Rich or poor, rural or urban, across caste and religion, Gujaratis are fundamentally businessmen by nature and even those who don't actually do business share this trait. It's a well known fact and the fastest way to become unpopular with a Gujarati is to take his money away from him. Gujaratis are a cash centric community and the textile and jewellery business was equally hit by the effect of DeMo. GST has added to the discontent of traders and businessmen, and even in urban strongholds of the BJP, palpable discontent can be seen. More importantly the farmers were hit hard by DeMo and lost an entire crop. It's this section that's going to hit the BJP very hard in the 98 rural seats of Gujarat. Congress is already stronger than BJP in the rural areas of Gujarat which I shall visit after this, but on the limited point of DeMo alone there is certainly an impact on rural Gujarat. It's certainly going to dent the vote bank of the BJP and to what extent it does, we will know on results day.
6% New voters
Almost 24 lakh first time voters have been added this time. Generally new voters and first time voters tend to be inclined towards change. They like to be anti establishment, and BJP brand of shrill Hindutva is not likely to strike a chord with them. Even the new vote splitting evenly in urban areas is bound to hit the BJP hard. A strong indication is that ABVP, the students wing of the BJP, lost the Gujarat University union elections, something unthinkable some years back.
Rural vs Urban Gujarat
What many opinion pollsters have not factored in is there are 2 Gujarats. 98 seats are rural and 84 seats are urban and semi urban. BJP had been winning Gujarat always because it gains more than 90% of the urban seats and also gets almost half of the rural seats. But not anymore. In the 2015 local body polls in Gujarat, the Congress grabbed 134 out of 230 Taluk Panchayats and 24 out of 31 District Panchayats and gained in a very big way in all the rural areas. The elections were after the Patidar and Hardik Patel movement started, and even in urban municipal corporations the BJP won with largely reduced margins. This clearly indicates a trend. And as DeMo happened after this, it can only mean worse news for the BJP in the 98 rural seats. The Congress stands poised to make major inroads into the rural seats and also cause significant damage in the 84 urban seats. Almost 60% of the BJP vote share in the whole state is from urban seats, with big concentrations as we saw earlier in this article. This could mean a further reduction in terms of seats for the BJP.
Voter turnout
This is going to be an interesting factor in this election. In 2012, the voter turnout was around 71%, but fell to 65% in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls. I expect the voting turnout to be at same levels numerically as the 2012 polls, 70% or thereabouts. But I have a deeper view of this than the mere numbers. For many elections now, BJP voters had been high enthusiasm voters and hence they turn out in large numbers. The BJP also has a better get-out-the-vote mechanism than the Congress, the last mile connectivity. One thing about the Congress vote is that it always loses a few percent voters who don't think it's worth coming out and voting. The BJP had been so dominant and the Congress so uninspiring in Gujarat, that a section of Congress voters had given up in the Modi era. There was not a ghost of a chance to beat BJP and hence they stayed home. But this is the first election in 15 years that the Congress voters actually think the BJP can be beaten. That's going to bring the sleeping Congress vote to the polling booths. There is hope for them. And on the other hand, there is a section of disenchanted BJP voters, hit hard by DeMo, GST, and also no Modi as CM, but they can't bring themselves to vote for the Congress, hence may stay home. They just may not have that levels of voting enthusiasm as they did in earlier elections. I think this could well mean a reduction of 2-3% of the BJP vote and an increase in 2-3% in the Congress vote, purely the enthusiasm or lack of, factor in the turnout. So a numerical figure of 70% turnout could well mean something different for both parties. And if this is lower than that, again it's the BJP which has greater cause for worry.
In conclusion, after looking at all the numbers, the indicators and the prevailing social, economic and political triggers, one thing is certain. This is like a case of the Cheetah chasing a Thomson's Gazelle. The Congress is the Cheetah, and senses a kill, has done its homework, crept up slowly on the BJP, the Gazelle, had gathered all the necessary resources like the Patidar leaders, Dalit leaders, OBC leaders, and has timed its spring. Like any hunt, anything can happen. The Gazelle is no slouch and in fact does outrun the Cheetah many times, it's fleetfooted. It could be touch and go for the Gazelle and it may well barely escape by the skin of its tail, maybe hurt a little bit. But for Rahul Gandhi and the Congress, even being the Cheetah and hunting the Gazelle is a win of sorts.
Even if the BJP manages to squeak through to a narrow win, the Congress would be defeated but not disgraced electorally and morally and politically the victory would certainly belong to the Congress in giving Modi, Shah and the BJP a bad fright in their own den. If the Congress manages a win, a narrow one by even 2-3 seats, they would be happy and over the moon. Just consider this fact. The Congress is so protective of its first family that if it thought it will be beaten badly in the Gujarat polls, the last thing they will do is to elevate Rahul Gandhi as its president now, of all times. I strongly feel that the Congress has ground level feedback that tells them strongly that they can beat the BJP or in a worst case scenario run them very close. This is precisely why they have timed the elevation of Rahul Gandhi as president in the middle of the Gujarat Election process, so that they can claim victory for Rahul Gandhi.
What I personally think is as follows: Although just a guess based on facts, numbers, trends , political situation etc, and instinct, I do not think this is going to be a close election. I think that almost all opinion pollsters have got it wrong.
This election will be a comfortable win for the Congress in the end. I have reason to believe that the Congress will cross 105 seats in Gujarat, possibly more, and a landslide win too cannot be ruled out.
Did I say at the beginning that saying Congress will beat the BJP in Gujarat is like saying in May 1983 that Kapil Dev's India can beat Clive Lloyd's West Indies and lift the World cup ? Well, we all know what happened :-)
Hari Sampath
Monday, October 16, 2017
World Poverty : A child dies every 3.5 seconds due to hunger
******************************
That said, how many of the 100s of millions of people who ask Google questions everyday and are provided information actually think about the world at large and whether everyone has had lunch or dinner that day ? Not many , one might venture to guess. How many people have had a full meal that day is not as important a question as , How many people actually thought it was a serious enough question . The answer to both questions is : Not very many. That's right ...not very many people had a full meal yesterday ( among the 6 plus billion world population) ...but sadder is the fact , not many bothered to ask ..or even wondered in course of their own meal of the day.
Just as a small test, ask 5 people you know if they have ever typed the word " Poverty" in the Google search bar and had seen , if not read the top important links . Ask those 5 people if they know how many children under 5 years of age die per year, purely due to hunger . The answer they wont know is : 8 million children per year. Yes, and not many people know this. Ask them if they know how many billions of tons of bread and food is dumped into the sea every year, and the chances are they wont know this either. Maybe its time this state of affairs should change and some idea should help in making humanity search with sensitivity. All it takes is for a person to type the word "poverty" in Google's search bar and then read. It will change the person, and by extension, it will change the world over a period of time.
8 million children die every year for only one reason, not accidents, not cancer, not any complicated disease, but just for only one reason : they don't have enough food to eat and die of sheer hunger. That's right..they starve to death.
The biggest problem facing human society over the past 40 years is Global poverty and poverty related issues of health that impedes economic independence, education and development. A specific focus of this idea, is immediately addressing the food shortage and hunger related issues around the world, particularly children dying of hunger related causes. Human civilization is perhaps at its most advanced, technologically and materially, but simultaneously there are people dying everyday due to hunger and malnutrition. If we type the word "poverty" in Google, the facts we see shock us; approximately 3 billion people, half the human race, live on $ 2 a day, and of this, more than 1 billion live in extreme and dire poverty, defined as $1 per day. 28,000 children die everyday purely because they don't have enough food to eat, malnutrition and related causes of death; that is one child dying every 3.5 seconds due to hunger, somewhere in the world, the time it took us to type the word "poverty" in Google.
The obvious beneficiaries would be those people in regions like South America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere whose very survival and hope for a life of minimum dignity has been under threat. The indirect beneficiaries would also be those impacted by such a yawning gap in human society that causes problems like crime, social unrest, and terrorism and threatens to tear apart the fabric of human coexistence in the coming 20 years. Indeed, humanity itself would be benefited. It would be far easier for future generations to pursue education, professional training and job opportunities in regions of the world, where it is currently almost unthinkable with even bare survival a challenge.
But the biggest beneficiaries would be those who inspire, take efforts and contribute to this program itself. The spiritual satisfaction that is gained by giving generously and making a difference in this world cannot be estimated, and the mission statement of this initiative by Google; gain good karma, is best indicative of who the real beneficiaries would be.
The very first step for this idea to get off the ground is to create a global awareness of what the levels of poverty are currently and how a great portion of the human population live in very poor living conditions. 28,000 children dying each day as a direct result of hunger and malnutrition is a human tragedy, and all of humankind should take a responsibility for this. But it hardly makes any headlines anywhere. In many ways, it is humanity's shame that we allow fellow humans to live and die in such subhuman conditions. It is tragic that 22 of the wealthiest nations had committed just 0.70% of their national incomes to address global poverty and many have not even committed a schedule for meeting even this minimal commitment (Monterrey UN Resolution 2002).
In fact, all it takes is a website, a media campaign internationally, and a link on Google, the rest will be taken care of by human goodness, with near miraculous effects. A global awareness campaign conducted online with the cooperation of national and local media should be undertaken on a war footing. Millions of people who would be extremely happy to make a difference would begin to see the seriousness of the problem and also the fact that just a little bit from each one can make a huge difference when the efforts united. This human potential can easily be organized and channelised given today's sophisticated technology and communication facilities. Of course, after the initial participation drive, volunteer leadership within birthday communities, involvement of governments, non profit organizations, media, celebrities and linking up with banks in various nations etc would become essential, but would evolve naturally. Just a one page message about the problem and this project on Google, would get 50 million people involved in 100 days.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
US Elections 2016
Right through this analysis, I'm treating the popular vote for all the election years, separately for the 3 states of California, New York and Illinois in one group and the remaining 47 states in another group. I do this for the reason that the Democrats have had a consistently large lead in these 3 states and had won these states very easily by large margins. It is almost certain to happen in 2016 as well, and hence it would be more accurate to analyze the popular vote in the remaining 47 states and see how the electoral college votes look there for the Democrats and Republicans.
McCain : 59.9 millions ( 45.7% )