US Elections 2016

For starters, I'm relying upon official figures from the 2008, 2012 election results , taken from Wikipedia. And also projected voter figures for 2016, I have taken from Wiki and other sources.

Some of the premises I am making are of course subjective, regarding voter mood and estimates of how various demographic groups would vote now, compared to 2008 and 2012. I am also taking Pew research data on issues confronting the electorate and how important this election is.

          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.

2008 Election: Obama vs McCain.

Major factors and background :

1. 8 years of George Bush and Republican White House, very unpopular presidency, war on Iraq.

2 . First Black Presidential candidate, Obama, big national mood for change, younger candidate and running on the theme of " change".

3. Big Voter enthusiasm nationally, especially among Democratic and neutral voters for Obama, and lesser among Republican voters for John McCain.

The Numbers :

Voter turnout : 131 millions , approximately 62%

Pew Research data on electorate enthusiasm :

Thought a lot about elections : 72%

Thought very little : 23%

Matters very much who wins election: 63%

Doesnt matter , things will be same 32%

Popular vote :

Obama  : 69.5 millions ( 52.9% )

McCain : 59.9 millions ( 45.7% )

Difference : 9.6 millions

Obama 365 electoral votes ; McCain 173 electoral votes .

Popular vote in the 3 states of New York, California and Illinois :

Obama : 16.4 millions

McCain : 9.7 millions

Difference in popular vote in CA, NY and IL:

 6.7 millions. ( For Obama )

Popular vote in remaining 47 states :

Obama : 53.1 millions

McCain : 50.2 millions

Difference in remaining 47 states : 

2.9 millions ( for Obama)

As a % of popular vote in 47 states :

 2.7% ( for Obama )

Electoral votes in CA, NY and IL : 107

Obama: 107

McCain : 0

Electoral votes in remaining 47 states: 431

Obama: 258 

McCain: 173

2012 elections : Obama vs Romney:

Major factors and background : 

1. Economic slowdown/ recession 2008-2010 after sub prime crisis and collapse of Wall Street banks.

2. Unemployment higher.

3. Bailout of Wall Street street banks by the Obama govt.

4. Lesser voter enthusiasm than 2008, anti incumbency for Obama. Slightly better voter enthusiasm for Romney/Republicans compared to 2008.

The numbers :

Voter turnout : 129 millions ( 57.5% approximately)

Pew Research data on electorate enthusiasm:

Thought a lot about elections :  67%

Thought very little : 30%

Matters very much who wins elections : 63% 

Doesn't matter , things will be same : 34%

Popular Vote :

Obama : 65.9 millions (51.1%)

Romney 60.9 millions (47.2%)

Difference in Popular vote : 5 millions

Popular Vote in the 3 states of California, New York and Illinois :

Obama : 15.3 millions

Romney : 9.3 millions

Difference in Popular vote in the 3 states of California, NY and IL : 6 millions ( for Obama)

Electoral votes in CA, NY, IL :

Obama: 104 Romney : 0

Popular vote in the remaining 47 states :

Obama : 50.6 millions

Romney: 51.6 millions

Difference in Popular vote in the remaining 47 states : 1 million votes ( for Romney ) 

Between 2008 and 2012, the shift in popular vote from Democrats to Republicans in the 47 states: 

3.9 million votes ( from 2.9 millions plus  for Obama in 2008, to 1 million plus for Romney in 2012)

Electoral votes in remaining 47 states: 434

Obama : 228 ;  Romney: 206

COMPARISON BETWEEN 2008 AND 2012.

1. Reduction in National  popular vote for Democrats in 50 states in 2012:

3.6 million votes ( 69.5 to 65.9 millions)

2. Increase in National popular vote for Republicans in 50 states in 2012 :

1 million votes ( 59.9 to 60.9 millions )

3. Reduction in Popular vote for Democrats in CA, NY and IL in 2012:

1.1 million votes

4 Reduction in popular vote for Republicans in CA, NY, IL in 2012 :

400,000 votes

5. Reduction in Democrat/Republican margin in CA, NY and IL : 500,000 votes.

6 . Reduction in Popular vote for Democrats in remaining 47 states in 2012:

2.5 million votes ( 53.1 to 50.6 millions)

7. Increase in popular vote for Republicans in the remaining 47 states in 2012:

1.4 millions.

8. Difference in popular vote in 47 states in 2012:

1 million votes ( for Republicans,  from down 2.9 millions in 2008 to up 1 million ) a shift of 3.9 millions

9. Shift in Electoral votes between 2008 to 2012: 

Republicans gain 33 , Democrats lose 33 in the 434 electoral votes of 47 states ( the electoral votes of CA/NY/IL reduced from 107 in 2008 to 104 in 2012)

2016 Elections : Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton

Total eligible electorate :

225 millions 

Pew  Research data on electoral enthusiasm:

Thought a lot about the elections : 80% ( 72% in 2008; 67% in 2012)

Thought very little : 15% ( 23% in 2008; 30% in 2012)

Matters very much who wins elections: 74% ( 63℅ in 2008; 63% in 2012)

Doesn't matter, things won't change : 22% ( 32% in 2008; 34% in 2012)

The gap between the numbers on both the questions that indicate electoral enthusiasm, is very high for 2016, higher than the 2008 elections, and very much higher than the 2012 elections. When mapped to the turnout in 2008( 62% approx) and to 2012 ( 58% approx) , there is a very good chance that the 2016 elections would see a much higher turnout . It could exceed 63% and possibly touch 65% as well, which translates to between 141 million voters to 147 million voters , based on the current eligible voters, 225 millions. This would be an increase of 12-18 million voters over the 2012 turnout, and 10-16 million voters over the 2008 turnout.

The key to mapping the Electoral enthusiasm levels ( as measured by Pew Research), and arriving at a voting turnout percentage, is a comparison between 2008 and 2016. In 2008, the electorate was fed up after 2 terms of a Republican White House, with President George Bush being perhaps one of the most unpopular US presidents. This would have contributed to 72% of the people who " thought a lot" about the elections in 2008. Additionally, Obama was the first African American candidate running for the White House as a major party nominee, the Black voter turnout increased to 13% in 2008, up from 11% in 2004, and Obama not surprisingly got 95% of the black vote. And he ran on a platform of " Change we can believe", and 68% of the people thought a change and who does win  matters and things would be better with a change.

Now see the same figures for 2016. 80% of the electorate has " thought a lot" about the elections, and 78% think that a change and who does win matters and the change will make a difference. These are far higher figures than in 2008, and this time it's after 2 terms of a Democratic White House. The new or fresh factor in 2008 was a younger African American candidate running against the incumbent party in power. Now the new or fresh factor is not just one , it's two. There is a  woman running for the White House for the first time in US history. But she is from the incumbent party in power now, Democrats have held the White House for two terms, and Hillary Clinton is essentially running for a 3rd term for Democrats. 

On the other hand, the Republicans have as their candidate, Donald Trump, an anti establishment Billionaire , who seemed to be as much against the traditional Republican politicians as he is against the Democrats. This was reflected in Trump, much against all predictions, trouncing 10 Republican candidates to win the nomination. He is not a career politician , has no political experience, hasn't held any office, his views aren't strictly Republican, he has run an unconventional campaign, and his campaign has been against the "status quo and Washington establishment insiders", both Republicans and Democrats. 

It is in this scenario we need to understand the enthusiasm factor of the electorate, which is at its highest since the past several Presidential elections, higher than even 2008, with voter turnout possibly becoming the highest for more than 30 years in terms of percentage of eligible voters. Is this positive enthusiasm ? Both the candidates, Trump and Clinton have been described as " very disliked"  by more than 50% of the electorate. This seems to be an election between two candidates based on who is disliked more. Trump has made some atrocious comments in course of his campaign past one year, that has made him being labelled " racist and bigoted" , and also " anti women" , and " anti Muslim". His views on Muslims and immigration from some Arab/Asian nations, as well as his views on Latino immigration from Mexico has  drawn sharp criticism from the mainstream media, which is largely left-liberal leaning. Trump has also not chosen to disclose his tax returns till now, which hasn't gone down well with large sections of the electorate. More than half of those who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton say that they are in fact voting against Trump.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, she is almost equally disliked as Trump. Hillary Clinton has been the First lady for 8 years during the Bill Clinton Presidency in the 1990s, was Senator for many years from New York, and after a failed presidential bid in 2008, she became Obama's Secretary of state. She has a string of scandals to her name, beginning from the Whitewater scandal when she was First lady, and the Benghazi scandal when she was Secretary of state between 2008-2012, when a US Ambassador was killed in Libya in a terrorist attack, and she apparently knew more about it. And additionally Hillary has been caught up in a massive Email scandal, where she has used a private email server from the basement of her home for official purposes and is still facing an ongoing enquiry. She is accused of deleting 33,000 emails that could potentially be incriminating for her. Worse still for Hillary Clinton, she is embroiled in another controversy, her Clinton foundation has been accused of accepting millions of dollars in donation from many business interests who were transacting official business with her as Secretary of state. She is accused of making decisions as secretary of state, that favored these donors, an accusation that falls barely short of bribery. Hillary Clinton is seen as extremely untrustworthy, with many people thinking she is a liar who could be tried for felony.

So between these two candidates, what exactly is driving the very high voter enthusiasm in this election ? The obvious answer is voters of both candidates are in fact voting against the opposing candidate and not positively for their own candidate. But is it that simple ? There is a combination of positive and negative voter enthusiasm in this election that is spread between both candidates that could be very hard to break down, the balance between how positive and for whom, and how negative and against whom could be the key to making projections in this extremely unpredictable election. Apart from the extremely committed Democratic and Republican vote for their respective candidates, anyone else, whether Republican leaning, or Democrat leaning, or uncommitted would be weighing the positives and negatives in their own frameworks. It is this that has to be broken down, and the factors that could contribute to such voting decisions.

Let's begin by analysing the Hillary Clinton vote. For this purpose, it's essential to compare the Obama vote of 2008 and 2012 first as this gives us the basis for analysing the Hillary vote of 2016 --- at least the positive Hillary vote. Obama, after his high enthusiasm candidacy of 2008, running as the challenger after 8 years of Republican/Bush White House, and getting 69.5 million votes against John McCain, 10 million votes more, himself slipped to 65.9 million votes in 2012 against Mitt Romney after one term of 4 years. Obama still won , but 2012 was a very low enthusiasm election according to Pew Research data. Obama just secured 65.9 million votes to Romney's 60.9 million votes in 2012, a reduction of 3.6 million votes from 2008. Is Hillary anywhere close to Obama as a candidate ? Certainly not. Obama had no scandal to his name, and was not seen as untrustworthy, even in 2012. Hillary Clinton is seen as untrustworthy, as well as being part of the establishment for 25 years, with a slew of scandals tied to her, and she is running for president after 8 years of a Democratic White House, basically seeking a 3rd term for the Democrats. Can she get the same votes as Obama did , even in 2012 ? Certainly not as a positive vote. As we saw earlier, whatever vote she gets is going to contain a large share of an " anti Trump vote", and a very small share of a positive vote. If 4 years of a Democratic presidency for Obama himself as a candidate cost him almost 5 million votes and 33 less electoral college votes in 2012, how much more would 8 years of a Democratic presidency cost a scandal ridden , untrustworthy and disliked Hillary Clinton in 2016 ? And more than anything else, a vote for Hillary is not a vote for change. She has plenty of baggage, is not the agent of change and has been part of the Washington establishment and power structure far too long.

There is one more very important factor to be considered while analysing the Hillary vote and the enthusiasm factor among Democratic voters. The voter turnout at the Democratic primaries now in 2016 was lesser than it was in 2012, and far lesser than it was in 2008 , Hillary lost the nomination to Obama in 2008, it must be remembered. In 2016, Senator Bernie Sanders ran a very strong campaign for the Democratic nomination. He fired up the Democratic voters and was seen as the agent of change and different politics , especially among younger voters. He polled almost 15 million votes in the primaries, and in an email leak of the Democratic National committee, it was shown that the establishment Democrats had conspired to sabotage Senator Sander's campaign by floating mischievous emails to the delegates and Hillary Clinton was seen to be behind it. Eventually Hilary won the Democratic nomination, but left several millions of Sanders supporters fuming in anger. Sanders himself , although he endorsed Hillary, has hardly been an enthusiastic campaigner for her, and it is anybody's guess how many of his supporters would actually turn up to vote for Hillary Clinton. Even during the Democratic National convention in Philadelphia, Bernie Sanders supporters , "Bernie or bust" as they called themselves, booed and held demonstrations against Hillary Clinton.  All this could mean further loss of the Democratic vote for Hillary Clinton, even a loss of 2-3 million Sanders voters, could prove critical.