What Americans Think about Elections

[Ug make hammer]

This might help. It's a graph of the 2020 Illinois result. What we're looking for in a non-gerrymandered state is a nice straight line, with the most extreme partisan districts being for the majority.



This is really pretty good. To get representation equal to the popular vote, you'd need to "pack" more Democratic districts (left hand side), thus bringing the three most marginal Dem districts to (or below) the line where Republicans could expect to win them. But that would be gerrymandering!

If it hadn't been for the gerrymander since then, it's entirely possible Republicans would have won two or three more this year. Without Trump's unpopularity in that blue state, and with the mid-term advantage (mild though it turned out to be) they had a fair chance. But actually, Democrats gained one.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The same graph, for Illinois AFTER the 2020 redistricting. Note that Republicans lost two districts but Democrats only gained one, because Illinois overall lost a district.



The plateau of fairly safe districts is typical of a gerrymander. But Democrats didn't get the most out of their gerrymander: the district labelled 3.6 is IL-17 and is too close for comfort. Republicans can expect to win this some time later in the decade. And the worst Packing anywhere on the map is IL-04 ... Republicans didn't even contest it, so I have estimated it from PVI.

 

[Doug64]

IE you skipped the math and went with your own prejudice. Should I repeat the process for a Republicans state?

I "skipped the math" for two reasons. First, because you can't tell me that the percentages you gave were intentional on the part of those that came up with the map--that kind of precision simply isn't possible. Simply put, the purpose of gerrymandering is to increase the number of districts your party wins, and therefore a significant imbalance in districts won by each party is therefore strong evidence that gerrymandering has taken place ... and like California, Illinois' imbalance is very significant. Second, this year is bizarre--from what I've read the percentage by which Republicans are winning the general vote for the House is at a level that normally goes with a wave election, but there's no wave ... which means there is something unusual about how the Democratic vote is distributed this time. Which would mean that hitting that precise percentage is even more likely to be purely accidental.

2020 was the year of the Census yes, but redistricting happens between the Census and the next election. It's this year that the districts are fresh, not 2020.

You're right about population and attitude change though. Gerrymanders "wear off" somewhat during the decade after redistricting.

Yes, you're right, I didn't mean to imply that 2020 was the first post-census election. That unpredictability of the voters is one of the reasons that I'm not as concerned about gerrymandering as some others. Not that that means I wouldn't mind a constitutional amendment to deal with it....

 

[Ug make hammer]

I "skipped the math" for two reasons. First, because you can't tell me that the percentages you gave were intentional on the part of those that came up with the map--that kind of precision simply isn't possible. Simply put, the purpose of gerrymandering is to increase the number of districts your party wins, and therefore a significant imbalance in districts won by each party is therefore strong evidence that gerrymandering has taken place ... and like California, Illinois' imbalance is very significant. Second, this year is bizarre--from what I've read the percentage by which Republicans are winning the general vote for the House is at a level that normally goes with a wave election, but there's no wave ... which means there is something unusual about how the Democratic vote is distributed this time. Which would mean that hitting that precise percentage is even more likely to be purely accidental.

Not necessarily gerrymandering though. Republicans moving right would also account for a high vote in red districts where they don't get any benefit, but poor outcomes in more marginal districts.

Yes, you're right, I didn't mean to imply that 2020 was the first post-census election. That unpredictability of the voters is one of the reasons that I'm not as concerned about gerrymandering as some others. Not that that means I wouldn't mind a constitutional amendment to deal with it....

I still want to make the point that districts tend to avalanche to the majority party, when the state as a whole leans that way. It doesn't prove that gerrymandering took place.

Tennessee is as far right as California is far left (R+14 vs. D+13.). In this election they elected ONE of nine districts to be a Democrat. That's 11.1% when the popular vote was 34.6 / 65.4 (just between Dems and Pubs).

 

[Doug64]

Not necessarily gerrymandering though. Republicans moving right would also account for a high vote in red districts where they don't get any benefit, but poor outcomes in more marginal districts.

Possibly yes, though this is usually more of a problem for Democrats than Republicans, thanks to the way Republicans are more evenly spread throughout the country. It's the reason why, if the Electoral College were divvied up by House district (with the winner of the statewide popular vote getting the electoral votes of the two Senators) the count for Republicans usually goes up. In fact, IIRC, the only recent Republican candidate where the count would go down instead was Trump.

I still want to make the point that districts tend to avalanche to the majority party, when the state as a whole leans that way. It doesn't prove that gerrymandering took place.

Tennessee is as far right as California is far left (R+14 vs. D+13.). In this election they elected ONE of nine districts to be a Democrat. That's 11.1% when the popular vote was 34.6 / 65.4 (just between Dems and Pubs).

Perhaps, though I believe Tennessee has a divided state government? Which makes gerrymandering extremely unlikely. My own basic assumption is that any state with a large population (usually necessary for more effective gerrymandering) and a single party controlling the government is going to end up gerrymandering when the opportunity arises.

 

[Doug64]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. voters believe it is likely that the outcome of some elections this year will be affected by cheating, including 30% who say it’s Very Likely. Forty percent don’t think election outcomes this year are likely to be affected by cheating, including 18% who say it’s Not At All Likely. Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe it’s more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections, while 41% think it’s more important to make it easier for everybody to vote. A majority (52%) believe mail-in voting makes it easier to cheat in elections. Fourteen percent (14%) think voting by mail makes it harder to cheat, while 30% say mail-in-voting doesn’t make much difference in terms of election cheating. Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans believe mail-in voting makes it easier to cheat, a belief shared by 41% of Democrats and 45% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 32% of Likely U.S. voters believe Trump should run for president in 2024, while 60% say he should not. Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters still have a favorable impression of Trump, including 27% who have a Very Favorable view of the 45th president. Fifty-two percent (52%) view Trump unfavorably, including 41% whose opinion is Very Unfavorable. By comparison, 54% have a favorable impression – including 37% with a Very Favorable opinion – of Desantis, the Republican who was reelected by a landslide last week as Florida’s governor. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters view DeSantis unfavorably, including 24% with a Very Unfavorable impression of him.

 

[Doug64]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 71% of Likely U.S. voters believe it’s likely – including 40% who say it’s Very Likely – that problems with the election in Maricopa County affected the outcome of the Senate election in Arizona. Twenty-three percent (23%) don’t think the problems affected the Senate election, in which Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly defeated GOP challenger Blake Masters by a 51%-47% margin. The gubernatorial race in Arizona was even closer, with Democrat Katie Hobbs edging Republican Kari Lake by a margin of less than 20,000 votes. After reports of Election Day problems with vote tabulation in Maricopa County, Lake called the election “botched” and declared: “This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. This is about our sacred right to vote, a right that many voters were, sadly, deprived of on November 8th.” Seventy-two percent (72%) of Likely Voters agree with Lake’s statement, including 45% who Strongly Agree. Eighteen percent (18%) disagree, including 13% who Strongly Disagree, while another 10% are not sure.

Like Stalin said, it isn't who votes that matters, it's who counts.

 

[Doug64]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 33% of Likely U.S. Voters think Biden should run for reelection in 2024, while 55% say Biden should not seek a second term in the White House. Another 11% are not sure. However, if Biden decides against running for re-election, only 32% believe Harris should run for president in 2024, while 58% say she should not, and another 10% are not sure if the VP should seek the White House in 2024. Thirty-five percent (35%) of voters think Trump – who has already declared his candidacy for 2024 – should run for president again. A majority (53%) think Trump should not run again in 2024 and 11% are not sure.

I'd say the odds of us seeing another Trump/Biden face-off isn't very high, thankfully--though I'd love to see a DeSantis/Biden face-off....

 

[Doug64]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is more likely that Biden will be reelected in 2024, while 37% see a higher likelihood of him being defeated by the Republican nominee. Thirteen percent (13%) say it’s more likely Biden will be impeached before serving his full term in office, and another 13% are not sure. Four years ago, after Democrats had taken control of Congress, 34% expected President Donald Trump to be reelected, 31% believed he would be defeated in 2020 and 29% thought he would be impeached. Now, nearly two-thirds (65%) of Democrats think it’s more likely Biden will be reelected in 2024, an opinion shared by 10% of Republicans and 37% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans, 19% of Democrats and 31% of unaffiliated voters say it’s more likely Biden will lose to a Republican in 2024. Twenty percent (20%) of Republicans, 14% of unaffiliated voters and five percent (5%) of Democrats believe it is more likely Biden will be impeached.

 

[Lafayette]

From Pew Research Center: Most Americans say it’s very important to vote to be a good member of society

Excerpt:

Around seven-in-ten U.S. adults (69%) say it’s very important to vote in elections to be a good member of society – more than say the same about any of the other activities included in a Pew Research Center survey conducted earlier this year.

Which is a pretty good score, a bit more than two-thirds of the electorate. Not even half of the US population thinks it is important to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine - around 44% of the population.

Voting in elections seems to be a key-element to most Yanks, which is goodness:

But, if you are voting anywhere within a mix of people and you have no anti-Covid shots then wear a mask - you never know. ...

 

[Doug64]

Which is a pretty good score, a bit more than two-thirds of the electorate.

Which means that more people think it is important to vote than often vote. Can't say that surprises me. It does disappoint me, but not all that much--if people don't want to vote, they aren't likely to pay much attention to the issues and/or people they'd be voting about ... in which case, I'd rather they didn't.

 

[Doug64]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, if Biden and Trump were the candidates again in 2024, 45% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for Biden and 42% would vote for Trump, while 11% would vote for some other candidate. However, if Harris were to face Trump in 2024, 45% would vote for Trump and 42% for Harris, also with 11% voting for some other candidate. The findings indicate significant gains in support for Biden since January 2022, when voters favored Trump over Biden by a five-point margin, 46% to 41%. In December, only one-third of voters said they want 80-year-old Biden to seek reelection in 2024, and the same survey found just 32% want Harris to run for president if Biden decides against seeking reelection in 2024.

 

[Doug64]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters have a favorable impression of DeSantis, including 33% who have a Very Favorable opinion of the Florida governor. Forty-one percent (41%) view DeSantis unfavorably, including 31% with a Very Unfavorable impression of him. These findings haven’t changed much since last April. Thirty-five percent (35%) of voters believe DeSantis should run for president in 2024, while 42% think he should not and 22% are not sure. Among GOP voters, 48% say DeSantis should run in 2024, 31% believe he shouldn’t and 20% are not sure. If the choice for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination was between DeSantis and Donald Trump, 30% of all Likely Voters would support DeSantis, 26% would support Trump and 36% would support some other candidate. However, among Republican voters, 45% would support Trump and 32% would support DeSantis, with 14% supporting some other candidate.

One note on the 35% "should he run" numbers, when you break it down by parties a solid 59% of Democrats say he shouldn't run, a Republican plurality of 48% say he should run, and Independents are evenly split at 35% yes and no. And there are all sorts of practical reasons why Democrats don't want DeSantis to run....

 

[Ug make hammer]

One note on the 35% "should he run" numbers, when you break it down by parties a solid 59% of Democrats say he shouldn't run, a Republican plurality of 48% say he should run, and Independents are evenly split at 35% yes and no. And there are all sorts of practical reasons why Democrats don't want DeSantis to run....

"30% of all Likely Voters would support DeSantis, 26% would support Trump and 36% would support some other candidate" is actually damning of both of them. The other candidates are barely out of the gate.

 

[Doug64]

"30% of all Likely Voters would support DeSantis, 26% would support Trump and 36% would support some other candidate" is actually damning of both of them. The other candidates are barely out of the gate.

What other candidates, other than Nikki Haley? But it could be that DeSantis and Trump combined represent the Populist wing of the Republican Party.

 

[Individual]

Elections are the sum total of a plurality of voters support of various issues.

 

[Ug make hammer]

What other candidates, other than Nikki Haley?

Well Mike Pence and Tim Scott, but you're just making my point. 36% for "other" when they don't even know who the others are yet?

But it could be that DeSantis and Trump combined represent the Populist wing of the Republican Party.

As a Democrat supporter, I'm happy with either of them. If a Democrat enters the (actual) primaries with a big lead, expect Democrats to vote in the Republican primaries in large numbers. They will vote for Trump because Trump's chances of "best of three" are abysmal.

"Populist" is just jargon for "appeals to dumb voters" but you shouldn't count on voters being dumb, any more than they were in 2020. Voters got tricked, but they woke up.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Elections are the sum total of a plurality of voters support of various issues.

... weighted individually, then partitioned into states and districts. In other words, nothing like what you said.

Elections SHOULD be representative of baskets of issues (platforms of more than two parties), sending representatives to bargain their issues to contribute to a majority coalition. Even that's not perfect, but it's way better than the US Two Party System.

Only 10% of Americans believe that marijuana should be outright illegal. Yet the Federal government has not changed the law.

 

[Individual]

... weighted individually, then partitioned into states and districts. In other words, nothing like what you said.

Elections SHOULD be representative of baskets of issues (platforms of more than two parties), sending representatives to bargain their issues to contribute to a majority coalition. Even that's not perfect, but it's way better than the US Two Party System.

Only 10% of Americans believe that marijuana should be outright illegal. Yet the Federal government has not changed the law.

What you say doesn't diminish what I said.

 

[Doug64]

"Populist" is just jargon for "appeals to dumb voters" ...

Spoken like a true elitist.

 

[Doug64]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, if the 2024 election were between Haley and Biden, 45% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for Haley and 41% would vote for Biden. Ten percent (10%) say they’d vote for some other candidate. Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters view Haley favorably, including 17% with a Very Favorable impression of her. Thirty-seven percent (37%) view her unfavorably, including 17% with a Very Unfavorable impression. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure. Haley served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations after being appointed by Trump, who has already announced he will seek another White House term in 2024. In a hypothetical three-way contest for the GOP nomination between Trump, Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, 52% of Republican voters would choose Trump, 28% would pick Haley and 24% would vote for DeSantis.

 

[Doug64]

A new telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and College Republicans United finds that 55% of Likely Arizona Voters believe it is likely that problems with the 2022 election in Maricopa County affected the outcome, including 35% who think it’s Very Likely. Forty percent (40%) say it’s not likely that the problems in Maricopa County affected the election outcome, including 29% who believe it is Not At All Likely. Republican candidate Kari Lake officially lost to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs by a margin of about 17,000 of more than 2.5 million votes cast. Lake filed a lawsuit challenging the result, and the state Supreme Court will hear her appeal next week. Of the 92% of Arizona voters who say they voted in the 2022 election, the new survey found 51% voted for Lake and 43% voted for Hobbs, while five percent (5%) say they voted for some other candidate.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Spoken like a true elitist.

I think I'm BETTER than the average voter. And I see no reason to be ashamed of that.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Of the 92% of Arizona voters who say they voted in the 2022 election, the new survey found 51% voted for Lake and 43% voted for Hobbs, while five percent (5%) say they voted for some other candidate.

LOL. 0.03% voted for some other candidate.

It's not often that you can measure the systemic error of a poll (eg people lying) but right here we have Rasmussen on the spit.

 

[Tender Branson]

Of the 92% of Arizona voters who say they voted in the 2022 election, the new survey found 51% voted for Lake and 43% voted for Hobbs, while five percent (5%) say they voted for some other candidate.

LOL. 0.03% voted for some other candidate.

It's not often that you can measure the systemic error of a poll (eg people lying) but right here we have Rasmussen on the spit.

This Rasmussen poll is a joke.

OHPredictive Insights (which closely predicted the actual outcome in AZ, has Gov. Hobbs at a much higher favourable rating and job approval than Rasmussen.

Press Releases | Noble Predictive Insights

The latest research data on timely and hot button topics

blog.ohpredictive.com

Rasmussen is just releasing "numbers" that have nothing to do with the reality in Arizona and they try to keep the "election was rigged" story going.