Sunday, February 21, 2016

Media Spin on Nevada, South Carolina Election Results Defy Reality

There is little I find more interesting the media talking heads interpretation of election result.  Last night proved very entertaining.


CNN reports that Hillary Clinton had a "decisive" win in Nevada.  Other superlatives I heard was that the Clinton's win was "solid,"  Let's examine that "decisive," "solid" victory that Clinton supposedly
Sen. Bernie Sanders

Clinton won the Nevada caucuses with 52.7% of the vote.  That translates into 649 vote victory over Sanders.  If just 325 Hillary Clinton voters anywhere in the state of Nevada changed their vote in the precinct caucuses, Sanders wins. 

To do the Math differently, Democrats hold their caucus in Nevada at the precinct level. There are 1,835 precincts in Nevada. Only one Hillary Clinton voter would have had to change his or her mind in every six precincts for Bernie Sanders to have won.

The notion that Hillary Clinton won a great victory last night is not borne out by the numbers.  This is especially true when you consider that the polling showed seven weeks ago that Clinton led in the Silver State by 28 points and previously polled ahead by 46 points.  Given that advantage, one would think a 649 vote win would considered to be close, and possibly a lose for Clinton.

For the record, that much discredited (at least in Democratic circles) media outfit Fox News characterizes the result as Hillary Clinton "edging" out Sanders in the "closely-contested caucuses" in Nevada.

I don't mean to say that Bernie Sanders is on track to win the nomination.  I think Clinton's solid support among African-Americans will trump (pardon the verb) Sanders in the long run.  Her southern "firewall" of states that have large percentages of black Democrats is a real thing.

There is a bigger story though on the Democratic side that most media outlets are missing.  Unlike the 2008 race where the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drove record numbers of voters to Democratic primaries and caucuses, that doesn't seem to be happening this time around.  Even with some in the party "feeling the bern," Democrats are staying home while Republicans are the ones energized.


The media spin on the Republican side is equally absurd.  CNN reports that Trump had a "massive" victory.  New Republic possibly went even further calling Trump's win a "landslide."

In South Carolina Trump had 32.5% of the primary vote followed by Florida Senator Marco Rubio with 22.5% and Texas Senator Ted Crus with 22.3%.  I'm not sure there has ever been a "landslide" in which 2/3 of the voters voted for someone other than the winning candidate.

Like Clinton in Nevada, Trump had huge lead in South Carolina polls.  Most pegged him with a 15% to 20% lead.  A CBS poll released just a week before the South Carolina showed Trump's lead at 22%.  It was only a few days before the election that some polls started showing Trump's lead falling into the single digits. 

Listening to the political analysts, it seems the consensus was that if Trump didn't win by double digits it would be considered to be a loss.  So since Trump won by 10.0% that's considered a "massive," "landslide" victory while if his margin had fallen to 9.9% then it would be considered a loss?   Well possibly media spinsters round off, so maybe it would have had to fall to 9.4% to be a loss.  It is still absurd.

While the media talking heads seem ready to coronate Donald Trump as the GOP nominee, few seem to have noticed that there seems to be a 35% or so cap on Trump's support.  Scores of candidates have dropped out, yet Trump does not seem to be gaining any support from their departures.  Trump's 35% is a good performance in a race where the total vote is fractured among several candidates.  However, 35% does not look as good when the total vote is split between only two or three candidates.  Fortunately for Trump, although Jeb Bush suspended his campaign last night, Ohio Governor John Kasich and Ben Carson seem to be staying in for the long haul.


leon dixon said...

Sarah Palin
27 mins ·
Trump Smashes Records, Again; Democrat Turnout Declines, Again; Media Ignores the Reason, Again
Hat trick! Three in a row with a "yuuuge" Trump victory in Nevada last night. The ‪#‎TrumpTrain‬ rolls on, full steam ahead to Super Tuesday.
To all GOP beltway bellyachers crying (literally) this marks the "end of the GOP" or the people's vote for Trump is "bad for democracy," how about you try something new this morning: use your noggin and examine the facts.
The fact is, Trump's independence, commonsense conservatism, experience, success, and refreshing candidness attracts voters. But most significantly, his message INSPIRES AMERICANS! We CAN win again! Trump's building a new, broad coalition - bringing the GOP new, hardworking patriots who love America as much as he does. This is how he wins this fall.
- In the four states already voting (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada) each saw a record GOP turnout, smashing previous records.
- Nevada was so big, it's record-setting number equaled that of 2008 and 2012 turnouts COMBINED! Meanwhile, turnout for the democrat caucus declined by 33% - yikes!…/270555-gop-race-drives-record-turnout-…
- GOP turnout in South Carolina DOUBLED that of 2008, and grew another 130,000 new voters in 2016. Any bets on what happens Saturday when it's the democrats' turn?…/…/2583786
- Records broke in New Hampshire; again the GOP trajectory UP, democrats DOWN. Liberals lost thousands in their hot contest.…/new-hampshire-turnout-breaks-records-b…
- Iowa GOP caucus ranks grew by 60,000. On the other side? A strange, tight race was decided by only 0.3%...? Dems lost voters.…/caucus-turnout…/79626128/
Wake up, Old Establishment. You're the last to open your eyes to what is happening in this country. Donald Trump has awakened the electorate and exposed the self-serving political machine in a way no other could. The rest of us welcome new voters into what you've claimed to want - the "big tent" - even as you practice your disparaging elitism, trying to discourage us all. Your true colors show. As I said in Iowa, you don't care WHO wins elections as long as you keep your perks, crony capital favors, and inner-circle money-centric power. This is a merely a BUSINESS for you. You're in it for a season, not a reason. So obvious is your agenda, trying to destroy anyone who'd go rogue and not get sucked into your schemes, that when we find the candidate in the perfect position to bust up your cabal, you've gone into overdrive. Meanwhile we'll keep on winning, and encouraging all these new voters to bring family and friends along!
What is happening that the Permanent Political Class can't see? For our solvency and sovereignty, lovers of America knew the status quo had to go. We knew we needed a revolution. We found a revolutionary.
- Sarah Palin

Paul K. Ogden said...

Sorry, Leon, I was lost when the first reference to Trump being a "conservative" which he, of course, is anything but. I started to revive myself but then I ran across the nonsense that the ultimate crony capitalist Trump was against crony capitalism. I'm supposed to believe this drivel?

So we Republicans should nominate a "very pro choice" candidate who supports partial birth abortion, wants higher taxes, is for expanding Obamacare to be universal health care, wants my tax dollars to continue going to Planned Parenthood, supports affirmative action, is a person who doesn't believe in federalism and that it's okay for the President to bypass Congress by issuing executive orders? If that were the case, why not just re-elect Obama to another term or just vote for Hillary Clinton.

I'll be more impressed when Trump can get to 50% in a primary/caucus which is not likely since 60% of Republicans hate him because he's a fake conservative blowhard.