Politicspolitics

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 01:48 PM

2018 Exit Polls

Age Of Voters
Voters' age: 18-24 were 7% of all voters. They voted 68% Democratic and 31% Republican.
Voters' age: 25-29 were 6% of all voters. They voted 66% Democratic and 33% Republican.
Voters' age: 30-39 were 15% of all voters. They voted 59% Democratic and 37% Republican.
Voters' age: 40-49 were 16% of all voters. They voted 52% Democratic and 46% Republican.
Voters' age: 50-64 were 30% of all voters. They voted 49% Democratic and 50% Republican.
Voters' age: 65 and older were 26% of all voters. They voted 48% Democratic and 50% Republican.
There were 18,778 Respondents.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls

51 replies, 398 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply 2018 Exit Polls (Original post)
jh4freedom Dec 5 OP
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #1
bruiserboy Dec 5 #2
jh4freedom Dec 5 #3
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #5
jh4freedom Dec 5 #7
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #8
jh4freedom Dec 5 #10
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #17
jh4freedom Dec 5 #39
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #40
jh4freedom Dec 5 #45
GoldwatersSoul Dec 6 #50
bfox74 Dec 5 #24
jh4freedom Dec 5 #42
bfox74 Dec 6 #48
orson Dec 5 #19
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #20
bfox74 Dec 5 #25
jh4freedom Dec 5 #43
bfox74 Dec 6 #47
bruiserboy Dec 5 #11
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #21
jh4freedom Dec 5 #23
KittyCatIdiots Dec 5 #4
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #6
jh4freedom Dec 5 #9
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #15
jh4freedom Dec 5 #26
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #27
jh4freedom Dec 5 #28
Salaam Dec 5 #29
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #30
Salaam Dec 5 #32
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #33
Salaam Dec 5 #34
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #36
Salaam Dec 5 #37
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #38
jh4freedom Dec 5 #44
GoldwatersSoul Dec 6 #51
_eek Dec 5 #12
jh4freedom Dec 5 #16
_eek Dec 5 #18
jh4freedom Dec 5 #35
_eek Dec 6 #49
PrescientWon. Dec 5 #13
jh4freedom Dec 5 #14
PrescientWon. Dec 5 #22
jh4freedom Dec 5 #31
Bronxbomber Dec 5 #41
jh4freedom Dec 5 #46

Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 01:53 PM

1. Now...

separate California from your numbers and recalculate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 02:01 PM

2. Exactly correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 02:03 PM

3. No way; that would skew the findings

Californians are 12% of the U.S. population,12% of the members of the House of Representatives and 10% of the Electors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 02:10 PM

5. California skews....

the general consensus of the country. If we distribute California evenly throughout the US. Their views would shift and again the nation would be a center-right nation as it has always been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 02:15 PM

7. There are states that have zero Republicans in their congressional delegations

California isn't one of them. Massachusetts and Hawaii are two such states, from East coast to far West.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 02:23 PM

8. What is your point??

I am talking about the general population. Politicians and their parties are full of shit. They may represent something but certainly not anythibg definitive and like a chameleon they change their positions and rhetoric like they do their underwear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 02:53 PM

10. What's YOUR point?

This thread is about the demographic data on who voted in the 2018 mid-term elections based on thousands of exit interviews.
Nobody cares what you think of political parties. That is totally irrelevant to looking at who voted in the mid-terms this year and why.
This year saw a massive increase in turnout for a mid-term election in terms of raw numbers of voters.
In my humble opinion why that happened this year warrants some analysis.
An estimated 49.2% of eligible voters voted. That's nearly 116 million people. That's the highest recorded rate for the midterms since 1914 when turnout was 50.4% and women didn't even have the vote. We just missed setting the all-time record by a percentage point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:34 PM

17. You speak of parties...

as if they mean something.

My point is that the poll numbers dont mean much especially when skewed by large states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 06:21 PM

39. You mean to tell me

That 114 million American voters didn't select candidates of different political parties in November?
The vote for members of the House of Representatives reflects the actual population of the United States divided fairly equally between 435 districts.
I understand that political parties man nothing to you but you do not represent the views of a majority of the people who vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 06:27 PM

40. And I told you from the beginning...

eliminate one large state from that 50-50 and the numbers would be significantly different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 11:31 PM

45. You're talking about a hypothetical

I'm discussing what actually happened from the point of view of current national demographics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 09:30 AM

50. Apropos....

nothing...wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 04:18 PM

24. Go ahead and keep thinking that the national numbers will translate

to the 50 separate elections in 2020. Just like they did in 2016. Go ahead, be my guest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bfox74 (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 06:57 PM

42. Not the topic

This thread is about what actually happened in the 2018 mid-term elections. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the faintest idea what will happen in 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 02:04 AM

48. Was there a national race in 2018?

No. Your data is taking state numberrs and shoe-horning them into a nation-wide picture. Doesn't work that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:40 PM

19. If 50,000 Californians

moved to Wyoming we'd have 2 more Democratic senators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:46 PM

20. Not for long...

In short order, Californias and other liberals that move to certain areas would shift to the culture and realities of the place they moved to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 04:20 PM

25. Exactly! Remove them from the lunatic liberal fringe and let them think for themselves

and watch them become self-aware conservatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bfox74 (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 07:05 PM

43. it works both ways

People in formerly red states that are now blue or purple complain about how the liberals are taking over (see Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico and Washington).
Conservatives in the state that elected Republicans Ronald Reagan, George Dukemeijian, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor complain about the loss of conservatives.
And Iowa is a good example of a state that has gone from deep blue to deep red.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 02:03 AM

47. When I moved from a red state to a blue state I became more conservative

once I saw the lunacy of liberalism. I just couldn't wrap my brain around some of the non-sensical crap they were spewing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:06 PM

11. Fact

Hillary Clinton’s Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California, without Cali she would have lost the popular vote by more than a Million votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bruiserboy (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:47 PM

21. Indeed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bruiserboy (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:50 PM

23. Fact Check: Hillary Clintons Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California

RESULT: MIXTURE /
On 18 December 2016, the Federalist Papers, a conservative web site, posted a story headlined “Hillary’s Popular Vote Win Came ENTIRELY from California”:

If the election was decided by the popular vote, than we would be swearing in a President Hillary Clinton.

But that’s not how it works. And — as he has said many time — if Donald Trump was campaigning for the popular vote, rather than the electoral vote, he would have campaigned much differently.

But he didn’t and Hillary’s margin of victory in that state was 4.3 million votes — or 61.5 percent

And therein lies the rub.

The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections…

If you take California out of the total, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.
As the web site pointed out, as of 19 December 2016 CNN had Hillary Clinton winning a popular vote margin over Donald Trump with totals of 65,788,583 to 62,955,363 respectively, a margin of approximately 2.8 million votes (although Trump won the presidency by securing 306 electoral college votes, 36 more than he needed to claim victory).

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.

There is some validity to pointing out that the 2016 election is an exemplar of a modern trend that generally sees Democratic candidates tending to receive large numbers of votes from densely-populated metropolitan areas in states such as New York and California, while Republican candidates tend to collect votes from geographically larger but less populated portions of the country — one of the main factors behind this election’s disparity between the popular vote (which Clinton won) and the electoral vote that actually decides the election (which Trump won). This phenomenon could be viewed as a positive, that our electoral system requires winning presidential candidates to have broad national support and not just rack up huge margins in a relatively small number of high-population centers. On the other hand, some argue that our government should represent people and not geography, and therefore the location of voters should be irrelevant.

It may also be true, as Donald Trump has claimed, that without our winner-take-all electoral system (under which it makes no difference whether a candidate loses a state by 100 votes or 10,000,000 votes) that generally forces candidates to focus their efforts on a handful of “swing” states, he might have campaigned differently and garnered more popular votes than Hillary Clinton did. But freed from those electoral constraints, Clinton might also have campaigned differently and won more popular votes than she actually did — all such imaginings are just speculation that cannot be proved one way or the other.

In any case, it is true that the margin of votes by which Hillary Clinton won the state of California was significantly greater than the margin by which she won the national popular vote. But even if Clinton’s 4.3 million vote victory over Trump in California provided her overall winning edge, it wouldn’t be an issue if she hadn’t also amassed enough votes all the other states to make that outcome possible.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #1)


Response to KittyCatIdiots (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 02:13 PM

6. That would be fine....

separate them out and show the results. You would see how the California voting bloc would be ineffective and unsatisfactory in decision making for the rest of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 02:35 PM

9. How Exit Polling is conducted

Edison Research Inc. the company that conducts the largest and best known national exit polls balances its samples in every state in the union to reflect exactly the current demographic make up of the nation according to U.S. Census data.
For exampke, California being 12% of the nation's population and 12% of the members of the House got 12% of the exit interviews conducted on a precinct by precinct level.
Here's a link to an FAQ on Edison Research's Exit Poll methodology:
https://www.edisonresearch.com/election-polling/#toggle-id-4

From the FAQ: "How can I have confidence in a race that you call?
Since Edison Research began conducting exit polls for the National Election Pool in 2003, the news organizations using the Edison data have not made a single mistake in deciding a winner in any race. We use a high standard of care in making sure that the information and analysis that we provide news organizations is accurate. All surveys, including exit polls have a sampling error and Edison Research makes certain to take that into account before advising news organizations of the winner in any race."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:25 PM

15. However....

the poll numbers you listed were nationally compiled. In the end however. Polls are nothing more than candy for the morons who need confirmation bias to ease their mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 04:44 PM

26. And yet...

EVERY national political figure hires their own pollsters! Go figure!
2018 proved to be an amazing year for polling accuracy. An average of the major national polls taken by the conservative leaning news aggregator site realclearpolitics.com predicted a Democratic victory by 7.3 points. The actual election outcome was a Democratic victory by 7.9 points. Most polls have a +/-3 point statistical margin of error so to only be off from the actual vote count by an average of 6/10ths of a point is amazing.
Of course, as always, some polls were much more accurate than others.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2018_generic_congressional_vote-6185.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 04:56 PM

27. Of course....

politicians use polls to motivate the electorate.

Internal polling is far more reliable than the stupid shit the general public gets.

Polling for campaigns is engineered to identify possible paths to victory and to determine whether their rhetoric is effective.

Polls were accurate this time but complete failures in 2016. The 2018 polls are going to fuck 2020 because they will have to redetermine democrat enthusiasm which they will overstate and kill their 2016 equity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:12 PM

28. SOME 2016 polls were right on the money and others were way off

Just like every other election. Polls don't predict the electoral vote, they predict the popular vote. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 points and realclearpolitics' average of ten national polls had predicted a Clinton popular vote victory by 3.2 points, so they were off by 1.2 points.
The most accurate poll of 2016 was ABC News/Washington Post. The actual election result was Clinton: 48.2% and Trump: 46.1%. ABC News/Washington Post predicted Clinton: 49% and Trump 46%, so they missed Clinton by a little less than 1 percent and they got Trump's popular vote total exactly right.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:17 PM

29. So only poll the Trump voters?

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:21 PM

30. You suppose....

Only California voted for someone other than Trump?? I dont really care about Trump or his voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:23 PM

32. Anyone can slice and dice the polls to show something.

Like Trump claiming a tremendous victory in 2018.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:27 PM

33. What about it???

That is not my intention. I font give a fuck about party politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:29 PM

34. A national poll covers all of the states.

So eliminating California serves no purpose.

The GOP lost 40 seats all over the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:33 PM

36. Maybe...

but eliminating California does change the distribution and the overall sentiment of the country which is my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:36 PM

37. Removing lightly populated rural areas does the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:46 PM

38. California....

howevet is hardly indicative of the voti g patterns of the rest of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 07:21 PM

44. California is the largest state by far

It has the most electoral votes and therefore has the most members of Congress and so it should dominate the data. California has nearly 12 million more residents than the next largest state. That's more than the combined populations of Idaho, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming to make up the difference between California and Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 09:31 AM

51. Did you figure that out all by yourself??

let the adults talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:07 PM

12. Wonder if that breakdown mirrors any polls from 10, 20 and 30 years ago.

It's a well known truism that each generation slides to the right as it ages.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:28 PM

16. That's usually true...however

For example: In 1992
18-24 year olds were 11% of voters and they went 46% Clinton/33% Bush/21% Perot
25-29 year olds were 10% of voters and they went 41% Clinton/26% Bush/23% Perot
30-49 year olds were 46% of voters and they went 41% Clinton/38% Bush/21% Perot
50-64 year olds were 30% of voters and they went 43% Clinton/39% Bush/18% Perot
Age 65 & older were 13% of voters and they went 50% Clinton/39% Bush/11% Perot
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1992/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:40 PM

18. Perot was a bit of a wild card. Wonder about '92 or '00

I unlike many RW'ers don't think all of Perot's votes were guaranteed for Bush.
But there is no denying that there's a slow shift to the left going on. Enough for the Dem party to pass over my position on the spectrum, leaving me outside of it's current stated goals.

JFK couldn't get nominated by either party today, nor could Nixon for that matter.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:33 PM

35. Let's try 1988!

18-29 year olds were 20% of the electorate; 47% Dukakis/53% G.H.W. Bush
30-44 year olds were 35% of the electorate; 46% Dukakis/54% Bush
45-59 year olds were 22% of the electorate; 42% Dukakis/58# Bush
60 & over were 22% of the electorate; 49% Dukakis/51% Bush
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1988/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 09:24 AM

49. Cool.

Like I said, a slow trend moving left..

The shrinking of the self described moderate is really the most interesting to me.

It has been made into a dirty word by both sides..

Which is the warning bell in all this, as the current chasm between the parties widens and extremists gain more attention and respect, we grow ess and less likely to be able to fix anything.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:07 PM

13. Exit polls only measure those who WANT to be polled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:09 PM

14. That's true and the results account for the 1-3% of people

Who didn't want to be interviewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 03:50 PM

22. 1-3% that's nuts. I bet it's 40%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:22 PM

31. If it was that high the no poll could ever be accurate

For example, the actual 2018 mid-term election result was Democrats: 53.1% and Republicans: 45.2%. The ABC News/Washington Post poll predicted Democrats: 52% and Republicans: 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2018_generic_congressional_vote-6185.html
https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1202a2The2018Midterms.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 06:44 PM

41. Ahhhh.....CNN

Pravda Poll from 12/24/1991:

99.7% of all workers say USSR will survive for next 10,000 years.

There were 254,986 Respondents. Only 35,734 had to be arrested, and fewer than 8,238 had to be shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bronxbomber (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 11:35 PM

46. Actually the polling is done by Edison Research, Inc.

CNN just happens to have the results on their web site.
https://www.edisonresearch.com/8143-2/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics