A reasonably interesting piece from a political scientist in Toronto:
"There was not, overall, any popular upsurge for Mr. Trump. He received about as many votes as Mitt Romney in 2012. Mr. Trump’s votes were just better distributed. He lost Romney voters he could afford to lose (in no-hope states like California and New York, for example). He won Obama voters that Ms. Clinton couldn’t afford to lose, in the “Blue Wall” states of the industrial Midwest, in Iowa and in North Carolina. The surge of white working-class support for Mr. Trump, in urban and rural areas alike, was indeed crucial to his victory.
Was this then the decisive factor in the election? Well, not exactly. It was necessary for a Trump win, but not sufficient. He still had to do better with black and Hispanic voters than Mr. Romney.
He did. With Barack Obama off the ticket – and Ms. Clinton on it – higher percentages of both groups voted Republican last month. Black voters helped Mr. Trump even more by staying home. In crucial Michigan and Wisconsin, Ms. Clinton received an estimated 129,000 fewer of their votes than Mr. Obama, more than Mr. Trump’s combined margin of victory in the two states.
In exit polls, 18 per cent of voters identified themselves as negative toward both major party candidates. Political scientist Michael Barone calls these “double negative” voters.Even so, 78 per cent of them reported having voted for one of the two – again, it’s a two-party country. What’s surprising is how they divided: 49 per cent for Mr. Trump, only 29 per cent for Ms. Clinton. Mr. Barone calculates that had these voters divided evenly, Ms. Clinton would have won the swing states and therefore the election."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...s-win-its-all-in-the-numbers/article33289872/
"There was not, overall, any popular upsurge for Mr. Trump. He received about as many votes as Mitt Romney in 2012. Mr. Trump’s votes were just better distributed. He lost Romney voters he could afford to lose (in no-hope states like California and New York, for example). He won Obama voters that Ms. Clinton couldn’t afford to lose, in the “Blue Wall” states of the industrial Midwest, in Iowa and in North Carolina. The surge of white working-class support for Mr. Trump, in urban and rural areas alike, was indeed crucial to his victory.
Was this then the decisive factor in the election? Well, not exactly. It was necessary for a Trump win, but not sufficient. He still had to do better with black and Hispanic voters than Mr. Romney.
He did. With Barack Obama off the ticket – and Ms. Clinton on it – higher percentages of both groups voted Republican last month. Black voters helped Mr. Trump even more by staying home. In crucial Michigan and Wisconsin, Ms. Clinton received an estimated 129,000 fewer of their votes than Mr. Obama, more than Mr. Trump’s combined margin of victory in the two states.
In exit polls, 18 per cent of voters identified themselves as negative toward both major party candidates. Political scientist Michael Barone calls these “double negative” voters.Even so, 78 per cent of them reported having voted for one of the two – again, it’s a two-party country. What’s surprising is how they divided: 49 per cent for Mr. Trump, only 29 per cent for Ms. Clinton. Mr. Barone calculates that had these voters divided evenly, Ms. Clinton would have won the swing states and therefore the election."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...s-win-its-all-in-the-numbers/article33289872/
