An important article in Slate today. It argues that the difference in the key rust belt states was not working class white voters voting for Trump as much as a few (but key number) of working class white Obama voters staying home or voting for a third party (which is either Johnson or Stein) (or leaving the top of the ballot blank).
Relative to the 2012 election, Democratic support in the Rust Belt collapsed as a huge number of Democrats stayed home or (to a lesser extent) voted for a third party. Trump did not really flip white working-class voters in the Rust Belt. Mostly, Democrats lost them.
snip
Our analysis projects publicly accessible exit-poll data for the past two elections onto turnout figures in the Rust Belt 5, to look at the whole picture, including third-party voters and those staying at home. Here’s what we found.
1. In the Rust Belt 5, the GOP’s pickup of voters making $50,000 or less is overshadowed by the Democrats’ dramatic loss of voters in that category.
snip
2. Republicans in the Rust Belt 5 picked up almost as many wealthy voters making over $100,000 as voters who made less than $50,000.
snip
3. Trump did not flip white voters in the Rust Belt who had supported Obama. Democrats lost them.
[Data showing Hillary lost 770,000 white voters compared to Obama, but Trump gained only 450,000 white voters. Roughly 320,000 white voters stayed home or voted for someone other than Hillary or Trump. Some may be among those in Michigan who left the top of the ballot blank. “Democrats also lost the black, indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) vote in the Rust Belt 5, with 400,000 fewer voters in this category (-11.5 percent).” Falloff was in states with voter suppression laws and those without]
snip
4. The real story—the one the pundits missed—is that voters who fled the Democrats in the Rust Belt 5 were twice as likely either to vote for a third party or to stay at home than to embrace Trump.
snip
In the Rust Belt, Democrats lost 1.35 million voters. Trump picked up less than half, at 590,000. The rest stayed home or voted for someone other than the major party candidates.
There are many cool graphs and data in the article. I don’t know if the the thesis is correct or not, but the authors make a persuasive case. I suspect we will know more over time as more data is available and there is more peer review of the data.
If correct, it may be hopeful. It is easier to get voters to come out for a different candidate than to get voters to switch. A better message and candidate can obtain a better outcome.