It's about turnout people.

[rzemanfl]

Last night SickOfTheOnePct sent me this information about Florida counties.

Baker 2012 2016

Turnout 81.8% 84%
Obama 20.33%
Romney 78.95%
Clinton 16.62%
Trump 81.02%

Collier 2012 2016

Turnout 83.3% 86%
Obama 34.67%
Romney 64.73%
Clinton 35.41%
Trump 61.11%

Franklin 2012 2016

Turnout 77.2% 84%
Obama 33.7%
Romney 65.22%
Clinton 28.74%
Trump 68.12%

Jefferson 2012 2016

Turnout 82.4% 81%
Obama 50.53%
Romney 48.77%
Clinton 51.14%
Trump 46.02%

St. John's 2012 2016

Turnout 75.5% 80%
Obama 30.65%
Romney 68.39%
Clinton 31.28%
Trump 64.34%

Sumter 2012 2016

Turnout 82.2% 84%
Obama 32.28%
Romney 67.21%
Clinton 29.09%
Trump 67.77%

If the rest of the country had turned out in anywhere near these numbers we would not be facing a Cheeto Sporkhands presidency.

[CincyDem]

1. Nico Machiavelli summed it up nicely in 15th Century Florence.

There's a well known quote of his on change:

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

But that's only the first part. The second part is usually left off.

For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries … and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.

I've always reduced this the phrase "fighting to keep is always stronger than fighting to get". The diversity of America has been "fighting to get" for 50 years and with Trump, it has run into its first real "fighting to keep" resistance. And what we learned was that those who profit from the new order are only lukewarm...and turnout showed it.

Given the rabidness of what We the People have elected (through our antiquated systems), those who have been lukewarm defenders of a new order need to shift gears and rise to a higher standard - the energy of fighting to keep.

That's the challenge of the next 4 years.

[LisaL]

2. For all the great turnout in FL, Hillary still lost it.

[rzemanfl]

3. Most of these counties went for the Orange Peril. n/t

[LisaL]

4. Then how does it suggest that high turnout elsewhere would have led to Hillary's election?

[rzemanfl]

5. From the OP-

If the rest of the country had turned out in anywhere near these numbers we would not be facing a Cheeto Sporkhands presidency. (emphasis supplied)

I happen to think that would apply in Florida too but don't want to debate it.

[LisaL]

6. So your logic is as follows-FL counties had great turnout.

FL still elected Trump.
But if the rest of the country had great turnout, Hillary would have been elected.
Based on high turnout in FL, and the fact that Trump was elected there, it would appear Trump voters turned out in FL, in large numbers, and got him elected.
So what makes you think elsewhere in the country, high turnout would have resulted in different outcome?

[rzemanfl]

7. 43% of eligible voters did not vote nationally. n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. The turnout in FL was good

About 74% statewide, which is indeed good.

But to show how much some more turnout in the six counties she won would have changed things, and because I'm a math geek...

Trump won Florida by ~120,000 votes

Turnout in the six counties won by Hillary ranged from 71%-75%. Taking that turnout and upping it across the board in all six counties, to 77%, and assuming that with that turnout, she wins those counties by the same percentages, she wins Florida by 53,000+ votes.

Take turnout to 77% in those counties, and assume that she doesn't win by as big a margin as she actually did...drop the percentage by 5 points...she wins Florida by 39,000+ votes.

Take turnout up a flat 4% across the board, with her current margin...she wins Florida by about 17,000 votes
Take turnout up a flat 4% across the board, reduce her current margin by 5 points...she wins Florida by about 6,500 votes

Take turnout up a flat 4% except in the two counties already at 75%, with her current margin...she wins Florida by about 12,000 votes
Take turnout up a flat 4% except in the two counties already at 75%, reduce her margin by 5 points...she wins Florida by about 1,200 votes.

Obviously, all of these scenarios put Florida into automatic recount status, but it gives a quick picture of how turnout in certain areas can make a difference.

[rzemanfl]

14. Thank you for doing all that math.

I decided I was too old and math-challenged to even try.

[Sancho]

9. I don't believe these results...

I don't know how it was recorded this way, but I simply don't believe that 85+% turned out in any Florida county. One third are independents.

I know DREs in Fl have been hacked, because I personally witnessed one flipping votes in 2004 (and yes, I turned it over to the ES, etc.). Nothing happened of course. This crap has been going on for almost 20 years in Florida. Jeb, Kathrine Harris, etc.

We also know that Rick Scott Pam Bondi are the worst, so I wouldn't put anything past them. Who knows?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. Not sure what 1/3 being indepedent

has to do with turnout, unless you're assuming that independents don't vote in Presidential elections.

[Sancho]

11. Independents didn't come out 80% excited about this election.

Again...it wouldn't take more than a little manipulation to add 10% to rural counties with sympathetic ESs, DREs, etc.

I simply don't believe that this was a massive turn out in some counties. I also don't believe the polls and exit polls were "off" by so much.

In some counties, the majority voted by mail early. Why would they be "lying" to pollsters? This was yet another rigged election in Florida.

My union was doing calls and going door to door. Hillary was ahead everywhere for the 60 days up to the counting.

Even in counties that voted for other Democrats (like Charlie Crist to replace Jolly), voted in favor of pot, voted in favor of tax referendums to fund schools programs, and even elected union-supported school board members - they voted for Trump!!! No way. It makes no sense, and it didn't really happen. It was a hack.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. It would take more than "a little manipulation"

It would take collusion all the way down to the precinct level.

But you're gonna believe what you're gonna believe.

[Sancho]

13. Like I said...in 2004 I saw a machine flipping votes in Florida...

and I said so on DU years ago. I insisted the machine be impounded and called the ES. The poll watchers temporarily took the machine aside. The ES was a GOP operative. She put the machine back in action and had me escorted out.

When I see a machine turn a vote from the one cast to a different candidate on some races, and when I see some precincts with large undervotes - but the patterns only occur on DREs (not on mailed or punched ballots), then I am suspicious. When I see a machine in front of my eyes flipping votes and I cannot get anyone in charge to pay attention, then I know it's rigged.

You can call hot lines or whatever you want - nothing happens (at least in Florida) even when poll watchers have the machine in front of them flipping votes even after changing voter cards.

Would it be possible to manipulate 5% or 10% on some machines or in some precincts? What do the ESs know? At this point, all I know is that something is rotten.

[rzemanfl]

15. Or down to the machine programing level. n/t