I decided to look at the Massachusetts results by town and compare the Presidential and Senate results. Overall Warren underperformed Harris by about 5.5%. (Harris got 1.5% more support than Warren, while Trump got 4% less than Dalton.) However, there was a striking difference in this margin from town to town. Overall Warren did much bet…
I decided to look at the Massachusetts results by town and compare the Presidential and Senate results. Overall Warren underperformed Harris by about 5.5%. (Harris got 1.5% more support than Warren, while Trump got 4% less than Dalton.) However, there was a striking difference in this margin from town to town. Overall Warren did much better in the working class and Hispanic areas, while Harris did much better in the bastions of wealth and privilege.
Not to disrespect your post, but was Massachusetts actually contested though? I can't believe that heavy campaigning took place at the statewide level of such a blue state
No, but that's not the point of my post. The data is still interesting I think since Warren and Harris represent different sides of the Democratic coalition.
Yes, Harris did better in working class areas where she fought to persuade those voters. And if we had nominated Warren or a similar left wing populist, we would have had to fight to persuade those wealthy suburbs.
I am not convinced that another nominee would have changed a single vote(I would argue that the election was always about Trump and perceived inflation)
I'm not trying to make the point that Warren (or Bernie) would have done better than Harris. (Especially since she did significantly worse overall.) I think the data is intrinsically interesting, which is why I shared it. If your interpretation of that data is that it's all about Trump, that's a possible explanation. Personally I think the D candidate did make a difference and to claim that it wouldn't have moved a single vote disregards what voters said both in polling and in focus group settings. That being said, Trump does have a tendency to suck up all the oxygen in the room, so voters' feelings about Harris, or another hypothetical nominee, had less weight than what they thought of Trump, but it still had an impact on their decision.
I decided to look at the Massachusetts results by town and compare the Presidential and Senate results. Overall Warren underperformed Harris by about 5.5%. (Harris got 1.5% more support than Warren, while Trump got 4% less than Dalton.) However, there was a striking difference in this margin from town to town. Overall Warren did much better in the working class and Hispanic areas, while Harris did much better in the bastions of wealth and privilege.
Top Warren overperformances:
Lawrence – 23.1%
Revere – 9.1%
Chelsea – 8.5%
Everett – 8.1%
Lynn – 7.1%
Fall River – 5.7%
New Bedford – 5.6%
Lowell – 5.3%
Springfield – 5.2%
North Adams – 3.9%
Top Harris overperformances:
Dover – 24.3%
Weston – 21.6%
Wellesley – 21.6%
Sherborn – 21.6%
Cohasset – 21.0%
Medfield – 19.4%
Hingham – 18.9%
Gosnold – 18.6%
Wenham – 17.7%
Manchester-by-the-Sea – 17.5%
Not to disrespect your post, but was Massachusetts actually contested though? I can't believe that heavy campaigning took place at the statewide level of such a blue state
No, but that's not the point of my post. The data is still interesting I think since Warren and Harris represent different sides of the Democratic coalition.
Yes, Harris did better in working class areas where she fought to persuade those voters. And if we had nominated Warren or a similar left wing populist, we would have had to fight to persuade those wealthy suburbs.
I am not convinced that another nominee would have changed a single vote(I would argue that the election was always about Trump and perceived inflation)
I'm not trying to make the point that Warren (or Bernie) would have done better than Harris. (Especially since she did significantly worse overall.) I think the data is intrinsically interesting, which is why I shared it. If your interpretation of that data is that it's all about Trump, that's a possible explanation. Personally I think the D candidate did make a difference and to claim that it wouldn't have moved a single vote disregards what voters said both in polling and in focus group settings. That being said, Trump does have a tendency to suck up all the oxygen in the room, so voters' feelings about Harris, or another hypothetical nominee, had less weight than what they thought of Trump, but it still had an impact on their decision.
I think a male nominee not named Biden would have done better
Not really surprising as Warren has always gone out of her way to make an economically populist pitch.