Indiana Election Results, 2000 – 2016, or Who Didn’t Vote For President?

Indiana Election Results, 2000 – 2016 (President, Senator, Governor where can be gotten):


People are more likely to vote for President and nobody else instead of vote for everyone BUT President. Observed both directly and through ballot counts.


President 2016: 2,732,710 votes cast (“all” votes)
Senator 2016: 2,731,452 votes cast (1,258 fewer votes)
Governor 2016: 2,718,674 votes cast 14,036 fewer votes)

President 2012: 2,624,531 votes cast (“all” votes)
Senator 2012: 2,560,102 votes cast (103,129 fewer votes)
Governor 2012: 2,577,329 votes cast (85,802 fewer votes)

President 2008: 2,751,054 votes cast (“all” votes)
Governor 2008: 2,703,752 votes cast (47,302 fewer votes)

President 2004: 2,468,002 votes cast (“all” votes)
Senator 2004: 2,428,433 votes cast (39,569 fewer votes)
Governor 2004: 2,448,476 votes cast (19,526 fewer votes)

President 2000: 2,199,302 votes cast (“all” votes)
Senator 2000: 2,145,209 votes cast (54,093 fewer votes)

Where I got my information:


This election had nearly the numbers of the 2008 election and more than 2012, so the general repugnance towards the election that was expressed throughout this election cycle didn’t result in an absence of voters in Indiana. In addition, the ratio between votes for Trump and votes for Clinton in Indiana were 3:2 (1,556,310 to 1,036,632), so there was no reason to believe that the ballot was being fixed towards either candidate. And yet, 2016 had a smaller difference between Presidential Votes and Senator Votes; and there was a less than 0.1% difference between Presidential and Senator votes in 2016. Every other election had from near 1% to near 4% difference between Presidential Election and Senator/Governor Election.

What this tells me is that there was a large contingent of people in Indiana, just like in Michigan, who voted for various candidates but NOT for President.

It’s kind of hard to know how many people didn’t vote in Indiana since they didn’t collect the numbers (as far as I know) and there were still enough votes for President but little (or nothing) else down the ballot to make the difference in favor of Presidential ballots. However, one can reasonable guess (assumption in place) there were still more no votes for President this election than in previous elections.


Okay, Who Nearly Cost WHOM The Election? 2016

Another close election with close counts and a group of voters angry over having gotten more votes and fewer electors. Where have I seen this before? Oh yes, back when Nader was running and pulled plenty of people from Gore – only it turns out that, of those who would have voted for either of the major candidates, more would have voted for Bush than for Gore.

As it is, we had multiple candidates who ran as third party candidates. There were at least three, and others had effects here and there.

Let’s take a look, shall we? (Thanks, by the way, to Reason for doing the digging.) I’m assuming that your average Libertarian, limited to choosing between Mme. Clinton and Mr. Trump, would probably have chosen Trump at a 3-1 margin (a stat I heard during the campaign from a friend of a friend); with a similar skewering (if not a greater skewering towrds Trump) from McMullin. We’ll assume that Most Green Party candidates would go to Clinton THIS TIME AROUND.

(And yes, I know Hillary won the popular vote by 2 Million Plus. Unfortunately that’s now how we pick our presidents – something about the Tyranny of Majority Rule and all that.)

  • Arizona: Trump beat Clinton by four points; Johnson collected 3.8 percent and Stein collected 1.2 percent. Most likely, Trump would have won more comfortably here if the 3rd party candidates were removed, there is no way for Clinton to with even by keeping Johnson and removing Stein.
  • Colorado: Clinton won by 2.2 percent. Voters also gave 4.9 percent to Johnson, 1.2 percent to Stein, 1 percent to McMullin, and nearly 1 percent more to a collection of third-tier candidates. Remove Johnson and McMullin, and you may flip the state to Trump.
  • Florida: Trump eked out a win by just 1.4 percent here. Johnson, Stein, Castle, and Rocky De La Fuente of the Reform Party between them collected 3.2 percent; Stein got only .7 percent of the total vote. No Dice.
  • Maine: Clinton won this by three percentage points, and Johnson collected 5.1 percent, so there’s a chance he tipped the electors who represented the State’s Senate Votes to the Democrats.
  • Michigan: Trump won this ordinarily blue state by about .3 percent. Stein got 1.1 percent, and Johnson got 3.6 percent. Remove Stein and you get a Clinton squeaker – assuming, of course, that Johnson is forced to stay around.
  • Minnesota: Clinton won by 1.4 percent. McMullin got 1.8 percent, Johnson got 3.4 percent (Making for 5.2 percent together) and Stein got 1.3 percent. Given my percentages, looks like Clinton won another state thanks to the third parties.
  • Nevada: Clinton won by 2.4 percent; Johnson got 3.3 percent. A bit close, especially since Jill Stein wasn’t on the ballot.
  • New Hampshire: Another narrow Clinton win—just a tenth of a percentage point—and another relatively strong showing for Johnson, who collected 4.1 percent. Stein only got .9 percent, so it would appear that Johnson handed yet another state to Clinton (assuming that that’s the only thing third parties tend to do).
  • Pennsylvania: Trump won by about 1.1 percent. Stein’s .8 percent isn’t enough to cover that spread; Johnson’s 2.4 percent would likely have made this state called sooner for Trump.
  • Virginia: Clinton won by 4.7 percent. Johnson, McMullin, and Stein got 3, 1.6, and .7 percent, respectively. So the third-party candidates covered the spread if you include the Green, but the two candidates who were more likely to pull from Trump didn’t have quite enough to cover it on their own.
  • Wisconsin: Stein’s 1.1 percent is just enough to bridge the 1-percent margin between the winning Trump and the losing Clinton. But then what does Johnson’s 3.4 percent do to the results—or, for that matter, the nearly half a percentage point that Castle won while running to Trump’s right (none of whom would have been caught DEAD voting for Clinton)?

So what do we have? Michigan and MAYBE Wisconsin “stolen” from Hillary, accounting for 16-26 votes – assuming, of course, that Johnson (and Castle) stay in the race. Not enough to push Hillary over the top by any means.

Meanwhile we have Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine (at least the two senate electors) going to Trump were it not for third parties, accounting for 25-26 electoral votes. Add Nevada’s six electors, and it’s possible that we’d have a true landslide for Trump (as it is, the size of victory is large enough to make normal Democrats uncomfortable).

Remove Stein, Keep Johnson, McMullin and Castle: Close Trump Victory
Remove Johnson, McMullin and Castle, Keep Stein: Trump Landslide
Remove All Third Party Canididates: Michigan and Wisconsin look out of place.

So please, stop blaming Third Parties for your loss. There’s not enough there for you, and you could end up REALLY getting embarassed. Stein barely pulled enough votes to get noticed, for that matter.


Items About This General Election That People Are Missing:

Having read all the hand-wringing from the left that the present election has brought about, three items have entered into my mind:

  1. The Praetorian Guard Made Its Preferences Heard, And Got Its Wish. Remember how the Clinton Emails suddenly were back under examination for a few days before the FBI head James Comey felt the need to quash that rumor? While people were debating whether the FBI had suddenly started trying to sway the election, quite a few people were reconsidering their minds on stuff. So much so that there were articles on changing one’s vote before Election Day, if you had done early voting.
    (For those not in the know, The Praetorian Guard was a group of Roman Soldiers whose job it was to guard the Emperor. Soon after being founded they started involving themselves in picking new Emperors on occasion – after all, if you have to guard the Roman Emperor you’d better like the guy you’re guarding.)
  2. Millions Of Polls Cannot Equal Feet On The Ground. While all the people who put out all the surveys were measuring “Hillary’s Lead,” at least three people I know and read somewhat regularly were catching onto what has happening on the Ground. John Michael Greer of The Archdruid Report saw Trump coming from at least January of this year (2016, in case you’re reading this after Trump is Sworn Into office), Scott Adams spent a year talking about how Trump would win the election, and Michael Moore predicted Trump’s Victory – even went so far as to make an impromptu movie trying to stop what he hoped was a misread of the tea leaves. What these three did (and I did as well, even though I didn’t go so far as to make a prediction but merely kept making a point of reminding people that Trump could win) was walk around, observed and listened. They (and I) heard and saw stuff that everyone else was making a point of ignoring – that there was a bunch of people out there who had been ignored by both sides, and now that there was someone willing to talk to their interests they had a reason to vote.
    This was most obvious in the Midwest, which had been gleefully ignored for most of the Reagan Era. Jobs disappeared, infrastructure began to fall apart, and Most Favored Corporations (WalMart* being the most obvious one) were allowed to milk the area as dry as they could get away with. People were waiting for SOMEONE who empathised with their plight, and they finally got it.
  3. The Republicans (Begrudgingly) Accepted Their Populist, The Democrats Went Out Of Their Way To Reject Theirs. The Election Results Show It. Probably the most interesting thing about Trump’s supporters was that they wer ALL willing to take a look at Sanders, and many of them were actually supportive of his actions. This includes the voters in such states as Michigan (go ahead and declare it for Trump already…) and West Virginia (a state given away to the Republicans by Clinton in the 1990s, and which had just elected a Democratic Governor). Indeed, many people (me among them) believe that Sanders could have won the Election, mainly because the people who voted for Trump out of populism only voted for Trump because he was stating them, NOT because he was a Republican.
    Not only that, but most (if not all) Sanders Supporters were willing to look at Trump, even if in the end they rejected him. The Democratic Party’s devotion to Hillary (never mind the understandable Superdelegates, just the utter fixing that became so obvious as the general election worked its way to the close) ended up insuring that enough people who wanted their voices heard would vote for the one party that was, admittedly, stuck with their populist.

Now I understand that Hillary won the popular vote by nearly three million votes. Still, that doesn’t explain the loss of the Midwest. Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania – all working class, with longsuffering Democratic voters. Something happened to lose the Midwest to the Republicans this election, and if the Democrats view this the way they viewed West Virginia (good riddance) they will live just long enough to regret this.