June 29, 2017

Hillary’s Phony Popular Vote Win

But unlike in the movie, you don't get to come back and run the place. And no, you don't even get a popular vote consolation prize.

As of November 25, 2016, Hillary’s popular vote lead stands at 2.104 million. But this lead is smaller than the effects of two things:

  1. The collapse of GOP turnout in California due to a lack of a Senate candidate
  2. The illegals voting

The Illegal Vote

Now among democrat partistans, the meme is that the vote among illegals is miniscule, or that anyone who brings up the illegal vote is a crank, racist, unintelligent and otherwise bad person, and that illegals voting “has been debunked” or “is unsourced”.

At first glance, Pew and the DHS claims that there are about 11.4 million illegals in the US. If 10% of them voted, that would be 1.14 million votes.

The most straightforward way to figure out how many illegals voted is to figure out:

  1. How many illegals there are
  2. What proportion of them voted

The most common estimate for the number of illegals comes from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Pew. Their estimates revolve around 11.4 million. These estimates have an obvious problem in that these are based on polls and census data, and depend on people telling the pollster that they are illegals.

The Bear Sterns report, from January 2005, estimates the number of illegals not based on surveys, but based on four criteria:

1. Remittances

2. Housing permits in gateway communities

3. School enrollment

4. Cross border flows

In my opinion, inferring the population using other metrics is a much better method than depending on people to tell you that they are illegals. The estimate from the Bear Sterns was 20 million illegals in 2005.

But if it was 20 million in 2005, what is it in 2016? Well, one way to infer this is with State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) numbers and Federal prison numbers. SCAAP is legal assistance given to illegals.

In 2003, 220,000 illegals used SCAAP. In 2009, 296,000 people used SCAAP.

For Federal prisons, there were 51,000 illegals in Federal prisons in 2005, and 55,000 in 2010.

If the rate at which illegals committed and were caught for crimes was the same over this period of time, these numbers would suggest a 29% increase in their population, implying a 2010 population of 25.9 million.

(From 2010 to 2015 is more sketchy. For now we’ll ignore any increase from there. I’m not saying there wasn’t an increase, I just don’t have any data beyond this, so we’ll just go with 25.9 million.)

The paper “Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?” by Richman et al., the researchers found that 11.3% of non-citizens reported that they voted in 2008.

(Personally, I believe this is a lower-bound number, as non-citizens are probably wary of saying they voted, since it would be illegal for them to do so. But again, lets just go with this number for this analysis for now.)

11.3% of 25.9 million is 2.927 million. This is very close to the “3 million” number repeated on conservative websites.

The Richman paper also said that illegals voted democrat 81% of the time, republican 17% of the time.

(Now, I personally believe that, with Trump, the percent of illegals voting republican this election would be much lower. But once again, lets just go with 81% dem, 17% GOP.)

This gives Hillary 2.371 million votes from illegals, and Trump 0.498 million. So Hillary, with these numbers, would be expected to net 1.873 million votes.

And this is making some very generous assumptions (for Hillary) about the number of illegals not increasing since 2010, and assuming that none of them tried to hide the fact that they voted (an illegal act) when asked, and assuming that hispanics were just as likely to vote for Trump as they were to vote for McCain.

I don’t know why people would find this so shocking. The US has some of the most lax voter ID laws in the world, and Governors in several states get away with openly defying federal law and refusing deportations, explicitly allowing illegals to go to government schools and even work in government jobs. Why then is it such a stretch from that to believe they would also be voting?

California Turnout

In 2016, California had no republican senators running. Since the senate elections are more competitive in California than the presidential election, and the senate election is the only reason the GOP would invest in California, this resulted in the GOP putting no money into the state and there being no real reason for a republican to vote.

In 2012, Mitt Romney got 4.840 million votes from California, and 56.154 million votes from the rest of the US.

As of November 25, 2016, Donald Trump has gotten 4.196 million votes from California, and 58.142 million votes from the rest of the US.

Now if Trump merely got as many votes as Romney, he would have gotten 644,000 more votes added to his popular vote total.

However, outside of California, Trump got 3.54% more votes than Romney. And so if California followed the pattern of the Trump getting 3.54% more votes than Romney, Trump would have gotten 5.011 million votes from California, or an additional 815,000 votes.

And so anywhere from 644,000 to 815,000 votes of Hillary Clinton’s popular vote lead can be explained entirely by the lack of a Senate race in California.

There are going to be stupid or dishonest democrats who will demand the nth level of proof for what I’m saying about California, and that Trump doing 15.35% worse than Romney in California, despite doing 3.54% better than Romney in the rest of the US, is just Trump being THAT unpopular with California republicans and ONLY with California republicans.

No, the historical anomaly of the lack of a Senate race explains the anomalously low GOP turnout in California in 2016.

The Final Tally

The results as of November 25, 2016 show Hillary winning the popular vote count 64,418,125 to 62,314,184, which is a lead of 2.104 million.

The combined effects of illegals voting and the depressed GOP turnout in California is about 2.6 million votes.

Without illegals voting, and without the California effect, Trump probably would have won the popular vote. Though we’ll see if Hillary’s lead grows any further. Maybe her lead will eclipse 2.6 million and I’ll have to eat my words, but I suspect it won’t.

 

Facebook Comments
  • PigglyPig

    Excellent

  • Goybeans

    Pretty good analysis but it seems like to really be sure you’d have to check for turnout compared to last election among other groups right? Like if you can explain the 2m vote difference by an increase in relative turnout from groups who are citizens and voted for Hillary, then you would know it’s not necessarily illegals right?

    • Ryan Faulk

      Well right now, overall, she looks like she’s going to get about as many ab Obama got in 2012.

      And I would imagine Obama got a bunch of illegal votes too.

  • Michael Patterson

    California should be removed from the mix for FRAUD!

  • WaterLeaf

    It doesn’t matter because they were not competing for the popular vote. If it were a contest of the popular vote the campaigning strategy would be completely different. Also, millions of republicans in blue states stay home just like millions of democrats in red states stay home because there is no point in voting for them. There is no way to know what the real popular vote would be unless you actually ran the popular vote.

  • Marcus Salazar

    The paper “Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?” by Richman et al., the researchers found that 11.3% of non-citizens reported that they voted in 2008.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-steal-your-election-20141031-column.html

    What do you think of the criticisms of the paper you cite presented in this article?

    • Ryan Faulk

      What about them? Their criticism of internet polls is silly given that internet polls have proven to be more accurate this election cycle.

    • Frontierland

      (((LA Times))) and (((Michael Hiltzik’s))) (((criticisms))) are not worth considering because he’s a Leftist hack, his main body of Anti-White work is centered around the horrible treatement of Jews… Oh yea, and he is a greasy Yid.

      Quote from the article you posted:
      But even that begs the question of whether noncitizen voting is a
      problem. The academic critics of Richman and Earnest, who include Paul Gronke of Reed College, John Ahlquist and Scott Gehlbach of the University of Wisconsin, and Rick Hasen and Michael Tesler
      of UC Irvine express doubts that they made their case. In essence, they
      regard the authors’ assertion that the 2008 Senate victory of Al Franken
      (D-Minn.) and of President Obama in North Carolina, were close enough
      to have been swung by the votes of noncitizens in those states as a
      massive overreach.

      Some characters he quotes in the article, can be discounted simply on their Leftist beta-abundance:
      Scott Gehlbach
      http://scottgehlbach.net/

      Michael Tesler
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/27/methodological-challenges-affect-study-of-non-citizens-voting/?utm_term=.0c9e3793176c

      Another fine article by Michael Hiltzik, OY VEY!

      http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-huckabee-the-holocaust-20150803-column.html

      Excerpt:
      So it’s essential to remind people what the Holocaust was. My examples here come from a stirring and harrowing 2011 book by historian Deborah Lipstadt,
      “The Eichmann Trial,” about that world-shattering 1961 event. Many
      people may have forgotten about the case–the kidnapping of Adolf
      Eichmann, an architect of the Final Solution, by the Israelis and his
      public trial in Jerusalem–but Lipstadt makes the deserving point that
      the trial was what cemented the Holocaust in public memory worldwide as
      a unique marker of human evil.
      Lipstadt is unsparing in her
      reconstruction of some of the testimony. Here are some excerpts from her
      text, so that they cannot be forgotten.

      “Rivka Yoselewska…told the court how a German shooter debated whom
      to shoot first, her or the child she was holding. After the child was
      shot, she fell into the pit that already held the bodies of most of her
      family. Miraculously, she was later able to crawl out. When she did, she
      saw a fountain of blood spurting from the ground.

      And Another on the troublesome study of genetic inheritance:

      http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-huge-scientific-protest-20140812-column.html

      The pushback against Wade’s book is important because it underscores
      what one might call a “troublesome” tendency in recent writing about
      genetics and inheritance.

      Oy Vey!

    • Skeptik

      Are they asking about voting in US elections, or are they merely asking if they voted? Illegal immigrants from Mexico are allowed to vote in their home country.

  • Pft, obviously more fake news! Putin rigged the election in Trump’s favour. Hillary told me so.

    • BTW, I owe you an apology. You’ve obviously figured out this is a sock account to separate my ridicule of Newb from my other account. At any rate, I’m sincerely sorry for any trolling or harsh comments I made toward you. I do respect your opinion and value your contributions.

  • Berkeley Wheeler

    I voted for trump in California. When I was picking up my ballot from the voting booth the Asian woman kept emphasizing that I don’t need an id to vote with a look of signaling glee.

  • Skeptik

    An interesting and egregious abuse of logic. The process by which they derive their numbers for illegal immigrants is disproven by the simple fact that almost twice as many illegal immigrants have left than have arrived.