The Democratic Party didn't insist choosing HRC as the candidate. The almost 4 Millions voters chose HRC. You can say whatever you like about DNC if you believe those 'tricks' can influence 3.7 Millions primary voters.
Maybe next time, you can remind your preferred candidate stopping running commercials sending the same message as Republicans or claiming himself as the only candidate cannot be bought?
Really? Cannot be bought by Wall St? Yes. But can be easily bought by NRA.
Maybe next time, you can remind your preferred candidate stopping running commercials sending the same message as Republicans or claiming himself as the only candidate cannot be bought?
Really? Cannot be bought by Wall St? Yes. But can be easily bought by NRA.
26
Clinton lost because she didn't pick Sanders as her VP. He would have compensated for her many many many many faults and flaws. That mainstream media didnt erupt at the God awful stupidity of picking Tim Kaine was unbelievable.
26
Clinton lost because we have an archaic and un-democratic system of electing a President called the electoral college. No other reason.
26
Could you please define "white working class"?
13
The Republican spent a quarter century demonizing Hilary Clinton. It gave moderate Rs no alternative candidate to vote for when, in summer fall 2016, the FBI director threw Hillary under the bus.
30
What about the Russians? I thought this was all because of the Russians. No mention of it? One of the MAIN news outlets to decry Russian involvement, and no Russians? Just goes to show you that the Russian story is just a distraction.
9
Stop blaming Hillary Clinton, the DNC, the pollsters, the MSM, James Comey, etc. etc. Trump is president because 63 million people voted for a repugnant, ignorant demagogue. They let America down and the shame is on them.
39
In other words: Hillary Clinton lost because she and her campaign ignored the advice of Bill Clinton to work for White working-class votes.
24
Trump won his narrow Electoral College victory because his advisors got him to stop tweeting for enough time before the election to allow Republican-inclined voters previously turned off by his myriad nasty and narcissistic comments and actions to shrug them off as something in the past, with a more 'reformed' candidate in view. Whenever Trump's tweets were not in the news, his poll numbers rose. Those around him got him to stop aggravating just enough voters to allow his slim victory. The Times reported that he was restive when unable to tweet. Truthless Trump denied it, but was also quoted as saying he was staying "on message." And now we're stuck with him.
8
The Democratic loss rests entirely on Hillary's hubristic insistence to return to the WH as Pres after 8 years there as First Lady, during which she accumulated more negatives than any FL in history. Had she acknowledged that her original defeat to Obama had proved that the country did not want her & her husband back in the WH, any other Democratic candidate would have won in 2016. Hillary lost, as did Jeb, not because of America's sexism, but because of America's contempt for nepotism. Every damage that Trump inflicts on the US from now on is Hillary's fault.
45
This analysis of voter statistics is all well and good. To me, taking into account the effect of Comey's interference, Russian meddling in the guise of trolling and bots as well as the Wikileaks explains the election results.
22
Democrats should stop beating themselves up over this loss. I like to think of it this way: Trump won despite being inexperienced at governing, despite being a serial misogynist, despite being recorded confessing to sexual assault, despite having repeated business failures and bankruptcies, despite his unethical use of his foundation's funds, despite his refusal to provide his tax returns, despite his open disregard for learning policy and how the government works, despite his lack of foreign policy knowledge, despite his deceit, despite his bizarre views on multiple conspiracy theories including Obama's birthplace, despite his willingness to stick to his position when proven wrong, despite his emotional instability and combativeness...
The real question for me is why did so many voters close their ears and eyes to all those negatives about him, but were so receptive to the negatives about Clinton? Is he a con of epic proportions or did he have help? Until we know the answer, many in this country will be distrustful of Trump voters, supporters and Trump himself. It just doesn't make sense; there is a big piece of the puzzle missing.
The real question for me is why did so many voters close their ears and eyes to all those negatives about him, but were so receptive to the negatives about Clinton? Is he a con of epic proportions or did he have help? Until we know the answer, many in this country will be distrustful of Trump voters, supporters and Trump himself. It just doesn't make sense; there is a big piece of the puzzle missing.
61
Lots of Trump voters did not close their eyes and ears about his character. Instead they voted for his platform and the hope it created.
Also, many men and women were infuriated by Clinton's arrogance, something she has been projecting publicly for decades. These people were infuriated enough to vote for an independent or stayed home, only a few switched to Trump.
Also, many men and women were infuriated by Clinton's arrogance, something she has been projecting publicly for decades. These people were infuriated enough to vote for an independent or stayed home, only a few switched to Trump.
22
The real reason for Hillary's loss is most likely not part of the article's analysis at all, because it's outside of the article's purview. I suspect that Hillary lost by tiny margins in key states for two reasons, one of which is subject to fine-grained analysis and the other not. In those states I suspect that the typical voter is older than in other states without regard to other factors and Trump's appeal was to a vision of the comparatively recent past. The other reason for Hillary's loss in the "key states" is that she is a woman, and an important segment of the electorate was not ready to make a woman president of the United States, particularly older women. Perhaps these, more or less, educated guesses can be tested.
36
This information is from the same people who told us Mrs. Clinton had an 86% chance of winning. The reason she lost is that from the first time we ever heard of her in the early 90's, she has been in some kind of trouble; insider trading, Rose law firm, private and illegal email use, Bengazi. The very small number of middle of the road voters that decided the 2016 election decided they had had it with her, held their nose and voted for President Trump.
34
A woman following a Black man as President was just too much for America's White male ego to take. We will regret our myopia, but worse so will our kids.
81
Yes, how can we expect our ignorant citizens to vote for a woman, even a well-qualified one? When will Americans grow up and become educated and progressive and stop being stuck in the past with outdated ideas that will hurt us? We have certainly shot ourselves in the foot this time!
12
Hillary was not hated and did not lack an inspiring story. She is a good person, good American, and would have been an amazing President. But Democrats who felt the Bern and Republicans who voted against their own interests, and others who voted with more passion than brains, all shared some things in common... a hatred of a strong, woman with a real shot at the Presidency. Misogyny is the reason Hillary lost. Men couldn't stand that she was smarter than them, and women couldn't bear that they weren't more like her. How else does someone go from being the Most Admired Woman on Earth to being insulted for 1) her laugh, 2) her policy statements, 3) her pantsuits, and 4) her ability to make money the way men have always made money? My fellow Democrats... you are hypocrites.
94
Nope. Sorry. I never wanted to be like her.
14
Men who make money selling influence usually go to jail. Too many contributions from people and nations that were expecting her to win. I'll bet those "contributions" dried up fast and her "charity" died in a flash after she lost.
That misogyny was a strong factor is your opinion only. Her dishonesty was the strong factor among my Democrat friends as well as her feeling of entitlement, a feeling the Democrat Party shared with her.
That misogyny was a strong factor is your opinion only. Her dishonesty was the strong factor among my Democrat friends as well as her feeling of entitlement, a feeling the Democrat Party shared with her.
14
Thank you, Sean. Beautifully said. Hillary would have been what this country needed. Trump was a vote towards self-sabotage, and the feel-the-berners did not help much either.
20
The problem is that a vote is not treated equal everywhere in America. A Republican in New York is useless, just like a Democrat in Texas. The value of a vote must be equal for a vote to speak for a voter. For a vote to matter. Not just a voter in Ohio, or Florida. Either that, or the weighting of electoral college votes needs to be divided better within states to better represent the outcomes.. where 1 vote in California is equal to the same weighted electoral college vote as 1 vote in Maine.
50
Why don't you do the obvious and analyze how much the flipped dem votes had to do with Clinton being a WOMAN. Whoa, I said it. It's like the giant pink elephant in the room everyone wants to ignore. Why don't you do some statistical analysis to see if flipped votes from democrats were related to the fact that these white working class voters just aren't comfortable with a woman being in charge. That they can deal with a black male president, but not a female one. I'll be impressed if someone finally uses their brainiac skills to look into that. Willing to bet most of the defectors are males, but even if there are a lot of women who did it, it doesn't mean it's not sexism. Bunch of b listers who hate Hillary for being the queen.
55
So you missed the audience reactions to the mock debate that had a woman say Trump's words, a man say Hillary's? The woman utterly crushed the man, so says the audience.
15
The New York Times needs to acknowledge how misogny shaped this election. That "nasty woman" fought hard and well and was backed by the Mothers of the Movement. But she could not fend off Putin and his Trump colluders, Assange, Comey, Bernie Bros, and sexist White working folks. Now we know. Our first woman president, which won't happen in my life time, will need to walk on water and split a loaf to feed the masses.
55
And now we're all stuck with President Bannon! That's the only way Trump can find so much time to tweet, watch TV and go on vacation every weekend.
38
538 often asks wrong questions and returns us wrong answers. Trump's campaign vented endless bluster. Obviously that didn't "persuade" anyone of anything. Trump unlocked the inner bully lurking inside too many people—just look at your social media feed—but calling that an act of "persuasion" does disservice to the idea of rhetoric aimed at peoples' minds. Trump never aimed at anyone’s mind, he grabs lower than that. What he did was uncork a frenzied concoction of pure raw spite, and the energy that released fed a huge enthusiasm gap between his followers and Clinton's. Dems held their noses voting for Hillary. Repubs held up pitchforks and burning torches to vote for Donald.
Trump's supporters don't care about health care policy or foreign policy or national trade policy. They don't care about POLICY, period. Full stop. They just want to stick it to those who insist we ought to be caring passionately about the sad fate of the weak and the vulnerable. They want a license for the strong to take advantage of the weak. They want the weak to have the good grace to totter out to the curb and expire like North Koreans dying in the streets if they’re going to be too weak to cut it in Trump World (“I like soldiers who don’t get captured”). They want a law of the jungle. They want war. And at this point, still flush with the effervescence from their liberated spite, they don’t care that the war they want, like Vietnam, will ultimately fall on themselves.
Trump's supporters don't care about health care policy or foreign policy or national trade policy. They don't care about POLICY, period. Full stop. They just want to stick it to those who insist we ought to be caring passionately about the sad fate of the weak and the vulnerable. They want a license for the strong to take advantage of the weak. They want the weak to have the good grace to totter out to the curb and expire like North Koreans dying in the streets if they’re going to be too weak to cut it in Trump World (“I like soldiers who don’t get captured”). They want a law of the jungle. They want war. And at this point, still flush with the effervescence from their liberated spite, they don’t care that the war they want, like Vietnam, will ultimately fall on themselves.
37
I watch TV, and I know what's going on. It was the Russians, they wanted to see Trump win because they don't like a woman running things, you know like those Germans have. They did have a woman once however, Catherine the Great, but she was German I think, if that is that even true. And another reason is that Rachel Maddow the reporter on TV saying there is no possible way Trump could win, I didn't even need to go vote did I, what for, that would just be a waste of time now wouldn't it.
9
Now can we stop blaming the Russians for Hillary's loss?
13
No, it added to it without a doubt.
25
When will Democrats face up to the divisive effects of identity politics and neoliberal global economics
1
I still wonder. If much of what people didn't like about Hillary were true but she were a man, I am confident that little of it would have been an obstacle to her. Yes, there were definitely things that the Democratic party didn't fully appreciate about the white electorate in 2016, and that hurt Hillary, too. But the personal venom people feel about her - would be a lot less had she been a man.
45
Democrats and the establishment''s poor behavior towards the elect POTUS is going to cause much pain in 2018 for Democrat candidates. But, my former party will continue its delusional pretty election mentality.
11
Doubt it.....Trump is too good at sabotaging himself.
4
Clinton lost to Obama and Trump in successive elections, eight years apart. Both of these novices beat her and her machine in spite of their own flaws. She was just a lousy candidate and the American people saw through the facade. No reason to keep looking for some secret reason she lost, look at the candidate herself. The media and her blind followers were the only ones who couldn't see the truth.
30
By "[s]he was just a lousy candidate" you must mean that "she was just a woman."
19
The underlying reason Trump won (as wells as a tidal wave of federal and state positions) has not changed. Dems need to figure out why they have no local appeal if they are to have any future in DC.
21
I think the obvious symptom is overlooked. Americans don't like the direction the country is headed in. They are more malleable because of this dissatisfaction. It is easy to demonize whichever party is in the White House. So the people simply swing back and forth Democrat to Republican to Democrat and so on. The last time a president successfully handed off the presidency to a member of his own party was Reagan to Bush, and that was for just one term.
The real question isn't why did Trump beat Clinton but why are Americans so unhappy with the direction they perceive the country is headed in?
The real question isn't why did Trump beat Clinton but why are Americans so unhappy with the direction they perceive the country is headed in?
13
"The real question isn't why did Trump beat Clinton but why are Americans so unhappy with the direction they perceive the country is headed in?"
To anyone paying attention, that question answers itself.
To anyone paying attention, that question answers itself.
5
The zen of that response is too deep for me. Why do so many Americans feel the country is off course?
3
Nobody liked the major-party candidates. Trump and Clinton each had awful baggage, and the higher overall turnout was more of a vote against than a vote for. Third-party votes made the difference.
A majority of the Clinton lead came from California, where there was a major ballot initiative on gun control. Had there not been such a large turnout in California, Clinton's lead may have even been a deficit.
Clinton won the national popular vote by 2.9 million votes. She won California by 3.4 million. With a normal turnout in California, the popular vote would have been much, much tighter.
I voted third-party, you should too.
A majority of the Clinton lead came from California, where there was a major ballot initiative on gun control. Had there not been such a large turnout in California, Clinton's lead may have even been a deficit.
Clinton won the national popular vote by 2.9 million votes. She won California by 3.4 million. With a normal turnout in California, the popular vote would have been much, much tighter.
I voted third-party, you should too.
8
3rd party makes no sense without a national electoral infrastructure. Even if someone won the Executive office, it would allow both Dems and GOPers to use the POTUS as a punching bag, as each sees fit, to continue playing their games.
The multi-party infrastructure was taken away in the 19th century, taking decades to accomplish, state by state. It's going to take at least that long to get back in the same manner, unless a federal electoral law/constitutional amendment is ever passed that covers all states in one shot, something like: no more gerrymandering, no more corporate/union financing, no more paid advertising on private network television, and open party representation in the state legislatures.
The multi-party infrastructure was taken away in the 19th century, taking decades to accomplish, state by state. It's going to take at least that long to get back in the same manner, unless a federal electoral law/constitutional amendment is ever passed that covers all states in one shot, something like: no more gerrymandering, no more corporate/union financing, no more paid advertising on private network television, and open party representation in the state legislatures.
15
Nate, what I'd like to see is a state-by-state analysis of (1) what the polls predicted in the week leading up to the election, compared with (2) what the results were. I want to see if there were anomalous gaps between those two things in the states of PA, WI & MI, especially. I want to see this to see if I think Russian hacking of electronic voting machines in those states swung the election to Trump.
This is why California does not permit use of those machines in our elections. Other states should follow suit. All election machines should be (1) not connected to the internet, and (2) have a paper backup (in case an audit needs to be done).
This is why California does not permit use of those machines in our elections. Other states should follow suit. All election machines should be (1) not connected to the internet, and (2) have a paper backup (in case an audit needs to be done).
18
As of this writing, there are 606 comments and probably 600 different reasons for the democrats loss.
Somebody else already wrote something like this, but I think it bears repeating:
What does it say about the Democratic party that they nominate a candidate with a strong negative approval rate? That is actually the only explanation we need.
Hillary was disliked by so many that she even lost to Trump.
Many people here have tried to explain her loss and even blamed the Republicans for it. We should actually thank the Republicans for running the second worst candidate ever.
Somebody else already wrote something like this, but I think it bears repeating:
What does it say about the Democratic party that they nominate a candidate with a strong negative approval rate? That is actually the only explanation we need.
Hillary was disliked by so many that she even lost to Trump.
Many people here have tried to explain her loss and even blamed the Republicans for it. We should actually thank the Republicans for running the second worst candidate ever.
19
Amen, from the right!
If you had elected Clinton, we would be blaming you for all the world's woes. Instead, we have Trump to thank for the end of the world.
Don't blame me. I voted for a guy I never heard of, just because he wasn't Trump or Clinton!
This is why a two-party system should never be allowed!
If you had elected Clinton, we would be blaming you for all the world's woes. Instead, we have Trump to thank for the end of the world.
Don't blame me. I voted for a guy I never heard of, just because he wasn't Trump or Clinton!
This is why a two-party system should never be allowed!
6
@Wisdomlost
Wrong. The 2 party system is fine, as long as the 2 parties are properly incentivized and not allowed to do stupid stuff with money and district maps with no oversight. And you certainly don't want 3+ parties without automatic runoffs if no one reaches a minimum threshold of total votes, something most advocates of 3rd parties forget. Why? To prevent unintentional voting misadventure, like 2 out of 3 or more candidates splitting the majority of votes, thereby allowing a least-favorite candidate to win. Run-offs are CRITICAL in 3+ party races.
Wrong. The 2 party system is fine, as long as the 2 parties are properly incentivized and not allowed to do stupid stuff with money and district maps with no oversight. And you certainly don't want 3+ parties without automatic runoffs if no one reaches a minimum threshold of total votes, something most advocates of 3rd parties forget. Why? To prevent unintentional voting misadventure, like 2 out of 3 or more candidates splitting the majority of votes, thereby allowing a least-favorite candidate to win. Run-offs are CRITICAL in 3+ party races.
4
Interesting the analysts ignored wi and mi. The data clearly shows in wi that reduced Democrat turnout gave the state to trump
15
Our president has taught us to blame others and take no personal responsibility. The republican election machine, and Bannon, powered by citizens united money, was super good at painting all democrats as evil, elite (that's bad) and part of the "swamp." This narrative fed into the dissatisfaction of many voters, who needed a scapegoat for their difficult situations.
These gullible people voted for trump, saying things like Hillary for Jail and they didn't trust Hillary. They apparently trusted a con man, and they will likely blame the democrats after he doesn't deliver on any promise (are we sick of winning).
We need those tax returns and Russia investigation. Don the con for Jail.
These gullible people voted for trump, saying things like Hillary for Jail and they didn't trust Hillary. They apparently trusted a con man, and they will likely blame the democrats after he doesn't deliver on any promise (are we sick of winning).
We need those tax returns and Russia investigation. Don the con for Jail.
22
Democrats made it easier for Trump to flip white working class Obama voters:
No increase in the federal minimum wage during the Obama presidency.
No increase in the overtime upset threshold (proposed rule languished for years and was finally proposed to become effective in the last seven weeks of Obama's term, when it was easy to stall or reverse).
Obama's proposal to reduce cost of living increases for Social Security.
Lowering the estate tax.
"Change You Can Believe In"? All of the above could have come from a Republican administration.
No increase in the federal minimum wage during the Obama presidency.
No increase in the overtime upset threshold (proposed rule languished for years and was finally proposed to become effective in the last seven weeks of Obama's term, when it was easy to stall or reverse).
Obama's proposal to reduce cost of living increases for Social Security.
Lowering the estate tax.
"Change You Can Believe In"? All of the above could have come from a Republican administration.
22
All the failures you lay at Obama's feet derive from mindless, vindictive Republican obstructionism.
11
No, they don't. Keep repeating that refrain and watch what happens next time. It will be ugly.
9
Minimum wage. Democrats had full control of the 111th Congress, 2009-10.
Overtime upset. Did not require congressional action. Administration was even prodded in a 2015 letter from 26 Democratic senators to get moving on issuing the rule more than a year after announcing its plan to act.
Obama's proposal to reduce cost of living increases by adopting a different CPI as the basis for changes was entirely the administration's proposal.
The administration chose to accept a lower estate tax as part of a negotiation.
Overtime upset. Did not require congressional action. Administration was even prodded in a 2015 letter from 26 Democratic senators to get moving on issuing the rule more than a year after announcing its plan to act.
Obama's proposal to reduce cost of living increases by adopting a different CPI as the basis for changes was entirely the administration's proposal.
The administration chose to accept a lower estate tax as part of a negotiation.
10
This wasn't even supposed to have been a contest. Now these endless postmortems.
Even as you apportion blame to everyone else as you are wont to do, reserve healthy portions for DNC and the candidate. Until her supporters face up to the reality, I don't see the Democrats moving forward.
Even as you apportion blame to everyone else as you are wont to do, reserve healthy portions for DNC and the candidate. Until her supporters face up to the reality, I don't see the Democrats moving forward.
31
I also reserve huge portions for Bernie Sanders, his supporters, and everyone who registered their heartfelt emotions with a 3d party candidate vote.
9
Don't worry, Hillary is coming back for 2020!
5
Surely you jest.
2
Clinton assumed she would turn out women, minorities & young voters w/ her platform of tepid, pro-corporate policies which she pitched primarily to an educated well-off elite. We saw this attitude when Clinton called Trump supporters - who she should have been wooing - "a basket of deplorables." The trouble is the educated well-off elite just isn't big enough to win a national election.
What Hillary offered struggling young people, struggling working folks, struggling middle-class whites & struggling minorities was her opposition to single-payer health care & free public college - policies that if enacted would go a long way to improve their lives w/ huge relief of their economic burden. Hillary said no. Bernie Sanders supported single payer health care & free public college & came from anonymity to nearly pulling an upset for the Democratic nomination. If the DNC hadn't interfered, he might have won.
Hillary was the wrong candidate. Corporate feminism for upper class white women worried about 'breaking the glass ceiling' in Silicon Valley & Wall Street wasn't a credible platform for millions of Americans. The Clinton campaign didn't care & pushed on, clueless & arrogant that antipathy to Trump meant she could focus on donors & didn't need to campaign in Wisconsin.
Hillary offered very little to core Obama constituents - working people, young people, poor people, minorities. Her certainty they'd support her anyway was tragic. We now live with this nightmare.
What Hillary offered struggling young people, struggling working folks, struggling middle-class whites & struggling minorities was her opposition to single-payer health care & free public college - policies that if enacted would go a long way to improve their lives w/ huge relief of their economic burden. Hillary said no. Bernie Sanders supported single payer health care & free public college & came from anonymity to nearly pulling an upset for the Democratic nomination. If the DNC hadn't interfered, he might have won.
Hillary was the wrong candidate. Corporate feminism for upper class white women worried about 'breaking the glass ceiling' in Silicon Valley & Wall Street wasn't a credible platform for millions of Americans. The Clinton campaign didn't care & pushed on, clueless & arrogant that antipathy to Trump meant she could focus on donors & didn't need to campaign in Wisconsin.
Hillary offered very little to core Obama constituents - working people, young people, poor people, minorities. Her certainty they'd support her anyway was tragic. We now live with this nightmare.
42
Hillary was the most radical Leftist ever to run for the Presidency. But that's her "private position".
7
Thanks for inspiring so many people... The comments help shed light on the state of denial that so many find themselves confronting. There's people still clinging to the childish notion that she "won". Very enlightening.
9
Mr. Muller, it seems more childish to me to ignore the three million more voters Clinton got. Your smugness is ill-founded and unbecoming. That the despicable human being you helped elect is flaming out must really gall you--or it should.
12
This just doesn't make sense. Why would registered democrats in huge numbers vote against their platform? At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I think we should look again at districts for which we are struggling to understand the outcome. We should look again with better methods. The Russians may be much better at messing with us than we know. I understand we've already looked. Look again.
9
Look under the bed - it's the Russians! Until rank and file Democrats come to grips with the fact that their own party rigged their primary to prop up a terrible candidate who ran an inept campaign nothing is going to change. The DNC is going to run the exact same play next election with the same results - four more years of the Donald.
12
They voted "against the platform" because, just like the Republicans, it means nothing! Neither party actually makes an attempt to follow through with their platform.
If you accomplish everything your voters want from you, there's no reason to vote next time. Giving you crumbs from the platform keeps you voting. Both parties play the game, and we all keep playing along.
Have a third-party candidate take a large chunk of the vote (from either side or both sides) and you will see a massive shift in platform progress.
Vote third-party, I did.
If you accomplish everything your voters want from you, there's no reason to vote next time. Giving you crumbs from the platform keeps you voting. Both parties play the game, and we all keep playing along.
Have a third-party candidate take a large chunk of the vote (from either side or both sides) and you will see a massive shift in platform progress.
Vote third-party, I did.
6
So the reason Clinton lost was because they didn't like her. What's new!
21
Well, that's pretty simplistic Rudolf. Read the full text and let's get our reasons clear, whether you're happy with the results or not....
2
So many numbers to so little affect.
It seems that the bottom line ought to be not one of percentage points at this point, but absolute numbers.
The numerical gaps between the three big swing states in this election (which included Pennsylvania) were so nominal, that percentages simply don't matter. Nor do comparisons to Obama's numbers.
By now everyone knows that more white male and female democrats voted for the Republican candidate this time around than in 2012. We also know that black voters were nonplussed by Hillary Clinton for reasons that continue to elude most white moderate voters.
Moreover, if there was ever a repeat of the 1980 election swing, this was it. I personally know many white working class voters, and white upper class voters that come from the working classes, that voted for Trump this time around for reasons of crazy unbridled rage that was impossible to temper or topple.
This is not an election that can be explained or dispelled by statistics, or at least reduced to percentages. We are all at a loss.
It seems that the bottom line ought to be not one of percentage points at this point, but absolute numbers.
The numerical gaps between the three big swing states in this election (which included Pennsylvania) were so nominal, that percentages simply don't matter. Nor do comparisons to Obama's numbers.
By now everyone knows that more white male and female democrats voted for the Republican candidate this time around than in 2012. We also know that black voters were nonplussed by Hillary Clinton for reasons that continue to elude most white moderate voters.
Moreover, if there was ever a repeat of the 1980 election swing, this was it. I personally know many white working class voters, and white upper class voters that come from the working classes, that voted for Trump this time around for reasons of crazy unbridled rage that was impossible to temper or topple.
This is not an election that can be explained or dispelled by statistics, or at least reduced to percentages. We are all at a loss.
13
Nate Cohn didn’t mention gender gap. "Mr. Trump won [men] with the biggest gender gap since the advent of exit polling." That according to Jill Filipovic in The Times, today. http://tinyurl.com/ldpezaa. She further wrote:
"President Trump ran a campaign of aggrieved masculinity, appealing to men who felt their rightful place in society has been taken from them by a stream of immigrants stealing their jobs, women who don’t need husbands to support them, and members of minority groups who don’t work as hard but still get special treatment."
She might have added a generalized resentment against urban liberals who promote such "radical" cultural changes, while dismissing the real needs, often existential, of working families.
Reporters and pollsters tell us the most ardent Trump voters were not those suffering job loss, family breakdown, substance abuse. The latter overwhelmingly did not vote. Rather it was those a rung above, who had decent jobs or small businesses, and were relatively secure, who voted for Trump. Their complaints were of the cultural variety, complaints that Trump understood all too well, and successfully exploited. http://tinyurl.com/ogfgfmd
"President Trump ran a campaign of aggrieved masculinity, appealing to men who felt their rightful place in society has been taken from them by a stream of immigrants stealing their jobs, women who don’t need husbands to support them, and members of minority groups who don’t work as hard but still get special treatment."
She might have added a generalized resentment against urban liberals who promote such "radical" cultural changes, while dismissing the real needs, often existential, of working families.
Reporters and pollsters tell us the most ardent Trump voters were not those suffering job loss, family breakdown, substance abuse. The latter overwhelmingly did not vote. Rather it was those a rung above, who had decent jobs or small businesses, and were relatively secure, who voted for Trump. Their complaints were of the cultural variety, complaints that Trump understood all too well, and successfully exploited. http://tinyurl.com/ogfgfmd
17
Aggrieved masculinity? All I heard from Democrats was that "it was a woman's turn", and all things male were bad and evil in our society.
White roses on Susan B. Anthony's grave on election morning? Yeah, that went across well with the nation's males.
White roses on Susan B. Anthony's grave on election morning? Yeah, that went across well with the nation's males.
6
@apetra
I guess that's all you wanted to hear. And, really? Flowers on a woman's grave are a problem for men? Do these men not have sisters, and mothers, and daughters? Has not EVERY male soul on the planet come from woman's body? Sorry, not buyin' the misogyny on that level.
I guess that's all you wanted to hear. And, really? Flowers on a woman's grave are a problem for men? Do these men not have sisters, and mothers, and daughters? Has not EVERY male soul on the planet come from woman's body? Sorry, not buyin' the misogyny on that level.
8
Has anyone analyzed the undervote – that is, the number of people who showed up at the polls, cast ballots, but made no selection for any candidate in the presidential race? On November 10, I took a quick glance at the undervote in a few counties in each of the states that "flipped" from Democrat to Republican. For example, in Tampa-St.Pete (Hillsborough County, FL), 1.7% of the ballots cast contained no vote for any presidential candidate. This was almost six times the undervote rate in that county in 2012. The victory margin in Florida in 2016 was only 1.3%. Similarly, in Montgomery County, PA (suburban Philadelphia), the 2016 undervote was nearly 3% -- five times as high as in 2012. The victory margin in Pennsylvania in 2016 was only 1.2%.
13
For me, on of the more underreported issues with recent elections is the insanity that some people have to wait two plus hours to vote -- it's disgusting. There's no way I'd take that much time out of my day. These overwhelmed polling locations are almost exclusively in black urban pockets and may have made the difference in 2016.
18
Hillary lost because of Hillary Hate, which is irrational. I see little in this analysis that changes that. Hillary Hate is a combination of sexism, republican conspiracy, and disinformation.
Next election we need to fight harder against sexism, ignorance, and disinformation. That's the lesson. Don't overthink things.
Next election we need to fight harder against sexism, ignorance, and disinformation. That's the lesson. Don't overthink things.
28
If you really think that is the lesson for the Democrats, then you shouldn't mind a second four years of Trump. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
First the Democrats lost the House, then the Senate and finally the Presidency and you still don't get it? Oh yes, it's Russia's fault :-) No my fellow Democrat, it's allowing the corrupt leadership of the DNC and all the Democratic sheep afraid to say anything negative about them.
First the Democrats lost the House, then the Senate and finally the Presidency and you still don't get it? Oh yes, it's Russia's fault :-) No my fellow Democrat, it's allowing the corrupt leadership of the DNC and all the Democratic sheep afraid to say anything negative about them.
8
Trump captured and retained Repubs with his Mexican/Muslim/Obama bashing and promises of a Righwingt Supreme Court nominee. HRC lost on the 3rd Party vote. Thanks to Russian hacking and weaponizing of e-mails, Jill Stein, Gary "Aleppo" and Bernie Sanders, HRC was clobbered daily with a false equivalency to Trump which lost her enough votes in crucial States to turn the election. Jill Stein alone lost her Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Is anyone investigating Jill Stein's Russian connection?
13
Jill Stein was the only alternative left that was not pro corporation or pro war simple as that. Understanding this about Clinton had nothing to do with Russia or the media or even the DNC. Hillary lost the rust belt because she prefers to choose the side of corporations over the people of America.
9
No Clinton was the driver of defeat.
20
In Michigan, where I live, you are correct that turnout was not the deciding factor. The deciding factor was the 13,000 Michigan voters who, without a care for consequences, pulled the lever for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or wrote someone in.
Don't blame rural whites or Hillary Clinton or the DNA or black voters. We did this to ourselves. People were trading votes on line, for God's sake, so they could vote third party.
Just look at some of the comparisons between votes for Stein and Johnson, 2012 vs 2016, in Michigan and Wisconsin. These are pretty striking numbers, yet I barely hear them discussed.
Turnout was down in WI, but that didn't give Trump his tiny victory there, by 27,000 votes. In Dane County alone (where Madison is located), Johnson got over 10,000 votes in 2016 vs just over 20,000 for ALL of Wisconsin in 2012. In 2012, Dane County cast a total vote for Stein and Johnson of 3,605; in 2016 the total was 14,314. Statewide in 2016 Johnson pulled over 102,000 votes, an increase of over 500%.
Overall, third party votes in Wisconsin went from 1% in 2012 to 7% in 2016. In Michigan, Gary Johnson received over 173,000 votes alone, with over 50,000 for Jill Stein. 173,000 votes for a guy who did not know what Aleppo ''is."
What did these voters think would happen?
Don't blame rural whites or Hillary Clinton or the DNA or black voters. We did this to ourselves. People were trading votes on line, for God's sake, so they could vote third party.
Just look at some of the comparisons between votes for Stein and Johnson, 2012 vs 2016, in Michigan and Wisconsin. These are pretty striking numbers, yet I barely hear them discussed.
Turnout was down in WI, but that didn't give Trump his tiny victory there, by 27,000 votes. In Dane County alone (where Madison is located), Johnson got over 10,000 votes in 2016 vs just over 20,000 for ALL of Wisconsin in 2012. In 2012, Dane County cast a total vote for Stein and Johnson of 3,605; in 2016 the total was 14,314. Statewide in 2016 Johnson pulled over 102,000 votes, an increase of over 500%.
Overall, third party votes in Wisconsin went from 1% in 2012 to 7% in 2016. In Michigan, Gary Johnson received over 173,000 votes alone, with over 50,000 for Jill Stein. 173,000 votes for a guy who did not know what Aleppo ''is."
What did these voters think would happen?
25
I'm lucky, I live in California. I was allowed to vote for Gary Johnson and didn't have to vote for one of the two horrible candidates that the Democrats and the media gave us.
10
The article says:
"If turnout played only a modest role in Mr. Trump’s victory, then the big driver of his gains was persuasion: He flipped millions of white working-class Obama supporters to his side."
But didn't Trump have fewer votes than Romey or McCain? Doesn't that go against the idea that Trump flipped "millions"?
"If turnout played only a modest role in Mr. Trump’s victory, then the big driver of his gains was persuasion: He flipped millions of white working-class Obama supporters to his side."
But didn't Trump have fewer votes than Romey or McCain? Doesn't that go against the idea that Trump flipped "millions"?
14
Nate Cohn, why don't you withdraw from commenting? On the basis of a few points lead in the polls, mostly within the margin of error, you and Upshot predicted that Hillary had an 80+% chance of beating Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forec... That overconfidence may have contributed to Hillary's loss. It still hurts when I think about that unwarranted extrapolation.
26
Did white democrats vote for Trump? This is so poorly written that I don't get your point. The reason Trump won is the democrats ran Hillary Clinton; it's that simple. Just about any other person could have won but they ran a candidate who provided no inspiration for her party and major motivation for the other party. The democratic leadership is weak and rudderless and until they get rid of the likes of pelosi and Schumer they will continue their march to irrelavence. What we need is a viable 3rd party called 'common sense.'
39
Spare us your smug certainty and speak for yourself. Hilary Clinton supplied plenty of inspiration for many of us and won by millions of votes. If you want to talk about misogyny as motivation for the other party or racism, then do so, but don't mansplain to the rest of us why the democrats lost an election that was rife with meddling, corruption, racism, misogyny, etc. etc. etc. I welcome a viable third party, but if it attracts idealogical know-it-alls who trot out hindsight as if it was earned wisdom, then it will be just as weak and "irrelevant" as the other two.
13
for the record, Clinton didn't lose to trump. she won the popular vote by over 2.5 million votes...thats not losing...thats winning. we need to get rid of this electoral college nonsense and allow the will of the people to play out
8
If major newspapers such as the NYT and WaPo and media had spent an equal amount of time critically analyzing Donald Trump's weaknesses to the same extent they did Mrs. Clinton's, I am sure one result would have been fewer Democrats defecting to Trump. (Actually with thorough vetting of all contenders by the same publications, the Democratic nominee might have and should have been someone other than Mrs. Clinton.) While I have no regrets that Hillary Clinton will never be POTUS, Trump is a pure travesty. It was the worst election choices in my lifetime, which includes Nixon's three runs for the office. A total lack of critical thinking by many in the electorate.
7
From the data, it's obvious turn out did affect the 2016 election. If Blacks, a group more likely to vote for Clinton than for Trump, had turned out in larger numbers she would have won the electoral college, not only the popular vote. That she couldn't persuade Black voters to turnout is a different story. dgp
8
White women, thought to be Mrs. Clinton's guaranteed votes, didn't turn out for her either as 53% of them voted for Trump.
6
Same story. Hillary was a horrible candidate and Democratsled by her, remain attached to their self- defeating political correctness in the hope that name-calling epresents a viable politics. Good luck. I'm disgusted by Democrats and regret wasting my time on their empty agendas.
26
I doubt that calling Trump supporters "deplorable" did anything to help Hillary. That was a major faux pas.
34
How is that still a thing? Trump said 1000 things worse than that during the campaign.
1
Here are a few questions for Mr. Cohn:
Why were Mr. Cohn's polls so far off & did this false prediction lead to any complacency among the slim deficit that failed to protect the Dems, allowing the electoral college to swing so decisively against the popular vote?
Much is made of the Russians throwing public opinion with their alleged DNC hack/leak, but HRC seemed to have survived that. What of the matter of Huma Abudeen forwarding emails to Anthony Weiner's laptop, isn't that ultimately what tipped the vote?
Given that Comey is a republican & republicans as a rule tend stick their thumbs on the electoral scale given a chance, would it not have been prudent to have a tech clean up all devices the emails were forwarded to, was not this oversight not the most careless loose-end the Dems could have left after the nearly catastrophic HRC email hype?
Assuming the polls were right & HRC had the election locked up, what really swung the election in the end, was it the Russians or Anthony Weiner? & assuming the latter, & the givens about Comey, did the Dems not blow it all by themselves?
Since Bernie & Trump had much more overlapping platforms appealing to the WWC (white working class), anti-trade, etc, would Bernie have won against Trump? Would the WWC have despised Bernie as much as Democrats are repulsed by everything about Trump?
These are a few unanswered questions about this crushing upset the consequences of which are only beginning to tangibly sink in.
Why were Mr. Cohn's polls so far off & did this false prediction lead to any complacency among the slim deficit that failed to protect the Dems, allowing the electoral college to swing so decisively against the popular vote?
Much is made of the Russians throwing public opinion with their alleged DNC hack/leak, but HRC seemed to have survived that. What of the matter of Huma Abudeen forwarding emails to Anthony Weiner's laptop, isn't that ultimately what tipped the vote?
Given that Comey is a republican & republicans as a rule tend stick their thumbs on the electoral scale given a chance, would it not have been prudent to have a tech clean up all devices the emails were forwarded to, was not this oversight not the most careless loose-end the Dems could have left after the nearly catastrophic HRC email hype?
Assuming the polls were right & HRC had the election locked up, what really swung the election in the end, was it the Russians or Anthony Weiner? & assuming the latter, & the givens about Comey, did the Dems not blow it all by themselves?
Since Bernie & Trump had much more overlapping platforms appealing to the WWC (white working class), anti-trade, etc, would Bernie have won against Trump? Would the WWC have despised Bernie as much as Democrats are repulsed by everything about Trump?
These are a few unanswered questions about this crushing upset the consequences of which are only beginning to tangibly sink in.
11
Nate said 70% chance for Hillary. So she lost 7 coin tosses out of 10. It happens. Has a woman who hadn't driven a car since the 1980s even seen a nickle this century?
6
Nonsense--all one needs to do is compare Dem turnout levels in '08, 12 & 16-- Trump got same percentage as Romney & McCain-- the Repub coalition held--Hillary underperformed Obama by roughly 6 percentage points.. a 1% higher African-American turnout in key states would have been enough to give Hillary victory ...white working class is not a make or break voting block in elections.. Latinos and African-Americans much more decisive ... and they indeed decided 2016 by staying home...
8
It's exactly these myths that Nate exploded in this article.
4
Hillary didn't lose because he was an old face in politics...
She lost because she wasn't macho enough...
She lost because she wasn't macho enough...
5
All that analysis and no info on the absurdly gerrymandered voting districts that helped the red party up and down tickets nationwide...woosh!
13
Gerrymandering doesn't have any effect on single person per party elections. The ability to move people from either party from one district to another is only useful in representative races.
6
So one of the conclusions was that a fairly significant percentage of White Working Class people who voted for the black guy in 2012, couldn't bring themselves to vote for the white woman in 2016? Interesting.
14
Yep, that would be the theory! As it turns out, sexism's a lot stronger than any of us thought it was.
11
Not after she promised more of the same.
Voters patted themselves on the back for electing the first black President, although he was -- particularly in the last two years -- vain, overbearing, constantly throwing out straw men unchallenged by the media, and overall just insulting to ordinary Americans.
American always hated his policies.
Voters patted themselves on the back for electing the first black President, although he was -- particularly in the last two years -- vain, overbearing, constantly throwing out straw men unchallenged by the media, and overall just insulting to ordinary Americans.
American always hated his policies.
6
The corollary being an inspiring black guy beats an uninspiring white woman.
Show me an inspiring candidate of any color and of either gender, and I'll show you a winner. (Oh wait, we had Bernie, but the "it's her turn" team blew it.)
Show me an inspiring candidate of any color and of either gender, and I'll show you a winner. (Oh wait, we had Bernie, but the "it's her turn" team blew it.)
8
Clinton lost because too many people in key states had grown tired of her presence on the political scene. I've known her since her husband first ran in the Democratic primary. If you told me then that she would be our candidate more than 20 years later, I'd have laughed heartily. I wasn't laughing when she struggled to beat a septuagenarian socialist but I was worried for the party. I still am. I voted for her because I saw no other chouce, but I still rue the day that Obama appointed her Secretary of State. That pretty much guaranteed she'd be the front runner. In a change election, she was the same old thing.
16
This article seems to erroneously treat "persuasiveness" as if it correlates with numbers of people instead of states. That Clinton actually ended up with almost 3 million persuadees MORE than did her opponent undercuts persuasiveness-deficit theories.
Furthermore, if "persuasiveness" is a parameter, why ignore Russia's massive, 100% unilateral efforts to influence—"persuade"—voters against Clinton?
Russian interference along with societal gender bias are supposedly unquantifiable. On that basis, their impact on the election is often dismissed. But, quantifiability notwithstanding, Russian incursions and gender bias are far from unassessable.
Furthermore, if "persuasiveness" is a parameter, why ignore Russia's massive, 100% unilateral efforts to influence—"persuade"—voters against Clinton?
Russian interference along with societal gender bias are supposedly unquantifiable. On that basis, their impact on the election is often dismissed. But, quantifiability notwithstanding, Russian incursions and gender bias are far from unassessable.
11
When celebrity is valued more than qualifications, we are indeed a country in need of some serious soul searching.
Go figure President Carter saw this coming decades ago (1979) when he spoke about the dangers of consumerism.
"I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American Democracy."
"It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart, soul, and spirit of our national will."
"We've always believed in something called progress"
"Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption"
"Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns"
I would say DT is the physical manifestation of Carter's dire warning to Americans so long ago.
Go figure President Carter saw this coming decades ago (1979) when he spoke about the dangers of consumerism.
"I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American Democracy."
"It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart, soul, and spirit of our national will."
"We've always believed in something called progress"
"Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption"
"Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns"
I would say DT is the physical manifestation of Carter's dire warning to Americans so long ago.
16
Why, at this stage of the game, is Mr. Cohn - who got everything wrong in his election prognostications - still looking for an excuse for the way things turned out?
Who is he trying to vindicate?
The democrats or himself?
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Who is he trying to vindicate?
The democrats or himself?
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
14
It was racism and sexism! Yay, how comforting!
4
I refuse to take any presidential election too seriously in this country until we GET RID of that antebellum, slave-era procedure called the Electoral College. People in this country should be surprised people of color vote at all with it in existence.
7
Hillary lost because she didn't know how to properly pour a beer.
3
She lost, get over it already
16
Turnout, well, ah, no. Turning so far left that Ckinton lost the center, how obvious,
5
She lost because she sickened so many life-long Democrats.
Next time, do a better job of picking a decent candidate and a real platform.
And in the meantime, here's a novel idea: stop playing politics and start working to improve the lives of working Americans. You know, like the Democratic Party used to do.
Or is that too radical?
Next time, do a better job of picking a decent candidate and a real platform.
And in the meantime, here's a novel idea: stop playing politics and start working to improve the lives of working Americans. You know, like the Democratic Party used to do.
Or is that too radical?
49
"And in the meantime, here's a novel idea: stop playing politics and start working to improve the lives of working Americans. You know, like the Democratic Party used to do."
And that the GOP has never done...
And that the GOP has never done...
8
I gather that you never read a single one of her proposals, did you? One of the first was about remediation for coal miners who had lost their jobs. Then there was family leaves, not just maternity leave. Then there was the proposal to offer tax credits to businesses that shared profits with their employees. Then there was her proposal to cap CEO salaries...So she never thought about the lives of working Americans?
No--you didn't.
No--you didn't.
10
You must be a Bernie Bro.
2
Both candidates were under FBI investigation, but America only knew about one of those investigations.
Name any President who got elected by a populace who knew was the subject of an investigation ?
Name any President who got elected by a populace who knew was the subject of an investigation ?
17
A very sharp difference in the investigations.
Hillary, when SoS, for National Security reasons; millions in donations to the Foundation plus Bill's speaking fees, all from questionable sources/incentives.
Trump, a businessman, dealing in private property, hotels, contracts & construction.
Trump was small potatoes next to the Clintons.
Hillary, when SoS, for National Security reasons; millions in donations to the Foundation plus Bill's speaking fees, all from questionable sources/incentives.
Trump, a businessman, dealing in private property, hotels, contracts & construction.
Trump was small potatoes next to the Clintons.
5
There are a lot of opinions here and scant hope of unification on a final answer. Mine is that I would never, ever, not in a million years, ever sacrifice my beliefs for a boorish and ignorant " hope he ain't lyin' to me" candidate with the record of not paying his bills that tRump has. Not a sucker! You can keep on hoping he has a reason you can't see his tax returns if you want, but I know that Lucy pulled the football back on you, Charlie Brown!
10
Looks like the Upshot is trying to redeem itself by showing how it closely predicted the voting outcomes. What you got tremendously wrong was your constant prediction that Hillary was going to win the electoral vote sometimes by over 90%. WRONG! That stat was so far off that you lost credibility. I will never believe your stats again.
19
the problem is that most people do not understand the meaning of the predictions, and even less about what are they derived from.
This sentence:" ...your constant prediction that Hilary was going to win electoral vote sometimes by over 90%" beautifully illustrates my point.
This sentence:" ...your constant prediction that Hilary was going to win electoral vote sometimes by over 90%" beautifully illustrates my point.
1
Still, once Biden throws his hat into the ring, the whole game's gonna change. Right, Nate?
2
Hillary Clinton joins a long list of boring centrist Democrats who have lost even when many experts predicted otherwise from Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry. The Democrats have only succeeded when outsiders like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have toppled the establishment. As a fervent Bernie backer, I only wish both the Democratic National Committee and the Times had played more fair and we wouldn't be in the catastrophic mess we're all in.
35
I don't think Hillary as a boring centrist. A centrist perhaps, but that is not a bad thing, especially if you want change To Happen. Sanders is the big creator of this mess we're in. He was fuel for the Trump/Russian campaign and played a big part in why HRC lost.
1
So Mr. Cohn, and the NYT obviously concurs, gives no credence to alleged underhanded handling by Clintonites disfavoring Bernie Sanders? There are several noteworthy journalists who were exclaiming that Sanders could beat Trump but they could not say the same for Clinton's chances. I thought this was HUGE; but instead we go for dehumanizing statistics and they never lie, right?
15
Let's cut to the chase. Hillary was a loser from the beginning. She had the most untrustworthy numbers ever recorded.
Donald Trump beat her. Let that sink in.
She is a serial liar and the American people, despite the MSM covering for her, know that she did not have 33,000 deleted emails about Yoga. Benghazi wasn't about a video and the dog didn't eat her homework.
Even rednecks in fly over country aren't that stupid.
What does that say about her supporters? Like the 80% of NYers that voted for her?
Dumb and dumber?
Donald Trump beat her. Let that sink in.
She is a serial liar and the American people, despite the MSM covering for her, know that she did not have 33,000 deleted emails about Yoga. Benghazi wasn't about a video and the dog didn't eat her homework.
Even rednecks in fly over country aren't that stupid.
What does that say about her supporters? Like the 80% of NYers that voted for her?
Dumb and dumber?
24
And Trump wasn't much bigger a liar? Her scores by Politifact on truthfulness were five times higher than his...he lied with every utterance. She was called a "liar" for saying Comey said she "was truthful" when his actual words were she "didn't lie." For pete's sake. I've never heard anyone really pinpoint an actual outright lie by Hillary Clinton.
5
Now I wonder, should I have <i>discussed politics </i> with friends and colleagues, sharing accurate information & confronting alternate facts?
2
This makes Hillary the first Democrat to lose the white working class vote ever.
What's that you say? EVERY Democrat for president has lost the white working class vote since 1968?
EXACTLY! But to hear pundits spin it, she, and she alone, is the first to do so.
What's that you say? EVERY Democrat for president has lost the white working class vote since 1968?
EXACTLY! But to hear pundits spin it, she, and she alone, is the first to do so.
6
Hillary was supposed to have a lock on the white female vote yet 53% of white women voted for Trump. Why didn't you mention this? Are you shifting the narrative to avoid this unpleasant truth?
13
Something funny here. The voters in Maricopa County, AZ., the heavily Republican 4th most populous county in the country that is home to Phoenix and Mesa, voted out after 6 terms Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Statistics have shown that it was REPUBLICAN voters who were responsible for defeating him (mostly fed up with his costing taxpayers tens of millions in lawsuits against the county) and NOT Latino voters.
Statistics have shown that it was REPUBLICAN voters who were responsible for defeating him (mostly fed up with his costing taxpayers tens of millions in lawsuits against the county) and NOT Latino voters.
4
It's "President Trump", and "Mr. Obama", now, Nate. Then you wonder why people call you Fake News.
8
There is only ONE fact. Hillary Clinton is/was utterly unelectable – generally disliked, disagreeable, untrustworthy, flat, wooden, uninspiring performance during the campaign kept more potential voters away from the urns than any other factor – me included.
This wasn't new to me but dating to 2000 and Clinton's carpetbagging of retiring NY senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seat in the US Senate.
“The 2016 race is transcendentally bizarre. We have two near-nominees with the highest unfavorables at this point in the race of any in modern history. We seem to have a majority of voters in both parties who are driven by the desire to vote against the other candidate, rather than for their own.
“Hillary can’t generate excitement on her own so she is relying on fear of Trump to get her into the White House."
~ MAUREEN DOWD
Weakend at Bernie's - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/opinion/sunday/weakend-at-bernies.html
This wasn't new to me but dating to 2000 and Clinton's carpetbagging of retiring NY senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seat in the US Senate.
“The 2016 race is transcendentally bizarre. We have two near-nominees with the highest unfavorables at this point in the race of any in modern history. We seem to have a majority of voters in both parties who are driven by the desire to vote against the other candidate, rather than for their own.
“Hillary can’t generate excitement on her own so she is relying on fear of Trump to get her into the White House."
~ MAUREEN DOWD
Weakend at Bernie's - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/opinion/sunday/weakend-at-bernies.html
19
Under President Putin’s firm and steady hand, Comrade Donald Trump will receive the enlightened guidance and strong leadership he needs to Make Amerika Great Again!
Comrade Trump with the assistance of President Putin, will also “root out” the TRAITORS in the USA intel community! The FBI, CIA, NSA will be “reformed” by Admiral of the Navy Steve Bannon and Stephen Feinberg. Amerikans can relax, knowing that President Putin’s will support Comrade Trump and help him exterminate all the libturd agitators!
Comrade Trump with the assistance of President Putin, will also “root out” the TRAITORS in the USA intel community! The FBI, CIA, NSA will be “reformed” by Admiral of the Navy Steve Bannon and Stephen Feinberg. Amerikans can relax, knowing that President Putin’s will support Comrade Trump and help him exterminate all the libturd agitators!
3
Oh come on, Nate! Why over-analyze the obvious?
It was relentless fake news, lies, and smears, blatant gerrymandering and obvious election-tampering by a foreign power -- along with MASSIVE amounts of money (most behind-the-scenes, which got Trump the nomination in the first place).
Clinton got 3 MILLION more votes and last the election because of shady vote-totals in just a few states (Penn, Wisc, Mich, etc)
The election was STOLEN, and the sooner the media wakes up, smells the coffee, and stops acting like this was "any other election" the more change that democracy will survive this unnatural disaster!
It was relentless fake news, lies, and smears, blatant gerrymandering and obvious election-tampering by a foreign power -- along with MASSIVE amounts of money (most behind-the-scenes, which got Trump the nomination in the first place).
Clinton got 3 MILLION more votes and last the election because of shady vote-totals in just a few states (Penn, Wisc, Mich, etc)
The election was STOLEN, and the sooner the media wakes up, smells the coffee, and stops acting like this was "any other election" the more change that democracy will survive this unnatural disaster!
9
REALITY: except for partisan dems and trump haters why would someone vote for a person who was proven to be dishonest/ incompetent at her job performance including campaigning and a crooked influence peddler
13
Please. No Democrat can believe a word pollsters have to say about their dismal pre-election predictions. There are so many factors to blame for this calamity that the more it's analyzed the less convincing it is. The election was rigged by outside forces (Russia and that twisted Assange), Republican-engineered gerrymandering, fake news, anti-female animus, pathetically skewed news coverage that turned a cretin into a viable candidate and turned a real candidate into a loser. And then there is Sanders and his circus, an Independent masquerading as a Democrat and shredding the party while he was playing at it. This country will never recover from this election, not so long as that illegitimate clown and his band of wretched Republicans rule.
7
A lot of work went into this article to skirt around the real reason Trump won the election, and that is the country is tired of the establishments policies and practices, of both political parties.
16
I'd like to see some analysis of whether voter suppression might well have made the difference. There were suppression efforts going on in some of these states; not all of those efforts were stopped by the courts. The fact that black turnout was lower than expected could be at least partly because of voter suppression.
5
The African/American turnout should have been higher. The choices were very clear!
3
Ultimately 77,000 votes gave us the Grifter in Chief.
5
Why did you not graph or discuss how the election would have turned out with 2012 and 2008 turnout levels? It's strange to include 2014, but exclude 2012.
2
I'm sorry - I read this article twice and it sounds like he's contradicting himself all over the place. It's not this, and it's not this and it's not this - well then ,what was it? The article never says.
3
Bottom Line: "Make America Great Again" inspired more people than "Better Together". All other factors seem to be noise.
3
Turnout wasn't a driver?! What planet are you on? Let's take Michigan as an example. 2016 results: Trump 2.28M, Clinton 2.27M. 2012 results: Obama 2.56M, Romney 2.12M. 2008 results: Obama 2.87M, McCain 2.05M. Vote totals went down from 2008 to 2016. Down, as in there were fewer votes. While the number of Republican votes increased by 230k from 2008 to 2016 the number of Democratic votes decreased by 600k. Relative to 2008, the decrease in the number of Democratic votes was >2.5x the increase in number of Republican votes. Relative to 2012, the decrease in Democratic votes was almost double the Republican increase. How on earth can you claim that turnout was not a driver?
6
President Bill Clinton is solely to blame for creating NAFTA, MFN/PNTR for Communist China, various other Free Trade Agreements, and other anti-business laws that allowed and economically required that US businesses to move as many of their US factories and those associated jobs for US citizens overseas in order to reduce manufacturing costs if US workers refuse to work for third world wages.
President Obama, and especially the Clintons, should have to answer questions about the lack of US security protocol when dealing with national security such as US foreign national spies; US foreign nation drug cartel informers; Bengazi; the Iran Nuclear Treaty; granting military secret Hughes Aircraft Rocket Guidance Technology export license to Communist China; creating Free Trade Agreements; almost Doubling the National Debt; granting Most Favored Nation trade status to Communist China; creating Environmental Damage Claim Limitations for offshore drilling operations; granting Presidential Pardons for convicted felons; providing Solyndra type “pay to play” US government guaranteed business loans; granting CGI Federal political power influenced no-bid US government “pay to play” contract awards for many times the amount of the value of the contract; expensive Military-Industrial Complex NO-BID military contract(s); pork barrel NO-BID contract(s) for infrastructure improvements; welfare; unemployment benefits; pork barrel projects; green projects; politically correct wars; and etc.
President Obama, and especially the Clintons, should have to answer questions about the lack of US security protocol when dealing with national security such as US foreign national spies; US foreign nation drug cartel informers; Bengazi; the Iran Nuclear Treaty; granting military secret Hughes Aircraft Rocket Guidance Technology export license to Communist China; creating Free Trade Agreements; almost Doubling the National Debt; granting Most Favored Nation trade status to Communist China; creating Environmental Damage Claim Limitations for offshore drilling operations; granting Presidential Pardons for convicted felons; providing Solyndra type “pay to play” US government guaranteed business loans; granting CGI Federal political power influenced no-bid US government “pay to play” contract awards for many times the amount of the value of the contract; expensive Military-Industrial Complex NO-BID military contract(s); pork barrel NO-BID contract(s) for infrastructure improvements; welfare; unemployment benefits; pork barrel projects; green projects; politically correct wars; and etc.
10
It's amazing that Clinton couldn't defeat President Trump despite having Obama illegally use the British to spy on Mr. Trump.
5
Actually, it was the GOP that 'used' that British spy, first to build a dossier on Trump by Republicans looking to defeat him in the primaries. But don't take my word for it. Reuters, 1/12/17:
"Steele was initially hired by FusionGPS, a Washington-based political research firm, to investigate Trump on behalf of unidentified Republicans who wanted to stop Trump's bid for the party's nomination"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele-idUSKBN14W0HN
Only when that job was done, did he hire himself out to the Democrats...that would be the DNC, not Obama. Best to get your facts straight before making unfounded allegations...
"Steele was initially hired by FusionGPS, a Washington-based political research firm, to investigate Trump on behalf of unidentified Republicans who wanted to stop Trump's bid for the party's nomination"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele-idUSKBN14W0HN
Only when that job was done, did he hire himself out to the Democrats...that would be the DNC, not Obama. Best to get your facts straight before making unfounded allegations...
Turns out she was a boring, tired, entitled candidate that had nothing to offer other than being the first female President. How bad to you have to be to lose to someone like Trump?
17
Josh - I give you credit - you are truly a brave soul to expose yourself like this. It's about the policies, not personalities but I am guessing you never bothered to look past the slogans.
1
Rocko - I wrote in for Kasich, the smartest candidate by far. Clinton put people to sleep, was a weak SoS, sold 20% of our Uranium reserves to Russia, sold her soul to those who donated to the Clinton Foundation. And keep the name calling for your playground recess.
3
"To the extent Democratic turnout was weak, it was mainly among black voters."
Because black voters only vote Democrat? Way to paint with a broad brush..
Because black voters only vote Democrat? Way to paint with a broad brush..
3
josh - look at the polls dumas...
1
How could Hillary win by 3 million more votes, but still lose? Easily, through Kris Kobach's Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck program. We didn't have "voter fraud," we had election fraud. Still not covered in the MSM, but you can hear/read all about it here:
2016 elections
by the Real News Network
Read moreabout Greg Palast on Why Clinton Didn't Push for Michigan Recount - Part 1 of 2
2016 elections
by the Real News Network
Read moreabout Greg Palast on Why Clinton Didn't Push for Michigan Recount - Part 2 of 2
2016 elections
by the Real News Network
Read moreabout Greg Palast on Why Clinton Didn't Push for Michigan Recount - Part 1 of 2
2016 elections
by the Real News Network
Read moreabout Greg Palast on Why Clinton Didn't Push for Michigan Recount - Part 2 of 2
2
Right after the election NPR--I believe KQED--released a chart showing drop off among millennial voters from 2012 to 2016. It's big. In fact, the difference would have delivered the presidency for Clinton. MI, PA, WI and FL showed the most dramatic downturn. All of the polling shows that the millennials who voted in 2012 but did not vote in 2016 would have broken heavily (over 55 percent on average) for Clinton. Here's the link. It sure seems that had turnout been similar to 2012 HRC would have won. But um I'm not the best mathematician.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/501727488/millennials-just-didnt-love-hill...
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/501727488/millennials-just-didnt-love-hill...
4
Nate Cohn,
I think that the US press needs to inform and remind US Voters also need to know all about each and every political candidate's ethical past history, including and especially their actions that were criminal and even treasonous against the USA (i.e. Chinagate), accepting contributions to perform government actions for the benefit of foreign governments (US Uranium mine titles to Russian Businessmen), PAY TO PLAY payments for granting US and Canadian citizens access to free money from the US government Treasury (Solyndra, CGI Federal, Military Industrial Ccomplex), committing (sexual assault) felonies, bankruptcies, warts and all etc!
I think that the US press needs to inform and remind US Voters also need to know all about each and every political candidate's ethical past history, including and especially their actions that were criminal and even treasonous against the USA (i.e. Chinagate), accepting contributions to perform government actions for the benefit of foreign governments (US Uranium mine titles to Russian Businessmen), PAY TO PLAY payments for granting US and Canadian citizens access to free money from the US government Treasury (Solyndra, CGI Federal, Military Industrial Ccomplex), committing (sexual assault) felonies, bankruptcies, warts and all etc!
3
Pshaw. Trump won by 80,000 vote margin across Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Get 42,000 more votes for Clinton in those three states and Clinton wins. That's simple math. Not enough voters - African Americans included - voted on Tuesday, November 8th, 2016. Similar results in Florida, another close race. African Americans need to do a better job getting out to vote.
8
You're assuming African Americans only vote Democratic. Why?
3
"Persuasion was the biggest factor" in Clinton's loss.
Yes. When someone isn't a strong candidate people are typically "persuaded" not to vote for them.
Yes. When someone isn't a strong candidate people are typically "persuaded" not to vote for them.
7
It makes no sense to me that someone who voted for Barack Obama would vote for an abomination like Donald Trump.
4
Me neither. But, apparently, it's possible, and it happened.
1
Hillary has a chance to prove her love for the American people esp. other women. I was just thinking about incarcerated women (and their children), the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Woman who lack the funds or support system to go to college. Woman who need encouragement. Literacy. Abuse. (I was interested to read the Vogue interview where Mrs. Obama noted that once she got to Princeton she realized she was as smart as anyone there.
A HILLARY Rodham Clinton Foundation whose work is done at home in the USA. It could even be a clearing house to support other institutions. How about it, Hillary? Go fund raise for Planned Parenthood?!! Lots of ways to make a difference.
A HILLARY Rodham Clinton Foundation whose work is done at home in the USA. It could even be a clearing house to support other institutions. How about it, Hillary? Go fund raise for Planned Parenthood?!! Lots of ways to make a difference.
4
um, isn't gerrymandering the reason trump won?
3
@ac
Not directly. Gerrymandering only has a direct effect on district races, which populate the House of Representatives. The Senate and the Executive are contested by statewide popular vote counts, not district vote counts. However, the districts DO come into play somewhat in the Electoral College, but again, not directly.
Not directly. Gerrymandering only has a direct effect on district races, which populate the House of Representatives. The Senate and the Executive are contested by statewide popular vote counts, not district vote counts. However, the districts DO come into play somewhat in the Electoral College, but again, not directly.
1
HRC ran as Republican light, after turning off the progressive wing of the Democratic party with all of the DNC shenanigans and figured people would just vote for her anyway. It just wasn't compelling. She did not motivate voters enough to get out and vote. The voter turnout turned out the way it did because she was a really flawed candidate.
As bad as Trump was, his whole "forgotten man" rhetoric at least fooled some into believing him..HRC message was "fear Trump"....and she wasn't even strategic enough to to go to WI and MI and PA enough when it counted.
Yes, she won the popular vote and the electoral college result was the most unlikely of outcomes, but throughout the campaign, she polled fairly closely to Trump despite him being possibly the least informed, least experienced and most preposterous major party candidate ever.
As bad as Trump was, his whole "forgotten man" rhetoric at least fooled some into believing him..HRC message was "fear Trump"....and she wasn't even strategic enough to to go to WI and MI and PA enough when it counted.
Yes, she won the popular vote and the electoral college result was the most unlikely of outcomes, but throughout the campaign, she polled fairly closely to Trump despite him being possibly the least informed, least experienced and most preposterous major party candidate ever.
7
Cee - next time try reading the article which clearly states that it was NOT turnout. Further, the polls shifted 11 days before the election when Comey put his finger on the scale, releasing that letter, and allowing whiteys to vote their bigotry...
2
I voted for Clinton for the same reasons I didn't vote for Trump: she is smart and he is dumb; she is experienced and he is a neophyte; she can speak persuasively and he can't even tweet persuasively (unless you are ten stories short of a tower); she is for the majority of citizens, he favors the top one tenth of one percent plus the know-nothings.
6
There's a whole list of reasons why Clinton lost, but honestly, I just wish the Clinton's would go away...permanently. Because of them and others, the Democratic Party is now the party of Goldman Sachs with the rainbow flag. Good on social issues, but that's about it. Yes, Obama and the Democrats signed the ACA, but they refused to allow a public option....and they had the majority in both houses and the White House to do it. Why is that? Must be the big money contributions from their donor class such as the health insurance and big pharma industries. If the Democratic Party wants to win again, then purge the corporate Democrats from power and return the party back to FDR and LBJ Democrats...or continue to lose! But that's not going to happen because they did everything they could to make sure Keith Ellison lost the DNC Chair. I wonder why!
16
Dear Barbara P,
Amen! Hear! Hear!
Amen! Hear! Hear!
3
This dem thinks HRC lost because she had a private server to serve her. End of story, sigh.
4
When will we stop using racial epithets such as White, Black and Hispanic to identify Americans? Those definers weaken our democracy and put someone like Trump in the white house.
4
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump had dismal ratings among likely voters long before the election. The Democrats stuck with their flawed candidate, even cheating to do it, and she spent more time fundraising (which is why voters didn't like her in the first place, you know, the Wall Street thing) than in front of voters. The Republicans, meanwhile, had no popular candidate, ending up with the craziest of the lot winning by default. The Democrats and Republicans did themselves in, if for different reasons.
Chasing November numbers around is a wasted effort unless you factor in that both of major party candidates -- early on -- were the most disliked candidates in recent memory. The GOP is beyond help. They're too far gone. But the Democrats, why are they refusing to own their bad decision, and make real changes? In fact, dear New York Times, why are you refusing to acknowledge you backed the wrong Democratic Party candidate, dismissing your progressive readers as so much liberal rabble in your blatantly pro-Wall Street election coverage?
Look who still tops the polls. It's Bernie!
Chasing November numbers around is a wasted effort unless you factor in that both of major party candidates -- early on -- were the most disliked candidates in recent memory. The GOP is beyond help. They're too far gone. But the Democrats, why are they refusing to own their bad decision, and make real changes? In fact, dear New York Times, why are you refusing to acknowledge you backed the wrong Democratic Party candidate, dismissing your progressive readers as so much liberal rabble in your blatantly pro-Wall Street election coverage?
Look who still tops the polls. It's Bernie!
14
Among those who actually confessed to their votes last Winter in my neck of the woods, many of the undecided, or those who have voted democratic in the past, voted for Trump...not because they supported him, but rather because of their disdain for Clinton. Both Hillary and Bill made them seize up like fingernails on a chalkboard. So my unscientific analysis says that not only did Trump win without winning the popular vote, he won with voters who voted against the other, and democrats lost more voters to the other independents. This explains the uprising and deafening cry when he pushed the health care bill, even giving up any semblance of fairness just to get votes by pandering to the tea party...he won with a portion of a minority! And as his supporters and everyone now know, the Emperor truly has no clothes!!!
4
Ohio = 18 Electoral Votes.
Democrat turnout (2016 = 2394164, 2012 = 2827709, net loss -15.33%)
Republican turnout (2016 = 2841005, 2012 = 2661437, net gain = 6.75)
So in Ohio, 8.58% Democrats potentially did stay home.
Using the same logic:
Michigan, 3.76% Democrats potentially did stay home (16 Electoral Votes)
Wisconsin, 14.9% Democrats potentially did stay home (10 Electoral Votes)
Iowa, 10.54% Democrats potentially did stay home (6 Electoral Votes)
Actual 2016 electoral count (Republican = 306, Democrat = 232)
The four states mentioned above account for 18+16+10+6 = 50 electoral votes. Adding this 'selective low voter turnout' to the mix:
Potential 2016 electoral count (Republican = 256, Democrat = 282)
So yes 'enough' voters did stay home. ENOUGH to make a difference.
3.14159 26 53589793
Democrat turnout (2016 = 2394164, 2012 = 2827709, net loss -15.33%)
Republican turnout (2016 = 2841005, 2012 = 2661437, net gain = 6.75)
So in Ohio, 8.58% Democrats potentially did stay home.
Using the same logic:
Michigan, 3.76% Democrats potentially did stay home (16 Electoral Votes)
Wisconsin, 14.9% Democrats potentially did stay home (10 Electoral Votes)
Iowa, 10.54% Democrats potentially did stay home (6 Electoral Votes)
Actual 2016 electoral count (Republican = 306, Democrat = 232)
The four states mentioned above account for 18+16+10+6 = 50 electoral votes. Adding this 'selective low voter turnout' to the mix:
Potential 2016 electoral count (Republican = 256, Democrat = 282)
So yes 'enough' voters did stay home. ENOUGH to make a difference.
3.14159 26 53589793
4
Dear Oltion D.
Thank you for the math. It is clear that many Democrats were not impressed with Mrs. Clinton. As a Democrat I wish the party would quit whinging and come to grips with why so many staped home.
I voted for her but with angst coming out my ears.
The democratic party should realize that Mrs. Clinton was just a democratic version of Jeb!
I would never have voted for Trump but I hope the donkeys will kick all the plutocrats out of the party, but I am not too sanguine.
Thank you for the math. It is clear that many Democrats were not impressed with Mrs. Clinton. As a Democrat I wish the party would quit whinging and come to grips with why so many staped home.
I voted for her but with angst coming out my ears.
The democratic party should realize that Mrs. Clinton was just a democratic version of Jeb!
I would never have voted for Trump but I hope the donkeys will kick all the plutocrats out of the party, but I am not too sanguine.
4
Like many things in life... a safe bet and next in line. Yet, despite the support and decades of experience, both her and the DNC, made a rookie mistake. They underestimated their opponent.
It is not a coincidence that she received the most criticism for not mounting a formidable campaigning in the states I mentioned earlier.
What concerns me personally is that Mr Cohen has decided to fine tune the data and divert the scope of 'POLITICAL CALCULUS' from the actual numbers. There has been a surge of articles lately about:
a) downplaying/misdirecting the turnout effect and Sec. Clinton's complacency
b) using partial facts to portray a picture where many republicans and some democrats voted for Trump due to their stance on illegal immigration
c) the historical impact of illegal immigration throughout elections
(maybe I am reaching here)
Add all that together... sadly, as of late, more centrist I talk to seem to believe that the democrats don't stand a chance unless they collaborate on immigration.
That indeed is an important topic, but in my very unprofessional opinion, democrats, although in disarray, now have a vast array of issues and plenty as catalyst. If they stand united, by some miracle, they could serve the other side a 2010 style shellacking defeat in 2018.
Regards
It is not a coincidence that she received the most criticism for not mounting a formidable campaigning in the states I mentioned earlier.
What concerns me personally is that Mr Cohen has decided to fine tune the data and divert the scope of 'POLITICAL CALCULUS' from the actual numbers. There has been a surge of articles lately about:
a) downplaying/misdirecting the turnout effect and Sec. Clinton's complacency
b) using partial facts to portray a picture where many republicans and some democrats voted for Trump due to their stance on illegal immigration
c) the historical impact of illegal immigration throughout elections
(maybe I am reaching here)
Add all that together... sadly, as of late, more centrist I talk to seem to believe that the democrats don't stand a chance unless they collaborate on immigration.
That indeed is an important topic, but in my very unprofessional opinion, democrats, although in disarray, now have a vast array of issues and plenty as catalyst. If they stand united, by some miracle, they could serve the other side a 2010 style shellacking defeat in 2018.
Regards
1
Like many, I suspect that Russia probably helped to undermine Clinton's campaign. But it is beyond a doubt that The NY Times aggressively worked to sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign. Russia's meddling was illegal, but The NY Times' treatment of Sanders helped undermine the only alternative to Clinton's flawed run for President.
7
The reason she lost was a sea of lies, an inept media and comey.
6
You forgot first, ran an inept campaign.
4
Hillary should have partnered with Bernie Sanders on the ticket. Tim Kaine (despite ability to speak Spanish) was an unknown in areas where Bernie had been filling stadiums and bursting town halls with hundreds of thousands of people of all ages. NYT ignored it, failed to report it and to this day, they are in denial.
Bad decision by democratic leadership to not include Bernie on the ticket. Together they would have comfortably erased Trump from existence.
Bad decision by democratic leadership to not include Bernie on the ticket. Together they would have comfortably erased Trump from existence.
6
She lost because she did not connect with the people in the heartland or think like they are in the heartland. I knew Hillary was in trouble when she was getting beat by Bernie Sanders in the midwest states in the primary. I just thought that there was no way the people would vote in a clown. I was wrong.
5
Look at all the sad excuses from Democrats who still can't comprehend why trump won. Why doesn't this article mention all the other elections Democrats lost this cycle? How many governors and senators and districts did the Democrats lose? Hint, more than any election in well over a hundred years. This election wasn't just about the president. Americans are sick and tired of the liberal agenda being forced on us by democrat appointed judges who subvert democracy. America didn't want another liberal judge, and americans want self determination and freedom, not liberal authoritarianism.
8
News media can thank their lucky stars that Trump came along and stirred things up - so good for readership.
But, please, can't we move on from the extended analysis of why?
There are lots of things with the Trump administration that can be examined fresh, every day.
But, please, can't we move on from the extended analysis of why?
There are lots of things with the Trump administration that can be examined fresh, every day.
2
Democrats won the popular vote. Gerrymandering won the Republicans the electoral votes. That is fact that is truth that simple.
Dear Laurelp52,
Gerrymandering was not why the electoral college went to Trump. The electoral college went to Trump because he got just enough votes in rust belt states to overcome the popular/electoral vote in California and New York.
The flyover states that she failed to woo, lost her the election. She had every advantage in money, experience, lovely resume and she still could not beat a bohunk like Donald Trump.
She lost this all by herself. Every political campaign has dirty tricks and nasty goings on but an experienced politician like her should have crushed an inexperienced boob like Donald Trump like a bug...but she lost in an upset that I never imagined possible.
Russia may have messed about, Comey should have kept his big mouth shut...but even without those dirty tricks Mrs Clinton would have lost because Mr Obama's kind words notwithstanding, that "she was likeable enough" apparently she wasn't.
Gerrymandering was not why the electoral college went to Trump. The electoral college went to Trump because he got just enough votes in rust belt states to overcome the popular/electoral vote in California and New York.
The flyover states that she failed to woo, lost her the election. She had every advantage in money, experience, lovely resume and she still could not beat a bohunk like Donald Trump.
She lost this all by herself. Every political campaign has dirty tricks and nasty goings on but an experienced politician like her should have crushed an inexperienced boob like Donald Trump like a bug...but she lost in an upset that I never imagined possible.
Russia may have messed about, Comey should have kept his big mouth shut...but even without those dirty tricks Mrs Clinton would have lost because Mr Obama's kind words notwithstanding, that "she was likeable enough" apparently she wasn't.
3
Thanks for proving what every sane American knows: there was zero Russian influence on the election.
7
She was just plain lousy.
I voted Democrat all of my life until HRC was shoved down our throats.
Went for Gary Johnson, along with over 4 million others.
ClinTrump is a travesty.
If the Dems want my vote they need to earn it, not take it for granted.
I voted Democrat all of my life until HRC was shoved down our throats.
Went for Gary Johnson, along with over 4 million others.
ClinTrump is a travesty.
If the Dems want my vote they need to earn it, not take it for granted.
9
I submit, and suggest, that Obama won as a combined novelty and white-guilt candidate
and by 2016, neither was any longer operative.
and by 2016, neither was any longer operative.
5
I keep reading this phrase "white working class." What does it mean, other than being repeated endlessly? Does it mean manual workers, office & sales workers, and farm workers combined? Is it an income definition? Does it include small shopkeepers?
This article does not have a single "class" or economic reference point, but it does have lots of skin color and cultural classification. This use of "white working class" is a lot of hot air, helpful for nothing analytical.
This article does not have a single "class" or economic reference point, but it does have lots of skin color and cultural classification. This use of "white working class" is a lot of hot air, helpful for nothing analytical.
5
In other words, Voter distrust for Clinton outweighed the one for Trump. Clinton lost due to her focus on Identity based minority vote bank politics. Trump won because he tried to appease the majority while also focusing on economic issues (no matter how hollow his promises were). Interestingly, he also campaigned on some themes that Clintonian democrats had long rejected- like inward looking Non- Interventionist foreign policy, jobs, economy, balancing budgets etc. In the end, many felt that both candidates were lying, but they had lost faith in HRC brand of politics completely. Any stronger candidate like Elizabeth Warren would have won it for the Democrats.
9
Clinton forgot the message that won the office for her husband. "Its the economy stupid". While the economy was growing for the white collar middle class - the blue collar workers in both construction and manufacturing were still hurting from the 2008. She took MI, WI and PA for granted. She had no positive message for this group in these states.
12
With the full cooperation of the media. it's the denigration of the opposition that wins for the republicans/Trumps.
4
I doubt this was about race, Mr. Cohn...races don't think alike, but they do diverge most on income levels. The NYT relies primarily on racial polling, which is likely why they made so many incorrect projections. The polling methods of 538 were never questioned. The polls became the embodiment of 'fake news' up until election eve.
Hillary lost the Electoral College, not the popular vote. The electoral votes of the working class in many centrist states were lost to Trump because Hillary took their voters for granted. She barely campaigned in many of the states that voted for Sanders, states that are not populated by wealthy older folk like the deep blue states of the East and West coasts.
Rust belt states like MI, PA, WI had not voted republican in a presidential year for over 30 years. They wanted Sanders, and when they felt the DNC stole or suppressed their votes, Hillary paid the price because they picked Trump and 3rd party candidates out of anger protest and outrage....subjects that Mrs. Clinton failed to address properly because of her own indifference to their issues.
Hillary lost the Electoral College, not the popular vote. The electoral votes of the working class in many centrist states were lost to Trump because Hillary took their voters for granted. She barely campaigned in many of the states that voted for Sanders, states that are not populated by wealthy older folk like the deep blue states of the East and West coasts.
Rust belt states like MI, PA, WI had not voted republican in a presidential year for over 30 years. They wanted Sanders, and when they felt the DNC stole or suppressed their votes, Hillary paid the price because they picked Trump and 3rd party candidates out of anger protest and outrage....subjects that Mrs. Clinton failed to address properly because of her own indifference to their issues.
10
corrections:
[1]20 years not 30
[2]....*and* subjects that Mrs. Clinton failed to address
[1]20 years not 30
[2]....*and* subjects that Mrs. Clinton failed to address
In other words, Hillary didn't lose because Republicans believed Trump's lies about Hillary. She lost because Democrats did. No point being angry at Republicans; they're just being Republicans. They can't help it. But Democrats - now there's something worth being angry at. Hillary's a "flawed" candidate, Hillary's a "weak" candidate, etc. etc. What a spineless, gullible little bunch. Doing Trump's job for him.
This should change the calculus of campaigning. It's not "the other side" that Democrats need to persuade. It's their own side. This is good, because it means persuasion is in fact possible. But it's bad, because nobody else is to blame: Democrats will have to take a long hard look in the mirror and confront what they've become, and stop placing ideological and symbolic purity over the first necessity of winning.
This should change the calculus of campaigning. It's not "the other side" that Democrats need to persuade. It's their own side. This is good, because it means persuasion is in fact possible. But it's bad, because nobody else is to blame: Democrats will have to take a long hard look in the mirror and confront what they've become, and stop placing ideological and symbolic purity over the first necessity of winning.
4
Clinton lost. I'm not saying Bernie would have won; he had some negatives among some voters too. But certainly Biden would have won.
I know Hillary wants to try yet again in 2020. We must not let that happen. Don't blame me; I voted for her. But she's had her chance. She can do good in other ways, like helping to unify the party around a less divisive candidate.
I know Hillary wants to try yet again in 2020. We must not let that happen. Don't blame me; I voted for her. But she's had her chance. She can do good in other ways, like helping to unify the party around a less divisive candidate.
10
Hillary Clinton as a leader and front for our party again will certainly kill the Democratic party for a generation. She should go quietly and stop tweeting, same with Trump.
4
I see no indication here that Trump's margin was swelled by voters who would have voted for Senator Sanders, who drew from a very different demographic.
4
Clinton had no inspiring message whatsoever. What does "I'm with her" even mean? That we should vote for her because she's female? While we may hate "Make America Great Again", we must admit that it's pretty brilliant because it's the kind of message that would be sure to resonate with the not-so-educated, jingoistic, xenophobic types who like to wear flags as a bandanna. Clinton meanwhile had nothing to rally the masses with.
10
Clinton lost because she did not campaign to her base. Instead she exhibited extreme narcissism by trying to "expand the map" in Utah, Arizona and Texas. Had she used the time and resources put into those states in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the result likely would have been different.
But what else is new? "Narcissism" and the Clinton's are synonymous.
But what else is new? "Narcissism" and the Clinton's are synonymous.
10
The biggest reason Hillary Clinton lost was because she was Hillary Clinton. Becoming the first woman president on the coattails of her husband would have been a pretty lame way to achieve a feminist victory.
Besides, Im 29 years old. I was born in 88. If Hillary has won, the presidents during my life would be Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, Clinton. I mean, come on. Does that look like a democracy. If Clinton had won, Id have spent 80% of my life under a Bush or a Clinton. How Democratic is that?!
Besides, Im 29 years old. I was born in 88. If Hillary has won, the presidents during my life would be Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, Clinton. I mean, come on. Does that look like a democracy. If Clinton had won, Id have spent 80% of my life under a Bush or a Clinton. How Democratic is that?!
15
Well stated Jacqueline! My daughters, both born in the 1990s felt exactly the same way. President Trump miraculously upended the intolerable Clinton/Bush dynasty.
7
Identity politics is why Democrats lost the election. Democrats pander to minorities, undocumented immigrants and transgender individuals. Whether or not people will admit it, people vote for the candidate that they believe will advance their own interests - or, in the alternative, vote against the candidate they believe will harm their interests. According to this article, it appears white people do not believe Democrats have their interests in mind, which (arguably) is true. One solution - stop demonizing white people?
7
It would be nice to know if this additional white support was uniform among whites or was predominantly an increase in male white support. The interpretation would be drastically different. We had a female candidate...
Democrats weren't colluding with Russia to have websites run articles "proving" that Trump was a pedophile running a sex ring or of a pizza place - or describing him as a Satan worshipper. Grabbing pxssies was tame by comparison. Of course Clinton looked less appealing to those who would believe that mess to be true.
In order for this article to be worth reading, the reporter needed to incorporate proven Russian interference, gerrymandering, and voter suppression.
In order for this article to be worth reading, the reporter needed to incorporate proven Russian interference, gerrymandering, and voter suppression.
1
I was one of the Obama supporters that decided to become a "deplorable" and vote Trump, though my state New York went Democrat anyways. But the point was that there were many people seeing something very wrong with the country. I have full faith in President Trump and his desire to Make America Great Again. It's not the best job to have as President when all of Washimgton DC is conspiring against you with the Brits or even the Germans. The only things are terrorism by Islamic Extremists that allows America and the Western a World to band together. Unfortunately, London was not the last of them, and there will be more ghastly attacks, and we will need a strong leader to take strong action against Islamism, and ill-advised Liberalism on the point of Immigration. America First doesn't sound so bad to me anyways.
4
Not a shred of evidence the Russian propaganda had any influence at all on the election. It was pretty obvious to anyone but the Hillary Kool Aid drinkers that she was one of the worst possible candidates for the Presidency. She was as exciting as Bob Dole and, like Dole, got the nomination only because it was her turn. Except she lacks the charm, humor and, most of all, integrity that Dole has. Podesta ran a terrible campaign and the hubris of their feeling she was the inevitable winner caused him to make many, many errors and totally misread the public.
9
Enough already about Hillary Clinton as a flawed candidate. She knocked the ball way out of the field in all the debates and had a clear, inspiring, and detailed set of policies to address jobs, the environment, health care, and many other issues. The media often did not give her a chance to articulate them to a broad audience, preferring Trump's antics instead. Or they denigrated her as a pedant for talking policy (which Trump, of course, is incapable of doing). As a woman and a feminist, I found her advocacy of women's rights utterly inspiring, and the same goes for her candidacy in general. The failure was not hers. And events since the election -- the badly disguised Muslim ban at the airports, the swastikas that have appeared in many places, the demonizing of Hispanics as "bad hombres" -- have shown that her campaign slogan, "Stronger Together," was not only timely but also compelling.
2
Please stop blaming Hillary's loss on black people, who make up only 12 percent of the electorate. This is tiresome. And then we have trump and his clowns dragging President Obama through the mud every chance they get. Want to blame someone for Hillary's win? Look at the great swath of white racists that are destroying this country. Personal responsibility. Remember that?
2
Is a 3 million vote difference a "close election"? I don't think so. So many articles written about how the Democrats did not pay enough attention to those poor white Trump voters. How about sympathy for the voters in New York, California, Massachusetts and other states who had a candidate who won more votes and yet did not gain the presidency? I am disgusted that I am expected to sympathize with Trump voters, who have been proven again and again to be woefully ignorant, believing in lies and false exaggerations. They truly are deplorable. The only positive for this group is that I am not now, nor ever will be, one of them.
1
Credibility of the Dems was weak, and for good reason. To restore credibility they'll have to finance from small donations, not Goldman Sachs. And they need a believable program to fix the income gap and get government involved in jobs society needs: education, rehabilitation, infrastructure, child & elder care, affordable housing, curtailing robber barons, etc.
5
And you think the republicans are going to do this? You are delusional.
1
Dear Patrick Stark,
John Brews is correct. Until we kick the plutocrats out of the Democratic party we look just like Republicans but with more tolerant views on social issues. It is the economy!
John Brews is correct. Until we kick the plutocrats out of the Democratic party we look just like Republicans but with more tolerant views on social issues. It is the economy!
5
There's no escaping the fact that if nearly every eligible black, Hispanic and female voter had done their civic duty, we'd have a different president today. That's not to excuse white men, or white women, for that matter, who voted for trump. There's no shortage of blame to spread around. But everyone within those first groups I named who stayed home needs to think about the role they played in putting us in the position we're in.
1
HRC was a terrible candidate whose time (if indeed she ever had a time) was long past. The Democratic Party did not have its ear to the ground. I had friends traveling around on business in various parts of the country who would come home to the northeast and recount how many Trump signs they had seen in the countryside. You can decry Trump voters as angry, ignorant, racist or whatever but the fact is that a lot of people did not like the way things were going. Political correctness, identity politics and the old memes of the left weren't going to get as much traction as HRC needed. So, sure she got the popular vote and the Electoral College is an odd institution to say the least. But the Dems didn't do much to help themselves and, so far, still don't seem to be doing much in that regard.
11
You can nitpick about these statistics endlessly, but the central, terrifying reason for Trump's election is that Americans are not informed voters who study the issues. They can be lied to and don't seem to care.
Clearly, Trump could fool enough of the people at least once. We are going to have to wait 4 years to find out if he can do it twice.
Clearly, Trump could fool enough of the people at least once. We are going to have to wait 4 years to find out if he can do it twice.
2
Thanks for proving that despite all the insane, hysterical, paranoid, false ranting and braying about Russian "hacking" (whatever that is) that never happened, Hillary lost because she is the worst candidate in history and would have been an even worse president. Mr Trump won because he offered bright, sane, well thought-out, optimistic solutions to the disaster Obama left behind
7
Hillary Clinton was either not able to, or unwilling, to show any type of ability to do any type of cardio. Yet just a day or two after the election she was spotted walking in the woods.
There were millions of voters who believed she could not walk more than a quarter mile without needing aid and she never did anything to quell that belief.
If she wants to run in 2020, she better show some cardio because nobody wants a talking head president who moves around on a scooter.
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein also factored into the final result as well. In a two person race, Hillary Clinton consistently polled plus five against Trump, but in a four person race she consistently polled plus 4 against Trump, a huge difference of 1.25 million voters.
Comey's second letter was completely unnecessary. Why didn't Comey mention any investigation of Trump, suddenly we have the male factions picking on the lone wolf.
Hillary Clinton's plus almost 3 million votes was quite the achievement when one considers all of the above going against her.
In 2020, Hillary Clinton won't have to hold back against the sitting president, that is for sure.
There were millions of voters who believed she could not walk more than a quarter mile without needing aid and she never did anything to quell that belief.
If she wants to run in 2020, she better show some cardio because nobody wants a talking head president who moves around on a scooter.
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein also factored into the final result as well. In a two person race, Hillary Clinton consistently polled plus five against Trump, but in a four person race she consistently polled plus 4 against Trump, a huge difference of 1.25 million voters.
Comey's second letter was completely unnecessary. Why didn't Comey mention any investigation of Trump, suddenly we have the male factions picking on the lone wolf.
Hillary Clinton's plus almost 3 million votes was quite the achievement when one considers all of the above going against her.
In 2020, Hillary Clinton won't have to hold back against the sitting president, that is for sure.
1
Please. Let us hope that by 2020 Hillary Clinton will be considered an elder stateswoman in the Democratic Party and have given up any indication of interest in running for another political office, let alone president. She's tried it twice, it hasn't worked. Her voter base will not increase over the next 4 years. During that time the DNC should surely open their eyes and their minds to the reality that the Clinton years are over, she is not a viable candidate for any office, and begin to look nationwide for younger candidates with newer ideas.
4
Should Democrats shoot themselves in the both feet again in 2020 and nominate a Clinton, I will never vote Democratic again.
This talk of Hillary 2020 will doom the country in favor of Republicans for the rest of my life.
This talk of Hillary 2020 will doom the country in favor of Republicans for the rest of my life.
3
"If turnout played only a modest role in Mr. Trump’s victory, then the big driver of his gains was persuasion: He flipped millions of white working-class Obama supporters to his side."
Here is another possibility - Clinton was a very poor choice for the Democrats, and turned many of Obama's voters off.
Here is another possibility - Clinton was a very poor choice for the Democrats, and turned many of Obama's voters off.
13
Not according to these numbers. The Obama voters came out about as much as they had ever come out for Barack himself. But Whites came out in absolute record breaking numbers for Trump.
Not a surprise really. The average American simply doesn't care about LGBTQ rights and climate-control. As long as Dems continue to keep fringe issues front and center, they will have less and less relevance.
9
"Climate-control"? Lucky for you there's no intelligence test for voting.
2
I don't buy these numbers, obviously neither race or gender mattered. What mattered and honest observers agree that Trump doing very well with women including the collage educated was very significant. And a very large number of Democrats, particularly males from every demographic chose Trump. Surprisingly many voters who had voted for Obama in the past moved to Trump.
So the DNC and the Upshot completely blew it. The Times treatment of the email server should also be mentioned. The breathless no content bilge running on the front page day after day contrasting with the barely critical Trump coverage was a travesty. I found the whole thing from the primaries to election night sickening.
Bottom line more people voted for Trump where it counted in three historically Dem states.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-di...
So the DNC and the Upshot completely blew it. The Times treatment of the email server should also be mentioned. The breathless no content bilge running on the front page day after day contrasting with the barely critical Trump coverage was a travesty. I found the whole thing from the primaries to election night sickening.
Bottom line more people voted for Trump where it counted in three historically Dem states.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-di...
8
Hillary Clinton simply did not have the Charisma, charm and cutting edge speaking ability that Mr. Obama exuded. I actually find myself offended that you focus on black peoples participation in particular when the choices of voting for a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton were far far greater than 1%. I think they as a group voted far beyond what could be hoped for given the choice. Regardless of the previous turnout, the lesson of ignoring critical swing states and equally importantly, critical middle class poor white voters will not be lost again for generations. We as a country are simply not where the wisdom of the democratic party believed we were, for better or worse. Having said that, unless they begin to try and understand these folks now and consider what they are doing strategically and legislatively now, they wont be able to do an about face a few months before the next election.
11
Barack had none of those qualities. You think America bought smug fake intellectualism as charisma? No, it was liberal America patting itself on the back for voting in a "historic" candidate based on his race. Racism, straight up.
1
NYer,
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails mention Vince Foster, Johnny Chung, Whitewater, "Chinagate" or the "Madison Savings and Loan Bankruptcy?"
Did any US Government secrets such as the names of US paid informers get to the international drug Dealers, Islamic Terror leaders, or other enemies of the USA via Hillary's unsecured private server?
Did any US Government secret agents and ISIS informers get tortured and killed by the international drug Dealers, Islamic Terror leaders, or other enemies of the USA via Hillary's unsecured private server?
Did any US Government Diplomatic Officials get assassinated by the international drug Dealers, Islamic Terror leaders, or other enemies of the USA using Hillary’s unsecured private server to access the security details of US Government Diplomatic Officials?
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails have any evidence of another “Chinagate” type of political deal with a foreign nation?
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails mention Vince Foster, Johnny Chung, Whitewater, "Chinagate" or the "Madison Savings and Loan Bankruptcy?"
Did any US Government secrets such as the names of US paid informers get to the international drug Dealers, Islamic Terror leaders, or other enemies of the USA via Hillary's unsecured private server?
Did any US Government secret agents and ISIS informers get tortured and killed by the international drug Dealers, Islamic Terror leaders, or other enemies of the USA via Hillary's unsecured private server?
Did any US Government Diplomatic Officials get assassinated by the international drug Dealers, Islamic Terror leaders, or other enemies of the USA using Hillary’s unsecured private server to access the security details of US Government Diplomatic Officials?
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails have any evidence of another “Chinagate” type of political deal with a foreign nation?
2
@apetra - In a political race, charisma means meeting voters face-to-face and engaging in everyday activities. Obama traveled around the nation, held rallies, met voters individually, kissed babies, ate corndogs, bowled (badly), etc. He did not hold himself aloof from people, he went out and sought their vote. Trump did the same thing. He maintained a crazy pace during the week before the election, flying repeatedly to city after city. Where was Hillary? She barely left home.
2
We are now the Union of Soviet America. No amount of poll analysis can explain away the effects of hate and fake news concocted by Putin in concert with the leaks. Couple that to what could be treasonous and seditious actions by Agent Orange's merry band. We may never know the truth because what happened is damnably embarrassing to US intel agencies that are still smarting over the coup. Again add that embarrassment to what is shaping up now as high level obfuscation and we have the perfect storm for an effective whitewash.
7
I went to the post office today and a picture of Leonid Brezhnev was hanging on the wall. Then I went to the supermarket. They ran out of meat and toilet paper. It's snowing all the time. You might be right.
1
Does the hospital know you escaped and aren't taking your meds?
4
Gee, I thought the issue was real facts elicited from the hacked emails of John Podesta and the DNC. Not to mention Hillary's private email server.
2
Interesting how some voters complain about how ignorant, uneducated voters elected Trump and still support him. Most public schools in the US are run and taught by liberal educators..why have they failed so badly "educating a populace" that allowed a man like Trump to win? Perhaps there are more issues here than meets the convenient eye.
8
The issues are not liberal educators in public schools. These teachers are from the community generally where they teach. So liberal community is usually liberal teachers. Conservative community is conservative teachers. The real issue is the constant downgrading of the pay, education and support for teachers.
The people in control of government decide most of the fate of education at the primary level
If poor whites in rural parts of the country disavow education and decide the drug lifestyle is for them don't go blaming liberal educators in the cities.
The people in control of government decide most of the fate of education at the primary level
If poor whites in rural parts of the country disavow education and decide the drug lifestyle is for them don't go blaming liberal educators in the cities.
4
Possibly because many liberal educators, like me, are focusing on educating, rather than indoctrination? You would never know this from the panicky right wing, who try to lead a purge of scary leftist professors about once a decade. I teach Milton. I leave my students "sufficient to have stood, though free to fall." Incidentally, based on demographics, our location (Southern California) and their own comments, very few voted for Trump, but I don't ask. I have what could be a bully pulpit, and refuse to use it as such.
1
I would like to see an analysis that focused on how her gender may have influenced voters. This review was interesting, and as the writer pointed out, this type of data is not available until months after the election. The review of actual results and turnout at a precinct level is particularly helpful in figuring out who voted how.
No candidate is perfect. Hillary Clinton had grit, determination and poise in the face of vituperative attacks and news and social media outlets that obsessed over emails rather than issues. She won, convincingly, all three televised debates, a feat I do not think any other candidate has ever accomplished. She won the popular vote by three million. Contrary to what some have posted here, she campaigned heavily in Pennsylvania, and her closing rally, which featured President and Michelle Obama, was in Philadelphia.
No candidate is perfect. Hillary Clinton had grit, determination and poise in the face of vituperative attacks and news and social media outlets that obsessed over emails rather than issues. She won, convincingly, all three televised debates, a feat I do not think any other candidate has ever accomplished. She won the popular vote by three million. Contrary to what some have posted here, she campaigned heavily in Pennsylvania, and her closing rally, which featured President and Michelle Obama, was in Philadelphia.
11
Can we stop with the racism and the sexism in our surveys, please?
You forgot she was given the questions before the last televised debate..I would be able to win them all with that kinda advantage.
3
I'm not surprised that Sec. Clinton lost white working class voters, especially those hardest hit in the Midwestern rustbelt states. She had no message that would appeal to them as a centrist, Wall Street candidate lacking any charisma with an equally unexciting Southern centrist as a running mate. Yes, I voted for her, but always thought Bernie was the real "change candidate" with both the message and the passion to have kept those Reagan Democrats from defecting. Unfortunately, the primary was, as we know from Russian hacking, rigged against him. And now we and the world are paying a high price for it.
13
I am a little tired of Bernie supporters. Bernie sold voters a pipe dream, in some ways similar to Donald Trump without the boorish character of Trump. Bernie promised Government healthcare, free college and trade barriers and never talked about the costs - much higher taxes, rising prices of items. I think Hillary did not take on Bernie's policies directly for fear of not offending his supporters, which was probably a mistake. Likewise she did not take on Trump's protectionist because she did not want to get into what might sound as a very intellectual debate of how trade barriers may actually end up hurting jobs by driving up prices and reducing demand and employment. But ultimately Hillary's fault was about not making contact with working class voters and listening to their problems - she seemed to want to be President for the glamour. But that does not make Bernie the better choice as he was willing to promise the moon without talking about the costs. Joe Biden should have run for President but I don't know if Democratic women would have deserted Hillary.
The world might be paying a high price, but US taxpayers are much better off with Bernie on the sidelines.
1
Get a grip. So sick of all this handwringing over those poor Midwestern white people. Maybe if they had some grit and determination instead of drug abuse and whiny self pity our nation wouldn't be in this horrid place with the worst of the worst true deplorables in DC.
When you cling to your guns and your fake "god" instead of actually working towards educational achievements and re- training you fantasize that a buffoon like Trump will magically bring your low skill but high wage job back from Pakistan.
My sympathy and empathy for those whiners has reached new lows.
When you cling to your guns and your fake "god" instead of actually working towards educational achievements and re- training you fantasize that a buffoon like Trump will magically bring your low skill but high wage job back from Pakistan.
My sympathy and empathy for those whiners has reached new lows.
Many things contributed to Clinton's defeat: voter turnout, Russian hacking, misogyny, Comey, etc, etc, etc
But Trump was a disaster of epic proportions and should have gone down in flames. Instead, he won.
It was the economy. A high GDP does not reflect widespread prosperity, and Clintonomics is most of the reason for that: the profits, gained at the expense of labor, went to the top. Trade is good but corporate controlled trade (via non-judicial arbitration by corporate lawyers) has been a disaster for the middle class and workers. The TTIP would have the power to overturn laws and force countries to privatize pension plans, etc. What did Clinton offer the losers in Corporate America? More of the same with a band aid or two plus a huge helping of Blame the Racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic poorly educated and deplorable victims. She did a Romney, big time.
Clinton's win of the popular vote was a gift from con-man Trump whose nature was clear to most voters except the angry and desperate - the losers to Wall St and the banks who felt they had no future. Trump shamelessly lied and told these voters what they desperately wanted to hear to get their votes. Clinton, confusing social liberalism with social justice, forgot she was running for President of all Americans and trashed them. She surely knew about the Electoral College and it's problems but didn't campaign in the rust belt. The Presidency was hers to win - she threw it away.
But Trump was a disaster of epic proportions and should have gone down in flames. Instead, he won.
It was the economy. A high GDP does not reflect widespread prosperity, and Clintonomics is most of the reason for that: the profits, gained at the expense of labor, went to the top. Trade is good but corporate controlled trade (via non-judicial arbitration by corporate lawyers) has been a disaster for the middle class and workers. The TTIP would have the power to overturn laws and force countries to privatize pension plans, etc. What did Clinton offer the losers in Corporate America? More of the same with a band aid or two plus a huge helping of Blame the Racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic poorly educated and deplorable victims. She did a Romney, big time.
Clinton's win of the popular vote was a gift from con-man Trump whose nature was clear to most voters except the angry and desperate - the losers to Wall St and the banks who felt they had no future. Trump shamelessly lied and told these voters what they desperately wanted to hear to get their votes. Clinton, confusing social liberalism with social justice, forgot she was running for President of all Americans and trashed them. She surely knew about the Electoral College and it's problems but didn't campaign in the rust belt. The Presidency was hers to win - she threw it away.
7
Pre-election polls/estimates can only be evaluated in how wrong they were.
The election was hatred, racism, misogyny; a woman following a black man in the White House was too much for some of our fellow citizens.
The election was hatred, racism, misogyny; a woman following a black man in the White House was too much for some of our fellow citizens.
8
The same garbage that said that the election of a black man was too much for some people. Anything is too much for some people. he question is not some people; the question is most people. And Hillary won the popular vote, proving that the nonsense about some of our fellow citizens is just nonsense.
2
Nonsense!
In one of the smallest and whitest states in the country consider:
2008: Obama takes 15 of our 16 counties, including all but one of the most rural counties
2012: Obama takes 15 of our 16 counties except for the same county in 2008
2016: Clinton takes 7 of our 16 counties and NONE of the rural counties that handily won Obama twice.
Clinton was a lousy candidate and many had their fill of The Clintons.
Most of the people I know voted for Clinton because they couldn't stand Trump.
In one of the smallest and whitest states in the country consider:
2008: Obama takes 15 of our 16 counties, including all but one of the most rural counties
2012: Obama takes 15 of our 16 counties except for the same county in 2008
2016: Clinton takes 7 of our 16 counties and NONE of the rural counties that handily won Obama twice.
Clinton was a lousy candidate and many had their fill of The Clintons.
Most of the people I know voted for Clinton because they couldn't stand Trump.
4
Any way you want to slice it, Mrs. Clinton lost the election where it counts - in the Electoral college. Why she lost in the electoral college is pretty obvious even to an average American like me. She was unpopular as was Mr. Trump. However she alienated voters she might have gotten by calling them Deplorables. Trump insulted a lot of people who would never have voted for him.
16
They are still whiny white men who refuse to take responsibility for the mess they made of their own lives cause they want to make wages of $25/hour that a robot can do but never reeducate themselves.
This pandering to those deplorables is actually the sickest part
This pandering to those deplorables is actually the sickest part
She called Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", i.e., her comments were even more offensive than has been generally reported.
1
Nate, Hillary Clinton's margin in the popular vote was 2.1 percent. If we imagine a scenario in which voter turnout had been better among certain groups of Democratic voters, Clinton's margin would have edged up to 3 percent and an Electoral College victory. That is not "just squeaking by" in my estimation. No one would be looking back and thinking it was a truly close contest.
12
There is no such thing, under our constitution, as "the popular vote". That's now how we elect our President.
2
JEG,
Your scenario matches the margin achieved by Bush in 2004, which was actually very close ( 80,000 votes in Ohio made the difference ), but was widely considered to be a comfortable win.
Your scenario matches the margin achieved by Bush in 2004, which was actually very close ( 80,000 votes in Ohio made the difference ), but was widely considered to be a comfortable win.
@apetra
While that IS true, it can't be denied that she DID win the popular vote, even if it is meaningless in terms of assuming the Executive office. Normal people would take note of such a thing after having 'won' such an election and governed accordingly. But not Trump and the radical GOP. They have no problem ignoring more than half the nation of voters. But then, they had 6 years of practice, stonewalling a 2-time winning president, even when he wanted to do things for Republican-controlled states. They sacrificed the welfare of their own voters in order to maintain political advantage. That's about as cynical as it gets in politics. Too bad the typical Republican voter doesn't (yet) understand this. My fear is that the Democrats may be about to do the same thing, assuming the GOP cuts off the Freedom Caucus and tries to do some bipartisanship...
While that IS true, it can't be denied that she DID win the popular vote, even if it is meaningless in terms of assuming the Executive office. Normal people would take note of such a thing after having 'won' such an election and governed accordingly. But not Trump and the radical GOP. They have no problem ignoring more than half the nation of voters. But then, they had 6 years of practice, stonewalling a 2-time winning president, even when he wanted to do things for Republican-controlled states. They sacrificed the welfare of their own voters in order to maintain political advantage. That's about as cynical as it gets in politics. Too bad the typical Republican voter doesn't (yet) understand this. My fear is that the Democrats may be about to do the same thing, assuming the GOP cuts off the Freedom Caucus and tries to do some bipartisanship...
First of all your premise is a fraud. More passive aggressive bologna to try to assuage the clown in chief's ego and make racial hay, well try to make racial hay.
Mrs. Clinton lost by Electoral College votes not by the numbers of voters who turned out. By turnout she won by 3 million votes. It does not matter what race they are.
This win explains the GOP's moves to alter the rules for the Electoral College under reagan as well as the active gerrymandering and other things they have been up to in secret for 37 years to steal our nation from us. They saw the future and knew they had no place in it unless they threw mud and hid the truth.
Mrs. Clinton lost by Electoral College votes not by the numbers of voters who turned out. By turnout she won by 3 million votes. It does not matter what race they are.
This win explains the GOP's moves to alter the rules for the Electoral College under reagan as well as the active gerrymandering and other things they have been up to in secret for 37 years to steal our nation from us. They saw the future and knew they had no place in it unless they threw mud and hid the truth.
25
"alter the rules for the Electoral College under reagan as well as the active gerrymandering a"
= = =
say wha?
(and of course vs Dem gerrymandering...)
EC is composed of the number of Representatives, and the number of Senators. Of the latter each State gets two, so is is very hard to gerrymander Two.
Of representatives, THAT number is set by the census, hard to gerrymander the census
but keep trying we need the laughs
= = =
say wha?
(and of course vs Dem gerrymandering...)
EC is composed of the number of Representatives, and the number of Senators. Of the latter each State gets two, so is is very hard to gerrymander Two.
Of representatives, THAT number is set by the census, hard to gerrymander the census
but keep trying we need the laughs
2
This comment makes no sense. The GOP has been up to doing things "in secret" for 37 years to "steal" the nation? Seriously?
As a lifelong Dem, I don't engage in hand-wringing over this election. To anyone commenting here who suggests that this election was the fault of (insert hackneyed cliche here), I say this: How in the world is any political party, regardless its ideology, popularity or method, supposed to compete with the level of ignorance now running unchecked among American voters? This country's problem is with a population so ill-informed and gleefully ignorant that it defies precedent. Just how is any party supposed to do battle with THAT? Trump won because so many Americans are too dim and hate-filled to understand why doing so was a terrible idea. That is not the fault of Democrats, and our problems as a nation are only just beginning. This element of the citizenry is a menace to democracy's very survival. Period.
103
While it is true that a lack of basic civics education has resulted in a woefully under educated electorate in terms of a basic understanding of our government and our constitution, one cannot discount the effectiveness of the Republican propaganda machine. For more than 30 years this machine has demonized government and sown confusion about its role within the American public. On a daily basis a wide range of Republican spokespeople have been permitted - mostly through television news media - to offer up talking points designed to confuse people on a wide range of issues from global warming to the purpose of regulations to the economy and taxes. We should not blame those fooled by this propaganda machine but rather reach out to them and help them see the truth behind Republican policies and whom they actually benefit and whom they harm.
8
Yet Obama won twice, despite the uneducated and ill informed voting blocks of this country?.This type of logic, blaming American citizens, will forever obscure the party into a regional one at best. Maybe, just maybe the democratic leadership should listen to voters rather than dismissing them as dumb and ignorant.
3
Sarah, your comment typifies the Liberal bias against those of us who disagree with your orthodoxy. I am not ignorant or ill-informed. Perhaps you might consider there are other motivations involved. I am a business owner and a strong supporter of military/law enforcement. Clinton did not earn my vote. Trump did. Talk about hate-filled --- look in the mirror maybe?
3
I'm so fed up with all the now conventional reasons why HRC lost that I've stopped reading them. African American Writer, Carol Anderson described it as "White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide." That seems valid but I would point to the one reason that has been made taboo to talk about: HRC's gender. The USA is a nation which in large part could not face the reality of a woman president. Men, and women, too--those who have made their peace with a patriarchal or paternalistic--reacted strongly against her candidacy.
DJT's smears and the Right's lies and vile propaganda against HRC formed the Big Lie, which being repeated thousands of times a day, became the reality that too many voters chose to believe. People often believe what they want to believe or to fit in with others in their circle, with their social groups, or because it will benefit them personally.
A woman of great dignity, presidential qualities, courage, preparation for the office, experience and temperament was harassed and humiliated by a man who lacked even one of these qualities. Gingrich, Guiliano spewed the grossest and crudest lies and used every misogynistic trope make her out as a monster.
Our press can dither over this forever but I hope those of us who know how gender has been weaponized will continue to speak our truth.
DJT's smears and the Right's lies and vile propaganda against HRC formed the Big Lie, which being repeated thousands of times a day, became the reality that too many voters chose to believe. People often believe what they want to believe or to fit in with others in their circle, with their social groups, or because it will benefit them personally.
A woman of great dignity, presidential qualities, courage, preparation for the office, experience and temperament was harassed and humiliated by a man who lacked even one of these qualities. Gingrich, Guiliano spewed the grossest and crudest lies and used every misogynistic trope make her out as a monster.
Our press can dither over this forever but I hope those of us who know how gender has been weaponized will continue to speak our truth.
46
There is only one explanation why the 2016 presidential election did not go to Democrats when they were given the gift of a Donald Trump Republican nomination: Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate.
I am not entirely writing about her qualifications; obviously she is much more qualified than Trump. I am writing about her reputation with much of the electorate as well as the many problems that swirled around her campaign. Even before she announced her candidacy, she was reviled by half of America. Add to this the other problems such as her vote on Iraq in 2002, her close ties to Wall Street, her email problems, and you have the unexplainable happening: Donald Trump actually winning the presidency.
I sure hope Democrats will be smarter in the future. If they had nominated Bernie, or Martin O'Malley, Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden (yeah, Joe, you should have run), they would have won in a landslide.
On the bright side, Trump in office demonstrates thoroughly to those who voted for him what a bad move that was. And it almost guarantees a strong 2018 showing by Democrats in congressional elections.
I am not entirely writing about her qualifications; obviously she is much more qualified than Trump. I am writing about her reputation with much of the electorate as well as the many problems that swirled around her campaign. Even before she announced her candidacy, she was reviled by half of America. Add to this the other problems such as her vote on Iraq in 2002, her close ties to Wall Street, her email problems, and you have the unexplainable happening: Donald Trump actually winning the presidency.
I sure hope Democrats will be smarter in the future. If they had nominated Bernie, or Martin O'Malley, Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden (yeah, Joe, you should have run), they would have won in a landslide.
On the bright side, Trump in office demonstrates thoroughly to those who voted for him what a bad move that was. And it almost guarantees a strong 2018 showing by Democrats in congressional elections.
57
The only seats up for grabs in 2018 are Dem seats.
Sorry to bust your bubble.
Either Trump will be forced out before the next major election or we will have
to wait until 2020 to throw him and his gang of incompetents out.
Sorry to bust your bubble.
Either Trump will be forced out before the next major election or we will have
to wait until 2020 to throw him and his gang of incompetents out.
2
True she was not a great candidate, though she did get 3,000,000 more votes than Trump. This after a relentless campaign since she was First Lady not to mention Comey bringing the red herring email issue back to life.
Unemployed US workers hold grudges against President Clinton because he created the very first laws that started their mass job relocations on a total product basis to Mexico, and then to China?
Ex-President Bill Clinton (and then Labor Secretary Professor Robert Reisch) can now say, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I signed NAFTA into law and that economically caused your manufacturing job to relocate to Mexico because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Mexican citizens would work for."
President Clinton can also say, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created PNTR for Communist China and this economically caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to China because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Chinese citizens would work for."
Ex-President Bill Clinton (and then Labor Secretary Professor Robert Reisch) can now say, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I signed NAFTA into law and that economically caused your manufacturing job to relocate to Mexico because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Mexican citizens would work for."
President Clinton can also say, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created PNTR for Communist China and this economically caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to China because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Chinese citizens would work for."
2
OK, but it doesn't mean Democrats shouldn't try harder to get out bigger numbers on election day. Only if Democrats get people out to vote at a much higher rate than Republicans can we attempt to defeat gerrymandered House districts.
13
There's an old and possibly apocryphal story about the sales roll out of a new dog food. It goes like this:
"Several decades ago, a dog food company held an internal sales conference. First, the advertising director presented an exciting new media campaign. Then, the director of marketing explained his new go-to-customer strategy that would “change the industry.” Finally, the sales director got up and excitedly talked about how their sales team was the best in the business.
"The President listened patiently through all of these presentations. At the end, he got up and said. “Look, I only have one question. If everything we do is so great – our sales, marketing, advertising – then why do we sell less dog food than everyone else in the industry?”
"The room went silent. No one knew what to say. Finally, someone offered a thought: Maybe it’s because the dogs HATE our product."
No matter how much advertising, strategy and roll-out, the voters that counted couldn't stand Hillary Clinton.
"Several decades ago, a dog food company held an internal sales conference. First, the advertising director presented an exciting new media campaign. Then, the director of marketing explained his new go-to-customer strategy that would “change the industry.” Finally, the sales director got up and excitedly talked about how their sales team was the best in the business.
"The President listened patiently through all of these presentations. At the end, he got up and said. “Look, I only have one question. If everything we do is so great – our sales, marketing, advertising – then why do we sell less dog food than everyone else in the industry?”
"The room went silent. No one knew what to say. Finally, someone offered a thought: Maybe it’s because the dogs HATE our product."
No matter how much advertising, strategy and roll-out, the voters that counted couldn't stand Hillary Clinton.
46
President Clinton impoverished all US workers of all races in the USA who are now totally doomed to unemployment thanks to President Clinton creating NAFTA for Mexico and his PNTR that he granted to Communist China.
Should US workers hold grudges against President Clinton because he could have prevented the laws that caused their US jobs to relocate to China and Mexico and then did not?
Should US citizens try to "get even" with him for selling US citizens down the drain with his selling of Top Secret Military Rocket Guidance secrets to Communist China when their Rockets would not fly on course?
The US government created all of these free trade agreements that caused almost all of the higher paying US manufacturing jobs to relocate to foreign nations when US workers refused to work for the wages and benefits paid in third world nations.
This was very destructive to the lives of US workers.
Those higher paying manufacturing jobs in US industries were previously the path of escape from the ghetto or barrio for less fortunate US citizens.
Now there are essentially no more jobs still available for those in the US ghettos and barrios that desire employment that pays sufficiently for a person to leave the ghetto or barrio.
Should US workers hold grudges against President Clinton because he could have prevented the laws that caused their US jobs to relocate to China and Mexico and then did not?
Should US citizens try to "get even" with him for selling US citizens down the drain with his selling of Top Secret Military Rocket Guidance secrets to Communist China when their Rockets would not fly on course?
The US government created all of these free trade agreements that caused almost all of the higher paying US manufacturing jobs to relocate to foreign nations when US workers refused to work for the wages and benefits paid in third world nations.
This was very destructive to the lives of US workers.
Those higher paying manufacturing jobs in US industries were previously the path of escape from the ghetto or barrio for less fortunate US citizens.
Now there are essentially no more jobs still available for those in the US ghettos and barrios that desire employment that pays sufficiently for a person to leave the ghetto or barrio.
2
Right, the minority that voted against her. The voters that counted under the faulty electoral college system. When you win an election by 3,000,000 votes and don't get the office, the system is broken.
My discussion with a county election official though not validated raised my eye brows and gave me an understanding why Trump won. He( Election official) said he could not believe how many voters simply did not mark their ballot for President.
26
Why be surprised?
This was true throughout the USA.
The two major choices were too disgusting to contemplate.
I voted Libertarian and am proud of my vote.
Next election I will do the same. We need some choice if the two major
brands want to shove their pathetic fools down our throats.
This was true throughout the USA.
The two major choices were too disgusting to contemplate.
I voted Libertarian and am proud of my vote.
Next election I will do the same. We need some choice if the two major
brands want to shove their pathetic fools down our throats.
1
Please take your sham patriotism and leave the country.
1
lgkinney
You said this was not "validated." Why would it then "raise your eyebrows?"
You said this was not "validated." Why would it then "raise your eyebrows?"
In some ways the Election of 2016 was like the 1960 Election.
Nixon was competent but people turned out to see JFK.
The 2016 Election was also like the 1992 and 1996 Election.
Bush was competent but Bill Clinton offered something that sounded
newer/fresher, and Dole, while a good man, did not energise his base.
The real reason Trump won - Hillary and the Democrats could not conceive
that they could lose and they stopped working as hard as they should have
to win the Election in as many States as possible.
Nixon was competent but people turned out to see JFK.
The 2016 Election was also like the 1992 and 1996 Election.
Bush was competent but Bill Clinton offered something that sounded
newer/fresher, and Dole, while a good man, did not energise his base.
The real reason Trump won - Hillary and the Democrats could not conceive
that they could lose and they stopped working as hard as they should have
to win the Election in as many States as possible.
14
Difference:
JFK won by a little over 100,000 votes
Clinton bet Dole by 6,000,000 votes (with about 30% of votes going to Perot)
Trump lost by 3,000,000
JFK won by a little over 100,000 votes
Clinton bet Dole by 6,000,000 votes (with about 30% of votes going to Perot)
Trump lost by 3,000,000
This is more evidence of the effectiveness of the Russian interference in the campaign, both in undermining Hillary Clinton's credibility and driving a wedge between Clinton and Sanders voters within the Democratic party. They succeeded in switching enough white people's votes away from Clinton to tilt the electoral college balance in Trump's favor; and that's all it took.
26
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world. Trump won because americans are sick and tired of democrats and their subversion of democracy. The article basically reinforces this. Turnout had nothing to do with the loss, and if russians were capable of rigging an election in the US, why haven't they done it before? And why on earth would the left wing Putin want to side with the right wing trump? Keep drinking the cool aid half wit.
2
Russia didn't cause 600,000 third party nihilists in Pa., Michigan, and Wisconsin to throw away their souls.
Trump won these states by a mere 66,000 votes.
Trump won these states by a mere 66,000 votes.
Yeah, the conspiracy of Donna Brazille and Debbie Wasserman to erase the Bernie Sanders candidacy has Russia written all over it, the stamp of Putin, the aura of Pravda!
2
As usual, Nate Cohn provides a good analysis - as far as it goes.
However, there are those intangible things that are not so easily parsed. The role of the FBI/Dir. Comey and the timing and handling of the e-mail non-scandal, patricularly immediately before the election, cannot be discounted. Likewise, we have yet to learn the full story of Russian interference and possible Trump-Russia collusion. (On this score take a look at Nick Kristoff's recent reporting - quite compelling) In several places voter roll purges and other suppression tactics were in the mix. Finally, Trump's overt appeals to fear, racism and anti-immigrant sentiment swung a a chunk of white voters, and some others, his way. (Attributing this swing to economic anxiety among these voters is hogwash - ask anyone who has spoken to/knows lots of Trump voters)
Then there is the tangible. Secy. Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million. This is the sixth time in the last seven presidential elections that the Democrat has won the popular vote. Objectively, the very existence of the electoral college was the deciding factor in the outcome in 2016.
However, there are those intangible things that are not so easily parsed. The role of the FBI/Dir. Comey and the timing and handling of the e-mail non-scandal, patricularly immediately before the election, cannot be discounted. Likewise, we have yet to learn the full story of Russian interference and possible Trump-Russia collusion. (On this score take a look at Nick Kristoff's recent reporting - quite compelling) In several places voter roll purges and other suppression tactics were in the mix. Finally, Trump's overt appeals to fear, racism and anti-immigrant sentiment swung a a chunk of white voters, and some others, his way. (Attributing this swing to economic anxiety among these voters is hogwash - ask anyone who has spoken to/knows lots of Trump voters)
Then there is the tangible. Secy. Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million. This is the sixth time in the last seven presidential elections that the Democrat has won the popular vote. Objectively, the very existence of the electoral college was the deciding factor in the outcome in 2016.
41
yet again with this theory. there is no contest for the popular vote. clintons's opponent did not campaign for popular votes, he campaigned for electoral votes. the fact the popular vote was so strong for the democrat probably only shows that the republicans don't even try to win california or new york. the success of trump turning traditional blue states into red should suggest with a campaign focused on other voters he might also have had success. the results of a popular vote contest result is impossible to predict.
2
the election has always been won in the electoral College not the popular vote. Any analysis otherwise is dreaming. California and New York are very liberal states with a much higher concentration of Democrats that the average state. Hilary could have gotten 100% of the vote in California but she still would have lost.
4
I think that Nate has made a case for discounting the effect of turnout on the election result. But as you note, there isn't one election but 50. To make his case stronger, I would like to have seen Nate report turnout county by country, one state at a time. The data I've seen, from other sources, suggest that low turnout played a major role in the Detroit area, and to a lesser extent in the Philadelphia area. Based on county-wide data, I can't fully embrace Nate's conclusion, even though turnout clearly wasn't the most important factor even in the two states, where Trump was able to flip 2012 results in rural counties outright, gain on Romney's 2012 percentage or diminish Obama's. A lot of readers have weighed in on other factors. It's asking too much for Nate or anyone to construct a model that accounts for all of the influences. But I do think that going state by state makes for a more persuasive case than focusing on nationwide data.
1
Even President Obama in his gracious way conceded Hillary didn't spend enough time in the trenches in the mid--west, and he paraphrased- "I've been to my fair share of fish fries."
On the East Coast she hobnobbed with Bankers and Financiers about global trade and on the West Coast she ate $300,000 dinners with George Clooney and talked about more movie roles for Transgender actors. She snubbed a renegade patch of mid-western districts because she relied on outdated poling modules and assumed since they voted for Obama twice- they'll certainly vote for me.. That was her logistical mistake.
Her personality was "hit and miss" at best. And if you are running for President of the United States you can't send other people to deliver the message, "Trust me, if you ever meet Hillary one-on-one, she's very friendly and charming." Those qualities need to be felt and seen by the masses- not vouched for by a small group of loyalist surrogates.
She lost the election because she was a bad candidate- end of story.
On the East Coast she hobnobbed with Bankers and Financiers about global trade and on the West Coast she ate $300,000 dinners with George Clooney and talked about more movie roles for Transgender actors. She snubbed a renegade patch of mid-western districts because she relied on outdated poling modules and assumed since they voted for Obama twice- they'll certainly vote for me.. That was her logistical mistake.
Her personality was "hit and miss" at best. And if you are running for President of the United States you can't send other people to deliver the message, "Trust me, if you ever meet Hillary one-on-one, she's very friendly and charming." Those qualities need to be felt and seen by the masses- not vouched for by a small group of loyalist surrogates.
She lost the election because she was a bad candidate- end of story.
136
"She lost the election because she was a bad candidate- end of story. "
Nope, there's more to the story. Three million more people voted for her than for her opponent; he won only because too many other voters, who considered him deplorable, nevertheless couldn't bring themselves to vote for the only real alternative.
How many nihilistic "progressives" realize that by spitefully rejecting the lesser of two evils last November, they ensured the victory of the greater? Long before Election Day, every American voter knew that either Trump or HRC would be our next President. Like all politicians, neither of them is a saint, but then saints don't run for public office. The lesser of two weevils is the only choice you'll ever get!
And if you think any other Democrat who might have stepped up could have beaten Trump, you're fooling yourself. Anyone sufficiently "progressive" for you would have lost by a bigger margin than HRC did.
Let's be clear: like all politicians, Hillary Clinton is neither saint nor heroine. Except compared to Trump. Yet by holding out for a hero, Hillary-bashers on the left chose Donald Trump to be our President. Would a genuine Progressive call that progress?
Nope, there's more to the story. Three million more people voted for her than for her opponent; he won only because too many other voters, who considered him deplorable, nevertheless couldn't bring themselves to vote for the only real alternative.
How many nihilistic "progressives" realize that by spitefully rejecting the lesser of two evils last November, they ensured the victory of the greater? Long before Election Day, every American voter knew that either Trump or HRC would be our next President. Like all politicians, neither of them is a saint, but then saints don't run for public office. The lesser of two weevils is the only choice you'll ever get!
And if you think any other Democrat who might have stepped up could have beaten Trump, you're fooling yourself. Anyone sufficiently "progressive" for you would have lost by a bigger margin than HRC did.
Let's be clear: like all politicians, Hillary Clinton is neither saint nor heroine. Except compared to Trump. Yet by holding out for a hero, Hillary-bashers on the left chose Donald Trump to be our President. Would a genuine Progressive call that progress?
1
Nice and entertaining take. I like it.
This "bad candidate" won the popular vote. Maybe you missed that fact.
1
Clinton lost because her pro Wall Street policies and low approval ratings did her in. After her loss she claimed that Russian hacking did her in . This is an evidence free ideological assertion if there ever was one. But the charge has picked up steam to the extent that Trump is considered a Russian spy by many. So the thought is to impeach him as a spy. More fiddling while Rome burns. Meanwhile the oligarchy is making out like bandits.
24
Trump (FSCPOTUS) is not a Russian spy. He is a Russian tool.
Under President Putin’s firm and steady hand, Comrade Donald Trump will receive the enlightened guidance and strong leadership he needs to Make Amerika Great Again!
Comrade Trump with the assistance of President Putin, will also “root out” the TRAITORS in the USA intel community! The FBI, CIA, NSA will be “reformed” by Admiral of the Navy Steve Bannon and Stephen Feinberg. Amerikans can relax, knowing that President Putin’s will support Comrade Trump and help him exterminate all the libturd agitators!
Comrade Trump with the assistance of President Putin, will also “root out” the TRAITORS in the USA intel community! The FBI, CIA, NSA will be “reformed” by Admiral of the Navy Steve Bannon and Stephen Feinberg. Amerikans can relax, knowing that President Putin’s will support Comrade Trump and help him exterminate all the libturd agitators!
2
What this analysis fails to capture is what the Democratic turnout would have been if Democrats thought Trump had a realistic chance of winning. My sense is that the polls caused many people not to turnout who would have made sure to vote if they had any sense that this would have been a close election. In that context, turnout was a decisive factor handing the victory to Trump.
35
Given the the inaccuracy of polls up until the election, the following excerpt from this article casts doubt on the conclusions. "We estimated the presidential vote of every registered voter, based on our pre-election polls, voter file data and the results of every precinct"
7
An interesting analysis, but is there any way to quantify the effect of Hillary being such a poor candidate on the election's outcome? By poor candidate, I am largely talking about the enthusiasm gap.
Writ large, it is my impression that there was a significant number of voters who were not fired up about the idea of Clinton 2.0 in the Oval Office.
For my part I believe that as long as Trump doesn't start WWIII, or some other major disaster, Clinton's loss was a good thing. By this I mean it would have been Lewinsky and "party of NO" for another 4 years, whereas with the Republicans in full control there is a possibility that this right wing fever dream may finally be broken. In this, the risks are high, but the rewards will be lasting.
Writ large, it is my impression that there was a significant number of voters who were not fired up about the idea of Clinton 2.0 in the Oval Office.
For my part I believe that as long as Trump doesn't start WWIII, or some other major disaster, Clinton's loss was a good thing. By this I mean it would have been Lewinsky and "party of NO" for another 4 years, whereas with the Republicans in full control there is a possibility that this right wing fever dream may finally be broken. In this, the risks are high, but the rewards will be lasting.
31
Dudeist Priest. Love. It.
Awful lot of hooey here. Clinton was a deplorable candidate who so epitomized the intellectual condescension of those who poke fun at the Walmart images, that she simply repelled any number of educated voters both for what she represented and because of the stupidity of using the word "deplorable."
I respect the analysis, but it's lacking causal underpinnings. I still have a Hillary sticker on my bumper, but getting around the country, I hear about the antipathy that she engendered in voters.
I respect the analysis, but it's lacking causal underpinnings. I still have a Hillary sticker on my bumper, but getting around the country, I hear about the antipathy that she engendered in voters.
43
So many comments seem to reflect individual causes and bêtes noires, while the article tries to present the big picture.
Hilary was an unappealing candidate, even more so than Trump. And so Trump won. Almost any other Democrat, except perhaps for Bernie, could have won. Bernie would have been pilloried as a socialist pinko commie (ironic in view of Trump's Russophilia), and would have never gotten off the ground.
So why was Hillary so unappealing? Misogyny? Certainly. Baggage, yes. The Electoral College? You betcha. The flood of fake news about Benghazi and all the rest? Powerful. A demeanor seen by many as arrogant? Unfair and inaccurate, but absolutely the case. Voter suppression? Not so much: implicit stuff in some places, but the effect was far less than the general lack of appeal the Hillary presented. The totality of these things was extremely unfair - but fairness does not win elections - appeal does.
Overall, Hillary has always exhibited a tin ear for electoral politics, especially related to those who are not already confirmed supporters, as in NY and CA. She "would rather be right than be president." I say this as one who has admired her since her time at the Children's Defense Fund, and who would march over a cliff for her. Her nomination was a brave stand against misogyny, character assassination, and irrationality - and doomed to fail.
Democrats have to nominate candidates who are personally appealing: FDR, JFK, Clinton, Obama. It's still high school.
Hilary was an unappealing candidate, even more so than Trump. And so Trump won. Almost any other Democrat, except perhaps for Bernie, could have won. Bernie would have been pilloried as a socialist pinko commie (ironic in view of Trump's Russophilia), and would have never gotten off the ground.
So why was Hillary so unappealing? Misogyny? Certainly. Baggage, yes. The Electoral College? You betcha. The flood of fake news about Benghazi and all the rest? Powerful. A demeanor seen by many as arrogant? Unfair and inaccurate, but absolutely the case. Voter suppression? Not so much: implicit stuff in some places, but the effect was far less than the general lack of appeal the Hillary presented. The totality of these things was extremely unfair - but fairness does not win elections - appeal does.
Overall, Hillary has always exhibited a tin ear for electoral politics, especially related to those who are not already confirmed supporters, as in NY and CA. She "would rather be right than be president." I say this as one who has admired her since her time at the Children's Defense Fund, and who would march over a cliff for her. Her nomination was a brave stand against misogyny, character assassination, and irrationality - and doomed to fail.
Democrats have to nominate candidates who are personally appealing: FDR, JFK, Clinton, Obama. It's still high school.
50
Of course they need to nominate candidates that are personally appealing. It offsets and obfuscates their odious policies and attitudes toward the middle class.
2
No. People have to realize who was running on the other side.
Donald Trump.
We cannot just sit and wait to get our buttons pushed. We as citizens must wake up to our civic duty and act upon that knowledge.
Donald Trump.
We cannot just sit and wait to get our buttons pushed. We as citizens must wake up to our civic duty and act upon that knowledge.
Right, except HRC won the popular vote by 3,000,000 and JFK won it by 200,000. Both ran against very unappealing candidates. So who was the stronger candidate?
Hillary is very intelligent, and highly capable, but she was a bad candidate from the get-go. The Clintons have done a lot of shady things, and it caught up with them. The Democrats needed to harness the rage and angst of rust belt voters, but Hillary was tied to both Nafta and Wall Street and that hurt her. Bernie would have won, Biden would have won. Trump is one of the worst candidates in history, a classless, graceless buffon, but his lies worked. That being said, With all that happened, including meddling by the Russians, Hillary still won the popular vote by 3 million people, and i can say that if the United States just went by popular vote, like every other country in the world, she probably would have won by 5 million votes maybe more. The Electoral college more than anything gave us Trump, and i hope when this nightmare is finally over-2020, the first thing the Dems do is tear down, bulldoze and pave over the Electoral college. The electoral college needs to quickly become a thing of the past-If gave us Bush and now it-even worse-gave us Trump. It has to go.
33
Thomaspaine16,
You forgot to mention that President Bill Clinton created PNRT for Communist China.
In all fairness, President Bush can now say, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created fourteen additional Free Trade Agreements (with Jordan, Morocco, and other young democracies of Central America) and this economically caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to these third world nations because you would not agree to work for the same wages that citizens in these third world nations would work for."
And President Obama could now say, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created a bunch of multiple new Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and Peru plus several other Asian and South American nations and this economically caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to these third world nations because you would not agree to work for the same wages that citizens in these third world nations would happily work for."
You forgot to mention that President Bill Clinton created PNRT for Communist China.
In all fairness, President Bush can now say, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created fourteen additional Free Trade Agreements (with Jordan, Morocco, and other young democracies of Central America) and this economically caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to these third world nations because you would not agree to work for the same wages that citizens in these third world nations would work for."
And President Obama could now say, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created a bunch of multiple new Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and Peru plus several other Asian and South American nations and this economically caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to these third world nations because you would not agree to work for the same wages that citizens in these third world nations would happily work for."
2
Precisely that illegals don't sway the vote towards California or New York. If that happens half the States of the USA will secede. Equal power to Ohio and Pennsylvania. Otherwise, Texas is gone just like that. You better believe that it's the electoral college that keeps the USA afloat and the Ammendments. MAGA!
No. Bad voter turnout gave us Trump. Next election make sure you turn up.
A candidate widely viewed as corrupt, with no program running a poor campaign will do it everytime
40
No matter how you slice or dice the numbers, the Democrats lost the election. Of course there should be renewed pressure to stop gerrymandering. But what remains to be seen is if the Dems actually look at the huge disconnect between their leadership and whether they represent the entire electorate. I'm not hearing or reading about any true introspective look by the party. It sounds a lot like same stuff different day, particularly by Democratic leadership. And of course, finger pointing. I want to see my party stop blaming others and look at their blatant disregard of many Dems out here in the real world.
52
No, the Democrats won the election. Clinton won the popular vote by an overwhelming 2.8 million vote margin. The Democrats lost the vote in the Electoral College, an undemocratic institution that gives smaller states more electoral votes per person than larger states. Combined with the EC's winner-take-all system, that means that a presidential candidate can carry an election by winning just 21.8% of the popular vote. I'm tired of hearing that Clinton was a "flawed candidate". Millions of people preferred her to Trump or any of the third-party candidates. Her campaign made some strategic mistakes that, given our current system, cost her dearly, notably the decision not to campaign in certain states that proved to be battleground states. But what we didn't know then, and may not fully understand for years, is the role that outside interference in the 2016 election - essentially, state-supported character assassination - and dark money played in turning wavering voters against Clinton in the final days and hours of the campaign. In fact, the will of the voters was thwarted for the third time in this century, and the consequences this time may prove to be irreversible.
19
One thing wrong with this argument is that a person of principle cannot, by definition, represent a significant part of today's American electorate. Trump represented the racists, the misogynists, the predatory capitalists, and those stupid enough to believe the lies propagated by Fox news, and this time the vagaries of the Electoral College were enough to put him over the top.
No, the Democrats lost the election. Last I checked, they lost most House, Senate, and state-level races. The fact that Clinton received more popular votes is not only irrelevant because of the electoral college, it also obfuscates just how badly the Democrats did across the board down ballot.
3
Like others here, I grudgingly voted for Clinton due to the fact that Trump was and still is simply unprepared and unfit in all needed facets for any public office. But let's be real about what happened. Clinton's obvious flaws and her campaign's terrible calculations only reinforced many voters' already built in disdain for her embrace of the establishment that they viewed as responsible for getting her where she was at the expense of leaving them where they were.
At a time where such a significant portion of the electorate was screaming for change, Clinton simply radiated nothing but "The Usual" which in turn made Trump's revolting brand of "Unusual " more appealing by default. I can't quite say I'm sorry for voting for her, as Trump has proven to be as disgusting as I believed he would be. But I do not feel sorry for her and the establishment Democrats that so blatantly and transparently tainted the nomination process at every turn on her behalf.
At a time where such a significant portion of the electorate was screaming for change, Clinton simply radiated nothing but "The Usual" which in turn made Trump's revolting brand of "Unusual " more appealing by default. I can't quite say I'm sorry for voting for her, as Trump has proven to be as disgusting as I believed he would be. But I do not feel sorry for her and the establishment Democrats that so blatantly and transparently tainted the nomination process at every turn on her behalf.
120
Thank heavens we elected Trump to drain that business-as-usual swamp.
Sanders has held elective office longer than Clinton did. Why isn't HE the establishment candidate?
Biden held elected office longer than Sanders, yet he was considered the change Democrats needed.
Hillary derangement syndrome writ large.
Sanders has held elective office longer than Clinton did. Why isn't HE the establishment candidate?
Biden held elected office longer than Sanders, yet he was considered the change Democrats needed.
Hillary derangement syndrome writ large.
Bravo! Well said.
"He [Trump] flipped millions of white working-class Obama supporters to his side."
That is a shock. Why did it happen? In part, dismay about jobs and children's future. And part of that dismay is that Hillary and the Dems in general failed to demonstrate conviction in fixing these issues. That still is true now.
Support of dignity for all is laudable, but it doesn't address the shrinking of the middle class and enrichment of the 1/4%.
That is a shock. Why did it happen? In part, dismay about jobs and children's future. And part of that dismay is that Hillary and the Dems in general failed to demonstrate conviction in fixing these issues. That still is true now.
Support of dignity for all is laudable, but it doesn't address the shrinking of the middle class and enrichment of the 1/4%.
22
Please Democrats, this analysis is important, but it's not why Hillary lost.
Jobs, jobs, jobs for the poor and lower middle class. Jobs that one can live on. Jobs that allow people to have families and some amount of cushion in their lives. Address the wealth disparity, learn what the lives of the bottom of our society are like. Stop pandering to the banks and Wall St. Stop allowing them to steal from the poor and middle class.
Jobs, jobs, jobs for the poor and lower middle class. Jobs that one can live on. Jobs that allow people to have families and some amount of cushion in their lives. Address the wealth disparity, learn what the lives of the bottom of our society are like. Stop pandering to the banks and Wall St. Stop allowing them to steal from the poor and middle class.
69
The cruel upshot, however, is that Trump panders to the banks and to Wall St. As one commentator put it, the Trumps take advantage of the very people they purport to help.
And when are the Democrat's going to face the fact that if robots are going to replace a good share of the (former) workforce the latter shout should be given respectable health care and some constructive and respected leisure activities. Or at the very least be given opportunities to help others to cope with the health, education and aging problems that this country is facing. And that the great beneficiaries of this economic setup called capitalism (read the one percent) should pay for this.
I think there is a human tendency towards self-conning - the marginal con gets caught, but the clearly incredible one is believed. This is the reason Trump's clear lies - his success as a businessman, his claim to fix healthcare and make it cheaper, better and for everybody, his ability to renegotiate NAFTA and global trade deals - were believed by the disillusioned voters. Sad.
16
I know these young Trump voters, and they had an impact. Clinton was also a weak candidate and faced a coordinated, right wing attack apparatus. The Democrats can win if they focus on working class issues and stop the identity politics nonsense.
26
I'm tired of reading that Clinton was "a flawed candidate." We now know as a fact that so much of that perception was driven by fake news about her, her foundation, her years as Secy of State, and that fake news was driven by Russian operatives manipulating social media with bots that churned out false and misleading negatives about her 24/7. This continual drumbeat of false issues stayed in the news, either pounced on by right-wing media like Fox and Breitbart, or at least reported on by left-wing media like MSNBC. This is what created the perception, among the entire electorate, of a "flawed candidate." This is how Trump "flipped" white Obama voters...with lies about Clinton that became ubiquitous in all of our conversations about her.
117
And don't forget the reporting on the decrease in Americans' life expectancy, driven primarily by higher mortality among white working-class men and women. Obviously, those statistics are fake too, perhaps even manipulated by the Russians.
Republicans can only hope that all Democrats think like this.
Republicans can only hope that all Democrats think like this.
17
Let's not forget that part of that 'perception' was shaped by her cooperation with every allegation. If Colin Powell or Sen. Elizabeth Warren had run the entire tone and topic of this thread would be entirely different.
2
Clinton's approval ratings were dreadfully poor long before Breitbart.com, Putin, or any other entity peddling false information went to work in earnest by early to mid 2016. The polling demonstrated long before she was even the nominee that not only could she barely beat Trump, but that she was losing to the likes of John Kasich and even Marco Rubio of all people.
Had either of them or other candidates become the Republican nominee rather than Trump, the likelihood that Putin, Comey, or anyone else feeling the urgency to intervene may well have dropped as the Republican ticket might have been ahead by an amount outside the margin of error. If a candidate for president can't cut it against the likes of Rubio, Ted Cruz, and others filling out the cast of empty suits onstage for those Republican debates, then that candidate is indeed a flawed candidate.
Had either of them or other candidates become the Republican nominee rather than Trump, the likelihood that Putin, Comey, or anyone else feeling the urgency to intervene may well have dropped as the Republican ticket might have been ahead by an amount outside the margin of error. If a candidate for president can't cut it against the likes of Rubio, Ted Cruz, and others filling out the cast of empty suits onstage for those Republican debates, then that candidate is indeed a flawed candidate.
3
Also, I think its pretty obvious that the fact that black people didnt really love Hillary like they loved Obama led to her defeat. I mean, according to the data if blacks has voted like in 2008, Hillary would have won everything but PA easily. She would be president.
It seems to me that black apathy and white anger at being ignored by Hillary for the entire election, combined with the loss of liberal voters like me who couldnt stand her corportist ways, led to her defeat She wants to make it so that nation states have no borders and the only nations are multinational corporations.
It seems to me that black apathy and white anger at being ignored by Hillary for the entire election, combined with the loss of liberal voters like me who couldnt stand her corportist ways, led to her defeat She wants to make it so that nation states have no borders and the only nations are multinational corporations.
30
It seems that black voters decided to stay home and did not vote in the same numbers when they voted for Obama. Now, they will have to face the consequences.
12
Please do not perpetuate the false narrative that black people are responsible for Hillary's lost. Democrats need to stop hating on black people, white men and Bernie Sanders; we did not lose the election for her.
She lost because she was an awful, pro corporate candidate who did not have the desire or energy to campaign. It is time for the Democrats to stop fawning over Clinton and get busy with a plan to defeat the Republican cabal that retains the White House and most of the state offices thru out the nation.
She lost because she was an awful, pro corporate candidate who did not have the desire or energy to campaign. It is time for the Democrats to stop fawning over Clinton and get busy with a plan to defeat the Republican cabal that retains the White House and most of the state offices thru out the nation.
28
@JRS Very true. This was Hillary's campaign to lose and lose she did. She refused to campaign, called half of America deplorable, told us what was wrong with Trump but failed to say what was right with her, hobnobbed with the famous and wealthy, and the voters treated her accordingly. If anyone raises the "popular vote," please note that it means nothing in the Constitution. If you want to be President, you must win the Electoral College, nothing else matters.
4
I think this also shows that Trumps 47 million voters arent all racist xenophobes who just want white power.
Its worth saying explicitly that Hillary lost because she couldnt care less about white voters. This article cites zero evidence that proves that it was white "working class" voters, and not poor whites or rich whites, but thats not as important.
I mean, blacks do only represent like 13% of American citizens. If all you do is cater to their identity politics and tell whites that because of their priviledge they should be just fine, then you are probably going to lose some votes from whites. Since Hillary was white, the black voters didnt care enough to vote, and the whites were angry that Hillary only seemed to care about blacks and open borders. Thats what happens when you racialize everything. When you do that, you cant ever publically care about whites because compared to whites, every other minority is a super victim who is worse off relatively. To care about whites is to betray identity politics.
I wont lie. I voted for Jill Stein after caucusing for Bernie. To me, Hillary tried to hid her corporatist rich white woman self as Obama 2.0, but she cant. Democrats are so dependent on blacks that they should just make sure that they nominate black people, otherwise they will lose. Oh, but there is no way Ill ever vote for Cory Booker. He is just a black man version of Hillary. Lets try a black woman next time, boom easy win.
Its worth saying explicitly that Hillary lost because she couldnt care less about white voters. This article cites zero evidence that proves that it was white "working class" voters, and not poor whites or rich whites, but thats not as important.
I mean, blacks do only represent like 13% of American citizens. If all you do is cater to their identity politics and tell whites that because of their priviledge they should be just fine, then you are probably going to lose some votes from whites. Since Hillary was white, the black voters didnt care enough to vote, and the whites were angry that Hillary only seemed to care about blacks and open borders. Thats what happens when you racialize everything. When you do that, you cant ever publically care about whites because compared to whites, every other minority is a super victim who is worse off relatively. To care about whites is to betray identity politics.
I wont lie. I voted for Jill Stein after caucusing for Bernie. To me, Hillary tried to hid her corporatist rich white woman self as Obama 2.0, but she cant. Democrats are so dependent on blacks that they should just make sure that they nominate black people, otherwise they will lose. Oh, but there is no way Ill ever vote for Cory Booker. He is just a black man version of Hillary. Lets try a black woman next time, boom easy win.
16
Only if that black woman's name is Michelle Obama.
1
Of course, Hillary Clinton won the vote and by a very large margin, but she lost the election. It was the second time in some fifteen years that the winner of the vote was the loser in the election and with serious national consequences both times. That is the elephant in the voting booth that no one wants to talk about, or set a mouse to.
18
Hillary's popular vote margin was <2%. It's a popular vote win, but "very large margin"? Let's not get hyperbolic.
1
Alexander Hamilton. James Madison and the founding fathers sure talked about your "elephant in the voting booth" and even created a Constitution that you should try reading some time. They created a republic so the ignorant unwashed masses like yourself would never get near the throne of power. If you wanted a political revolution you blew your chance by voting for Clinton in the primary, oh but the DNC rigged the primary with super delegates.
2
The vote for "other" -- mostly Gary Johnson, but also Stein and McMullan -- in all the very close states except Iowa EXCEEDED the margin of victory for the winner in those states. This isn't exactly "turnout," but one could argue that these "other" voters decided the election.
These voters are missing from your analysis entirely.
These voters are missing from your analysis entirely.
28
This is as good an example of myopic mathematicism as one could ask for. It answers at great length an irrelevant and simplistic question. It offers perhaps smug satisfaction to the author but illuminates nothing of significance.
The question of whether low turnout caused the election results is simplistic because even a cursory examination of the actual process shows that multiple convergent 'causes' contributed to the outcome.
Here is a list of obviously contributing factors: gerrymandering, voter suppression, the relentless blizzard of right-wing lies smearing Clinton, wikileaks targeting Clinton campaign, the intervention of Comey.
Were there more factors involved, including mistakes by the Clinton campaign? Certainly, but the significance of the list presented is that all the items were specifically aimed at undermining the opposition. They were also either illegal, unethical, unconstitutional or some combination thereof. And with the possible exception of Comey's intervention, their effects were entirely intentional not inadvertent.
Individually, perhaps, none would have been sufficient to throw the election. But cumulatively they could easily account for the 77,000 votes that cost Clinton the presidency. Quantify that Mr Cohen.
The question of whether low turnout caused the election results is simplistic because even a cursory examination of the actual process shows that multiple convergent 'causes' contributed to the outcome.
Here is a list of obviously contributing factors: gerrymandering, voter suppression, the relentless blizzard of right-wing lies smearing Clinton, wikileaks targeting Clinton campaign, the intervention of Comey.
Were there more factors involved, including mistakes by the Clinton campaign? Certainly, but the significance of the list presented is that all the items were specifically aimed at undermining the opposition. They were also either illegal, unethical, unconstitutional or some combination thereof. And with the possible exception of Comey's intervention, their effects were entirely intentional not inadvertent.
Individually, perhaps, none would have been sufficient to throw the election. But cumulatively they could easily account for the 77,000 votes that cost Clinton the presidency. Quantify that Mr Cohen.
21
You forgot Fox News, the Koch Brothers, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and host of other leftist bogeymen.
You might have an argument if it were the case that Trump was elected but the Senate went Democratic and the Democrats regained some ground in the states. Essentially however, the Republicans held their ground and continue to dominate politically in the vast majority of states and the Federal Government. Those issues aren't easily explained away by your imagined list of grievences.
You might have an argument if it were the case that Trump was elected but the Senate went Democratic and the Democrats regained some ground in the states. Essentially however, the Republicans held their ground and continue to dominate politically in the vast majority of states and the Federal Government. Those issues aren't easily explained away by your imagined list of grievences.
9
There is nothing imaginary about the list as presented. All are well documented, so your comment amounts to just another example of the head-in-the-right-wing-echo-chamber difficulty with facing reality. Further, gerrymandering and voter suppression go a long way toward explaining a Republican 'dominance' that rests on winning elections while losing the popular vote.
Also in the facts matter category, the 2016 'winning' Republican ticket lost a Senate seat and six House seats.
Also in the facts matter category, the 2016 'winning' Republican ticket lost a Senate seat and six House seats.
2
I never knew 'gerrymandering' influenced gubernatorial or Senate races. Not to mention individual state legislative bodies that are chosen at large, rather than by district. Yes, Republicans lost a few seats but retained the balance of power.
The so called popular vote is irrelevant both as a constitutional matter as well as a measure of any meaning - neither candidate attempted to maximize their "popular vote" total as it is manifestly irrelevant to our Presidential election.
The so called popular vote is irrelevant both as a constitutional matter as well as a measure of any meaning - neither candidate attempted to maximize their "popular vote" total as it is manifestly irrelevant to our Presidential election.
5
We still don't really know what the votes were in Pennsylvania, because they have no paper trail and use antiquated electronic voting machines that can't be audited. Also, the effects of vigorous voter suppression efforts by Republicans may well be responsible for the drop in black voting.
Strengthening laws to guarantee every citizen fair and equal access to a properly counted paper ballot - even in the discriminatory South and other Republican controlled states - should be the TOP focus this year and next of progressives and anyone who cherishes democracy.
Strengthening laws to guarantee every citizen fair and equal access to a properly counted paper ballot - even in the discriminatory South and other Republican controlled states - should be the TOP focus this year and next of progressives and anyone who cherishes democracy.
16
It is hard to believe what a difference only one person can make. Had Hillary been elected the world would have completely changed. The sun would be rising in the west instead of the east and the whole world would be like that old Coke commercial with kids of all colors holding hands and singing We Are The World. Rainbows would probably never vanish from the skies either. It's fun to pretend, isn't it?
12
You forgot to mention the Unicorns.
13
No, the only likely difference is that an HRC administration wouldn't have spent its first few months demonstrating utter incompetence in policy matters both foreign and domestic.
Pretty glib right now. Let's see where you stand after a couple years in Trumpland.
The Clinton campaign did not picture that White women over 50 without college degrees would vote against her. Not only did they vote against her, but in rural areas of MI, WI, PA, and OH, women like that self funded and self organized get out the vote campaigns to vote for Trump and, whenever telephoned by poll takers, they told the pollsters they were voting for Hillary.
Hillary Clinton's campaign believed what their pollsters found -- those women were going to vote for Hillary. That's what they said when they were called.
Also, an additional 20,000 votes from Blacks in metro Milwaukee and Detroit, and an additional 50,000 voters from Blacks in metro Philadelphia would have given Hillary the electoral college.
The biggest difference from the Obama campaign from Hillary's on the ground is that where Obama's campaign saw the potential for victory, they looked for a clear victory with 50,000" vote majorities in states. Hillary just looked for majorities. If she personally had been on the ground more in MI and WI, she probably would have gotten majorities in both, but PA would have stayed tight all the way.
I think if Hillary had asked Biden to be her VP to provide continuity, she would have won PA and MI and maybe OH. Tim Kaine was an excellent pick for getting along with Hillary and for handling the office, but not a good pick for obtaining additional votes.
Hillary Clinton's campaign believed what their pollsters found -- those women were going to vote for Hillary. That's what they said when they were called.
Also, an additional 20,000 votes from Blacks in metro Milwaukee and Detroit, and an additional 50,000 voters from Blacks in metro Philadelphia would have given Hillary the electoral college.
The biggest difference from the Obama campaign from Hillary's on the ground is that where Obama's campaign saw the potential for victory, they looked for a clear victory with 50,000" vote majorities in states. Hillary just looked for majorities. If she personally had been on the ground more in MI and WI, she probably would have gotten majorities in both, but PA would have stayed tight all the way.
I think if Hillary had asked Biden to be her VP to provide continuity, she would have won PA and MI and maybe OH. Tim Kaine was an excellent pick for getting along with Hillary and for handling the office, but not a good pick for obtaining additional votes.
9
As if having a college degree means anything. So elitist. I didn't finish college, and white and of a certain age and I voted for her flaws and all. It's comments like yours that push people further away from the Dems. But hey keep it up b/c that worked out so well for us in the last election. You people never learn.
12
Let me turn this around on you... As if not having a college degree means anything. So short-sighted. I have three degrees (two of which I paid for 100%), am white, & of a certain age, & I voted for Clinton "flaws" (most of which were manufactured by the right wing) & all. It's comments like yours that push people like me away from "the white working class" because we're immensely tired of your snobbery. But hey, keep it up because that's worked really well over the last 30+ years to get the middle & working classes what they need.
College educated women living in S. Ohio all voted for Trump, FYI.
IMO Bernie deserved stronger and better press coverage than he got and the Clintons have already had their eight years in the White House.. greedy greedy.
It would have been interesting had Bernie run... but oo bad the American public does not know the difference between social and communism...
All badly flawed candidates... but there has been change in the mind of the electorate. and Obama/Romney Care in a form still stands and much else will still remain as well..
IMO Bernie deserved stronger and better press coverage than he got and the Clintons have already had their eight years in the White House.. greedy greedy.
It would have been interesting had Bernie run... but oo bad the American public does not know the difference between social and communism...
All badly flawed candidates... but there has been change in the mind of the electorate. and Obama/Romney Care in a form still stands and much else will still remain as well..
2
Hillary Clinton and the Democrats lost because they did not have anything to promise those American people that have been going down hill for years to look forward to. Hillary had lots of baggage going back to Bills running for president. Her self centered appearance was another factor. The fact that she did not eve visit Wisconsin is ludicrous. It is all too bad because she has the most experience of anyone to be the president and now we have a buffoon for president that has no idea what he is doing and lies and makes up stories and perhaps even had help from the Russians in getting elected. A sad time for a great country.
22
Hi BB, I'm in agreement with your comment however I have one question.
What should Hillary have promised for those people who went downhill every year?
In Canada, the lack of employment is due to automation destroying unskilled, high pay factory jobs, while the skilled jobs (those who maintain, program, design and install the automation) go unfilled for lack of qualified applicants.
It would be good to see governments come back with free education and financial support while those people are being trained.
What should Hillary have promised for those people who went downhill every year?
In Canada, the lack of employment is due to automation destroying unskilled, high pay factory jobs, while the skilled jobs (those who maintain, program, design and install the automation) go unfilled for lack of qualified applicants.
It would be good to see governments come back with free education and financial support while those people are being trained.
Hillary was not the best candidate and her campaign was not very good. Why Podesta again? Roby Mook was just an amateur. Why she went to Georgia and Arizona? Why she did not spend more time in Pennsylvania and in Florida. Then there were wikileaks, Comey"s last minute attack, Fake News, Russian involvement and foreign money against her. Bernie Sanders stayed too long in primary draining Hillary's resources and time. Bernie created a bad image of Hillary and lot of Democrats did not vote for her. Black lives Matters groups were working against her and black voters were too lazy to vote. Surprisingly lot Hispanics digested Trump's insult and voted for him. Finally main stream media like CBS, ABC ,CNN etc had 24 hours Trump news because it was good for their business. They wanted to balance and were asking too many questions about Email and Benghazi. CNN had big contribution for Trump's win. Our bad luck.
9
The fact of the matter is not "BERNIE STAYED IN THERE TOO LONG ".It is that
the Dems have a pay to play insider elite that has a built in mechanism ,SUPER DELEGATES that refused to support the senator in states that he did win.
Not a fair assessment of the facts.many of the people that supported
Bernie Sanders went over to Trump after he promised a better economy for for
the low wage workers in this country .Trump payed close attention to Bernie's message and used it to his advantage .The Dems must now admit to the facts .They ran a campaign which excluded the working class ,the poor and the very principles that they stood for way back before Bill clinton .FDR
would be an example of a great society the Dems need to reach back to .I
won't hold my breathe .
the Dems have a pay to play insider elite that has a built in mechanism ,SUPER DELEGATES that refused to support the senator in states that he did win.
Not a fair assessment of the facts.many of the people that supported
Bernie Sanders went over to Trump after he promised a better economy for for
the low wage workers in this country .Trump payed close attention to Bernie's message and used it to his advantage .The Dems must now admit to the facts .They ran a campaign which excluded the working class ,the poor and the very principles that they stood for way back before Bill clinton .FDR
would be an example of a great society the Dems need to reach back to .I
won't hold my breathe .
2
Clinton prefers to mingle with the uber rich. To Hillary Silicon Valley is just a limo ride to Tim Cook.s place to pick up some moolah and then on to SF to grab more bucks from some other fawning zillionaire after which it's straight back to the airport.
Everyday tech workers and others? Not special enough for the Clintons to waste their time on.
Everyday tech workers and others? Not special enough for the Clintons to waste their time on.
3
The Democrats will have to work on all around improvements from now on.
12
Hillary Clinton was the driver of Clinton's defeat.
And deservedly so.
Unfortunately, Democrats haven't learned a thing from the 2016 debacle as evidenced by the selection of Tom Perez as DNC Chair.
SAD.
And deservedly so.
Unfortunately, Democrats haven't learned a thing from the 2016 debacle as evidenced by the selection of Tom Perez as DNC Chair.
SAD.
67
Millions of unhappy, ignorant people were scammed by a con man. It's as simple as that.
Putin and Comey closed the deal.
Putin and Comey closed the deal.
26
Clinton had the wrong focus. Racial and women's issues are important, but bread and butter was what most voters were concerned about.
26
Mr. Cohn, I just wonder how you can reach ANY conclusions at all based on your data analysis after being so pathetically wrong about the November election?
26
This article is the NYT's saying "Look what we got right" after getting their major prediction dead wrong. Pathetic.
2
The interpretation is obvious: Clinton relied on identity politics that counted on a coalition that championed the interests of everyone but middle class white voters. Why is it so strange to see voters recoil from a party who switched from class-based to race-based redistribution?
21
The article says the shift was in working-class voters, not middle class voters - and the republicans are hardly a "class-based" party.
2
i voted for clinton. i did not want to do that at all. of course i have way too much self respect to toss out my vote by casting it at a man that has no true character for the job. and i was not going to leave the line blank. i voted for her because somewhere else democratic bosses decided she was the candidate they were backing. bernie be darned. well we now have this ugly scene playing out daily. hey she won the popular vote. big deal. the country did not want her. we had no choice. democrats get your stuff straight and listen to your base next time. GIVE YOUTH a vote. grow up grow a spine resist this miscreant in the office now and as for the elephants. well they are almost extinct.
17
In subsequent reports, could you please include Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan? In addition, if you can dig deeper into turnouts by county this would be
illuminating vis a vis possible effects of voter ID issues. That is, compare
demographics and turnout in states with different
voter ID policies. Can you detect a difference with more restrictive
ID laws?
illuminating vis a vis possible effects of voter ID issues. That is, compare
demographics and turnout in states with different
voter ID policies. Can you detect a difference with more restrictive
ID laws?
5
"I know you all are angry, economically frightened, bewildered if not desperate. I know you worry about your future and that of your children and even the future of the country. I want you to trust me because I've been at this a long time. I know the ins and outs. I have scrap books with selfies in 160 countries. I have millions in the bank collected through hard work giving speeches to banks and industries. (Sorry, I can't share those with you.) You should go on line and read all the swell things I'd like to do. Now most of you voted for my dear friend, President Obama; many of you may have voted for my husband. I'm asking you to give me your vote because I promise to work really hard to bring you four more years of the same. Besides, well Chelsea."
What could go wrong? Mr. Silver's analysis can not as yet extend to percentages who did not like Trump, but just really, really did not like Ms.Clinton. She carried the college educated whites who identified with her. Everyone else, not so much. While the Republicans are reeling and writhing, Democrats have the field. Economy, Environment, Education, oh, and like Cato the Elder: Citizens United must be destroyed.
What could go wrong? Mr. Silver's analysis can not as yet extend to percentages who did not like Trump, but just really, really did not like Ms.Clinton. She carried the college educated whites who identified with her. Everyone else, not so much. While the Republicans are reeling and writhing, Democrats have the field. Economy, Environment, Education, oh, and like Cato the Elder: Citizens United must be destroyed.
13
The central point to the 2016 election is that the Electoral College must be eliminated from our Presidential elections. There is a way to do it without a constitutional amendment and it is slowly working its way through the individual states. Please read about National Popular Vote and if you agree, lobby your state lawmakers and give them some money http://www.nationalpopularvote.com.
6
As always, a great NYTs article. With that said I think a very important aspect of the 2016 Presidential election was the vast differences between the candidates. Not just what they believe in, but the seasoned politician versus seasoned "businessman". Mr. Trump was known here in NYC as a builder who never knew the truth compared to his numerous lies. In a age of reality TV, the reality TV "star" stole the election. And now, we the people are paying the price for someone like Trump and his cast of deplorables to run and probably ruin our country for the next 4 years. They are off to a "good" start. It's interesting that since he became President he has not stepped foot in NYC at Trump Tower. His wife is there, he is either in Washington or his Trump properties, I wonder how much that is costing us tax payers. I remember his constant phrase of "lock her up". No, Mr. Trump, if anyone should be locked up its .....
5
PA resident and voter here ... had several 'educated,' well-off and middle-class neighbors tell me last November, "I'm just going to 'hold my nose' and vote for Trump." Well ... here we are! I think it's time to move your hand away from your face. Take a deep breath and inhale that putrid, acrid, cadavarine-like stench of emanating from the Oval Office at the White House and do something about it. America should never smell like that.
20
I'm a white middle class. I voted for Bill Clinton and Obama. I voted for Trump. Why? Because Hillary is a phony. Look at the Trump care fight. She didn't do *anything* except stepping in after the fight to claim the credit on Twitter. Such a phony. She is the type of people at work doing nothing, but step up and claim rewards when things turn out well.
30
Hillary Clinton tweeted that the defeat of the AHCA was a victory for all Americans, and then sent out stories of people whose lives were helped, and saved, by the ACA.
If you're concerned about politicians who claim credit for other people's successes, you sure backed the wrong candidate.
If you're concerned about politicians who claim credit for other people's successes, you sure backed the wrong candidate.
5
Phony? Yes and I said it too. But she isn't stupid, which is exactly what we have now.
James, Given your multiple duplicate posts here, I'd say you are far more of a phony than Secy Clinton; were you one of the thousands of trolls trashing her with lies like your comment? If I were her, after 30 years of trying to help folks like you, I'd no longer lift a finger. Congrats! You've gotten the leader you wanted and deserve.
1
This article misses the point. Ms. Clinton lost because she was more hated than Trump. This was affected at the last minute by Comey's announcement. But the Times always underestimated the degree to which Clinton is despised, and falsely blamed it on Republicans.
I voted for despite despising her.
I voted for despite despising her.
40
I try not to personalize my choices of politicians -- although with Trump it has been challenging -- but rather look at how the policies and initiatives they will try to carry out square with mine.
Look at the various articles just in today's NYT -- health care, climate change, education, the Supreme Court, immigration, taxes, etc. Not to mention the whole Russia thing. Who would you rather have at the Presidential helm today, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
Look at the various articles just in today's NYT -- health care, climate change, education, the Supreme Court, immigration, taxes, etc. Not to mention the whole Russia thing. Who would you rather have at the Presidential helm today, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
CC, it think your logic is a bit off, I truly think voters had already made up their minds and decided long ago that they were not going to vote for her. I don't think Comey had anything to do with it. I voted for her b/c she was the lesser of two evils.
1
So it is the Russian's fault or not? According to the Times it wasn't, isn't. In Black and White the Dems didn't get the votes they were counting on. And she lost in the states that truly counted. Call it voter apathy. and I voted for her because she was the lesser of two evils. The Russians had nothing to do with her losing. She missed the message and more importantly she ignored a large portion of the United States and stayed with her elites. It cost her and it cost the nation.
27
she was absolutely SMUG about the support she was "entitled" to, especialy women. i mean how many times did she invoke the "glass ceiling" and "historic" election for there to be a woman elected..please, she acted as though the presidency was hers and the election was some "formality"
3
This doesn't take into account the massive job the republicans are doing to deny minority and democrats from voting. They are constantly going after voter fraud which basically doesn't exist. They've required voter IDs, shortened days and times people could vote before elections, and gerrymanded as many districts as they can. This last election they started taking people off lists and accused them of being registered in other states by using a company that has really no way to know if the two people are the same person - especially since in a lot of cases they don't even check the middle initial. And then there is the felon laws which prevent mostly Black and democrats from voting. In Florida, 33% of Black men cannot vote. The republicans have been very busy stealing elections because the majority of people are not interested in their policies. And it sure didn't help that Russia was for Trump and the FBI opened it's mouth about nothing.
6
Let's get real. Clinton's loss was due to the fact that many men, and not a few women, could not stomach the thought of a woman leading the country. You can slice and dice the data all you want, but according to quite a few analyses I've seen, many Trump voters are voting on a single issue: abortion. They simply cannot cede control of women's bodies to the women themselves - giving women control of their own bodies was something Clinton supported. Female control and oppression is what it's all about.
14
53% of white women voted for Trump. How does that fit the "control and oppression of women " narrative?
Why does this subject continue to be analyzed? It was clear early on in the primaries that democrats were likely going to lose because they were forcing Clinton on the Democrats. Obama beat out Hilary when they first ran against each other in the nomination years ago for good reason. Many people just didn't like Hilary, and/or they don't want another Clinton in the White House. We've been complaining of dynasties since George W. Also, if you look back in modern history, democrats never win when they run with an established politician. Sanders had a much better chance at actually winning the presidency vs Clinton for this very reason. It's a big reason why Obama was able to capture such a large amount of voters.
Then, you have the fact that the democratic base was caught doing all they good to rig the nomination in favor of Hilary. It showed they are just as corrupt as Republicans, and Trump wasn't really a Republican (this worked in his favor). Dems completely ignored Sanders supporters.
Democrats did this to themselves. The party establishment is corrupt, so I don't see how constant analysis of the numbers is going to help anything. If democrats want to start winning again, they need to clean up their act and show the American people they actually care and are listening. However, I think if you asked many Americans would really like a viable third, even fourth, party. The two party system is killing our country.
Then, you have the fact that the democratic base was caught doing all they good to rig the nomination in favor of Hilary. It showed they are just as corrupt as Republicans, and Trump wasn't really a Republican (this worked in his favor). Dems completely ignored Sanders supporters.
Democrats did this to themselves. The party establishment is corrupt, so I don't see how constant analysis of the numbers is going to help anything. If democrats want to start winning again, they need to clean up their act and show the American people they actually care and are listening. However, I think if you asked many Americans would really like a viable third, even fourth, party. The two party system is killing our country.
46
What I find incredulous that as bad as any Democrat says that Hillary was the opponent was....
Donald Trump!!
Just what were you people thinking? That this was just a normal election? That this was a coin flip? Sheesh! I just don't believe what I hear sometimes.......
Donald Trump!!
Just what were you people thinking? That this was just a normal election? That this was a coin flip? Sheesh! I just don't believe what I hear sometimes.......
7
I wish we had a parliamentary system.
10
It is evident that Hillary's loss was due in large part to the influence of a foreign country that disseminated fake news in order to lift up their preferred candidate instead; the undecideds, weak supporters and those who did not know any better may have decided to believe those fake news and voted Trump. Then of course there are many misogynistic men like several commenters here today who will just not see a woman as an equal, much less a higher authority figure. They are threatened by strong women and Hillary is one. (They must be the same men who deplore giving women a Choice re their own bodies.) Hard to believe but there are also women who think backwardly like this. We are behind so many countries large and small (India, Pakistan, SriLanka, Germany, Ukraine, Argentina, etc) in terms of electing a woman as their leader; but it is only a matter of time, education, enlightenment.
7
No see those e-mails by Podesta and friends and Debbie Wasserman Schultz were not lies perpetrated by Russia. That's the problem with Hillary and Co. Hubris pure and simple. Stop placing blame where it does not belong.
1
If it wasn't turnout as concluded in this analysis it seems the behavior of the FBI Director and the Russian Wikileaks meddling in the election contributed significantly to the Trump victory; not persuasion by Trump. Is there any way to examine these effects in detail? I would like to think a flim-flam man like Trump to be incapable of conning the electorate.
6
And why exactly should Black voters support someone who clearly doesn't support them? There is an amazing disconnect among politicians who expect American Blacks to support them on the "dream" that one day and surely one day for sure, they will be included in the ... whatever there is that they want to include them in that is, supporting those candidates who promise to support them as long as they support those candidates first and always.
It was an absolute hoax during the presidential campaign to haul out Bill Clinton who did nothing positive for American Blacks. His negatives include "ending welfare as we know it" but not providing any plan for what might occur after that removal, like job training, educational opportunities, etc., which should have been included in the "welfare as we knew it" all along. Or let's remember the invention of the massive Prison-Industrial Complex of privatized prisons especially for the massive volume of American Black males being rounded up in numbers that match by ratio those of the immediate post-civil war and Jim Crow years (which I think is supposed to end tomorrow).
Hillary Clinton ran an entitled and presumptive campaign against the person of Trump without really providing any real ideas about what she would do. Only what she might not do. That is, be Trump.
By the way, stop blaming "Blacks" for your problems of leadership and failures at the ballot box. By the way, why was it America needed a Voting Rights Act anyway?
It was an absolute hoax during the presidential campaign to haul out Bill Clinton who did nothing positive for American Blacks. His negatives include "ending welfare as we know it" but not providing any plan for what might occur after that removal, like job training, educational opportunities, etc., which should have been included in the "welfare as we knew it" all along. Or let's remember the invention of the massive Prison-Industrial Complex of privatized prisons especially for the massive volume of American Black males being rounded up in numbers that match by ratio those of the immediate post-civil war and Jim Crow years (which I think is supposed to end tomorrow).
Hillary Clinton ran an entitled and presumptive campaign against the person of Trump without really providing any real ideas about what she would do. Only what she might not do. That is, be Trump.
By the way, stop blaming "Blacks" for your problems of leadership and failures at the ballot box. By the way, why was it America needed a Voting Rights Act anyway?
33
Good luck with President Trump! I wish you the very best! I won't tell you the very best what...
6
Very well stated .Here , Here .One thousand up votes from me.
1
What exactly did Obama do for Black for 8 years? Better yet what have Blacks done for themselves? I am Italian I don't expect anyone to do anything for me. Time to put on the big boy pants and grow up and stop expecting others to constantly help you.
1
Mrs. Clinton lost because she was so sure she would win. The unfair primary where the DNC utilized Republican voter suppression techniques in, for example, Brooklyn, and virtually created a hate campaign against Bernie- and still do-- is what lost the election. Bernie would have had those white working class voters. Mrs. Clinton did not even bother to try in the Rust Belt. I voted for her- but I am still being attacked because I felt that Bernie could win- and she could not.
47
As to why Hillary Clinton ultimately lost the election, the author of the column and some that post on the forum continually fail to come to grips with the fact that in the previous 10 years, a continual loss of over 900 seats at the federal, i.e president house and senate, state and local levels, confirmed that the democratic party was becoming less and less relevant to much of the electorate and because they were ultimately becoming a type of just Republican Lite Party offering no real alternative, the results ultimately spoke for themselves.
The failed campaign identity politics attack on Trump, failure to recognize what was going on in the country, plus Hillary Clinton representing the ultimate in an establishment/corporate candidate made things worse. Certainly Republican voter suppression in several states did not help, however, when in the primary, after a poll stated Clinton was way ahead in the TWO swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin then ultimately losing both substantially to Bernie Sanders should have been a warning sign to the DNC, they ignored it and lost.
Michael Moore was right on the money when he stated that Trump was the Molotov Cocktail thrown in to the middle of the establishment parties, especially the democrats. It would seem regardless of his continual lying, even today, most of his supporters back him because they are fed up with establishment politics. Is the democratic party listening? It would seem not.
The failed campaign identity politics attack on Trump, failure to recognize what was going on in the country, plus Hillary Clinton representing the ultimate in an establishment/corporate candidate made things worse. Certainly Republican voter suppression in several states did not help, however, when in the primary, after a poll stated Clinton was way ahead in the TWO swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin then ultimately losing both substantially to Bernie Sanders should have been a warning sign to the DNC, they ignored it and lost.
Michael Moore was right on the money when he stated that Trump was the Molotov Cocktail thrown in to the middle of the establishment parties, especially the democrats. It would seem regardless of his continual lying, even today, most of his supporters back him because they are fed up with establishment politics. Is the democratic party listening? It would seem not.
40
The only group more corrupt and out of touch than the Republicans are the Democrats. The Republicans have drifted away from the core Reagan principles of debt reduction and smaller government to become beholden to business interests and spending on pet projects. Unfortunately, the Democrats have veered even farther to the left in terms of identity politics and a basic lack of respect for morals, religious values, and the middle class. Their presumptive and entitled approach to other people's money make them an untenable option for many voters as evidenced in the many state houses and legislatures, not to mention the US Senate and House. If the Democrats think this is only a presidential election problem, they are doomed to failure and permanent minority status.
15
Mt F.B.I.Comey keeping it secret about the investigation of Trump and his allies was a big part of it while he did his "email" announcements so close to election day. I can't believe that that did not factor into the results. the Trump investigation began in JULY!!! The last email investigation was ended days before the election....after a large segment of voters had already voted early.
I would like to see more acknowledgement of the fact that almost 11 million voters voted against Trump. A mere 77,000 voters put him into the White House. There should be far more discussion of a bizarre, outdated system of an electoral college that puts a candidate into the Oval Office who is clearly rejected by a majority. My New York vote should have the same value as a Wisconsin vote. We talk about turnout as if trump actually won. He didn't. An archaic clause in the Constitution awarded him the presidency. He was not the choice of the majority.
32
I agree that the electoral college is outdated but am not impressed by the argument that Trump was not the choice of the majority. Neither was Clinton. In a proper popular vote system there would have been a runoff between Trump and Clinton, and, although I think that Clinton probably would have won a majority, we don’t know for certain, since many who voted for other candidates (e.g. Libertarian supporters, who got 3.27% of the popular vote) might have chosen Trump. As it is, the outcome is most unfortunate. So many people fell for his line.
2
I'd agree in a sense. The electoral college was designed to largely prevent someone as dangerously reckless and stupid as Trump from taking office even had he secured the popular vote, which of course he didn't. The fact that these designated electors failed in that responsibility by rubber stamping him in anyhow really calls into question whether this supposed "failsafe" mechanism serves to protect democracy.
4
Many people voted for Ms. Clinton, because they could not stomach the idea of voting for Mr. Trump. Well, I guess that's the reality of how many people vote in most elections, but the point is: don't keep thinking that a vote for Ms. Clinton was a vote for ANY Democratic candidate. A lot of the people who voted for her would have gladly voted for a moderate Republican.
You say that Trump flipped white voters to his side. But It might as well be that Clinton flipped white voters away from her side. She blamed all of society's ills on white males. When asked about what she would do about police brutality, she said she would have a discussion with white America and persuade us to be less racist. With that kind of campaign strategy, it's amazing that she only lost 1/4 of her support among whites. Maybe because a lot of us we reluctant to vote for someone who was clearly unprepared (Trump), but we still do out of self-preservation and a desire to send a message to the Democrats to stop with their divisive identity politics.
23
I agree with Clinton the majority of white males are racists, sexists, condescending, and self-entitled to name a few of the adjectives I have for them. And I say that as a thank god I am a single white female. My choice. Or haven't you been watching what has been going on with the GOP and their chauvinistic attitudes and old boy school mentality?
4
Judging the majority of a group of 100 million people is bigoted.
I truly feel for you. You sound sour. I hope you have enough cats to keep you company. And I say that with the utmost sympathy. You were brainwashed into believing that your male peers are evil and you decided not to associate with them. You are missing out on life. I did not marry a white woman, a lot of you are infected with ugly ideologies.
I truly feel for you. You sound sour. I hope you have enough cats to keep you company. And I say that with the utmost sympathy. You were brainwashed into believing that your male peers are evil and you decided not to associate with them. You are missing out on life. I did not marry a white woman, a lot of you are infected with ugly ideologies.
Lauren G - the 53% of white women who voted for Trump don't share your view.
1
How is it that Trump persuaded millions of white working-class Obama supporters to his side while Trump was aggressively attacking Obama?
It would seem reasonable to assume that anti-Obama rhetoric from Trump would have alienated those millions of white working-class Obama supporters instead of persuading them to his side.
What explains the abandonment of Obama's values in favor of Trump's? The values of the two could not be any more different. It is difficult for me to reason a way that someone who has voted for Obama and shares his values of social consciousness could abandon all of that and embrace Trump.
Just boggles my mind!
It would seem reasonable to assume that anti-Obama rhetoric from Trump would have alienated those millions of white working-class Obama supporters instead of persuading them to his side.
What explains the abandonment of Obama's values in favor of Trump's? The values of the two could not be any more different. It is difficult for me to reason a way that someone who has voted for Obama and shares his values of social consciousness could abandon all of that and embrace Trump.
Just boggles my mind!
14
I'm a white middle class. I voted for Bill Clinton and Obama. I voted for Trump. Why? Because Hillary is a phony. Look at the Trump care fight. She didn't do *anything* except stepping in after the fight to claim the credit on Twitter. Such a phony. She is the type of people at work doing nothing, but step up and claim rewards when things turn out well.
10
Indeed. But it may speak more to the role politics plays in the life/mind of the average voter. They just may not hear the same things you and I do or see things the same way at all. They may just see Obama and Trump as people positioned outside the system, voices they feel like they can trust. Whereas Clinton, for all of her policy chops, was suspect merely given her acknowledged role as an insider.
2
I voted for Obama the first time he ran. I and others were astounded and angry when time after time he did the opposite of what he had promised in his flowery pre and post election speaches, appointing Wall Street types, quickly abandoning single payer health care, offering a grand bargain to the Republicans to privatize Medicare etc etc. I voted for him the second time hoping he would change. In the end I saw him as mostly a phony Chicago politician. He really really betrayed his base. Oh but we did get Obama Care written largely by the drug and insurance companies. Obama's values were just lip service by a very verbally skilled politician. I trusted Hillary less than Obama.
Trump was not of the political class and said some things that gave people hope.
Trump was not of the political class and said some things that gave people hope.
8
"the big driver of his gains was persuasion: He flipped millions of white working-class Obama supporters to his side"
It is arbitrary to assign that agency to Trump.
It also fits the facts to say that Hillary drove away support among all groups. Blacks stayed home. Whites either stayed home, or voted third party, or were driven all the way to Trump.
Trump did not then persuade them. Hillary did. She persuaded them that they could not stand her.
It is arbitrary to assign that agency to Trump.
It also fits the facts to say that Hillary drove away support among all groups. Blacks stayed home. Whites either stayed home, or voted third party, or were driven all the way to Trump.
Trump did not then persuade them. Hillary did. She persuaded them that they could not stand her.
53
It had nothing, of course, to do with the sustained blizzard of right wing lies designed to impune the character and competence of a woman who was manifestly more competent and whose history demonstrated far better character, than her opponent's record could ever come close to supporting.
29
Except she won by 3,000,000 votes, which tends to negate your premise.
6
"Trump did not then persuade them. Hillary did. She persuaded them that they could not stand her."
A conclusion based on rigorous data from the Thomason Institute of Politics, where every indicator suggests that Hillary Clinton personifies all that is evil and corrupt about public service.
A conclusion based on rigorous data from the Thomason Institute of Politics, where every indicator suggests that Hillary Clinton personifies all that is evil and corrupt about public service.
4
Clinton did an OK job of getting votes from obedient democrats and/or those who were rightfully appalled by Trump, but even in true blue districts like Seattle there was a palpable lack of enthusiasm, sort of a "her again" feeling. she brought the same weaknesses to the game that caused her to lose to Obama, such as a lack of charisma and an inability to articulate a clear and concise leadership vision that connected with the voters in the states that were most vulnerable to switching. Her campaign spent too much time wooing republicans who they thought would reject Trump and ignored working class whites in the upper mid west. The Democratic Party has to move on from being the party of Clinton if it wants to recapture the house, senate and White House. Their time on the stage is over, every time Hillary, Bill and even Chelsea grasp the spotlight now works only to the advantage of the GOP.
41
Doug:
Very realistic and accurate observations. Also along with the myriad of other reasons why the democratic party is in the terrible shape it is in now, it is interesting to note that in the primaries when Independents were allowed to vote, in almost all cases, Sanders defeated Clinton in this category almost
2 to 1. Considering that Independents, by far, made up the largest group of potential voters, this result, along with other important signs about what was really going on with the electorate should have been a warning to the establishment democrats. Like all the others, they ignored them and they lost, bigly.
Very realistic and accurate observations. Also along with the myriad of other reasons why the democratic party is in the terrible shape it is in now, it is interesting to note that in the primaries when Independents were allowed to vote, in almost all cases, Sanders defeated Clinton in this category almost
2 to 1. Considering that Independents, by far, made up the largest group of potential voters, this result, along with other important signs about what was really going on with the electorate should have been a warning to the establishment democrats. Like all the others, they ignored them and they lost, bigly.
18
Why must our president be charismatic? Our president needs to be competent, and, well, presidential. Yes, Clinton lacked in the charisma department. But she was eminently qualified and would have served us well. But for some reason we need charisma. Like the cake is a lie (look it up), so is charisma.
7
While I agree with your sentiment Desire Trails, one cannot deny human nature. Charisma is an essential attribute to any leader. Without charisma you can't get people to listen in the first place. And that's precisely what happened to Clinton.
2
You say it's impossible that all of those who stayed home in PA would have voted for Clinton - but since Clinton voters read everyday on Front Page that her odds of winning were consistently between 80 and 90 percent - I'd say it is possible - and very likely.
The NYT's utter failure to see outside of it's own mental cage, and it's wishful thinking about the data was probably the single biggest reason democrats didn't bother to vote. I am and will always be a loyal reader, but it was obvious that the NYT tried to trivialize the Trump campaign, to make it seems ridiculous and impossible, as it did with Bernie and pretty much every other outsider going back to Nader.
DId other media do it too? Yes. But they aren't the NYT. The NYT made her lead seem like a fact. Don't you think that might make lukewarm Clinton supporters (like all of the Bernie fans) stay home?
The NYT's utter failure to see outside of it's own mental cage, and it's wishful thinking about the data was probably the single biggest reason democrats didn't bother to vote. I am and will always be a loyal reader, but it was obvious that the NYT tried to trivialize the Trump campaign, to make it seems ridiculous and impossible, as it did with Bernie and pretty much every other outsider going back to Nader.
DId other media do it too? Yes. But they aren't the NYT. The NYT made her lead seem like a fact. Don't you think that might make lukewarm Clinton supporters (like all of the Bernie fans) stay home?
33
Clinton didn't lose, Clinton Inc. lost. John Podesta is now reduced to writing a column for the Washington Post instead of running the government from his magic corporate Rolodex. Of course, all we've accomplished is replacing one crew of kleptocrats with hearts of gold by a new, less enlightened group.
20
Still hard for me to reconcile a vote in Wyoming that is worth 3x more than a vote in California.
Clearly not democratic.
Why isn't anyone challenging this unequal representation? Seems like two parts of the Constitution are at odds.
Clearly not democratic.
Why isn't anyone challenging this unequal representation? Seems like two parts of the Constitution are at odds.
23
Who ever said we lived in a straight democracy? We don't, never did and that's fine. We live in a federalist republic, where yes, state boundaries have meaning. It's served us well for generations.
11
One can also say the Super Delegate group of lobbyists and ex-politicians in the democratic party is also undemocratic, especially considering the fact that they AND the media had already cast their ballot for the ``annointed one`` even before the primaries commenced.
17
I don't agree that our "federalist republic" has served us well at all. The electoral college is outdated and all the gerrymandering is ridiculous. I've considered moving to a rural, red state so that my vote will actually count for something.
I really appreciate this article for two reasons. First, no amount of speculation can substitute for reliable data analysis. Keep it coming. Second, if "persuasion" is the most likely culprit, I assume this analysis will be followed by others on the substantive roles played by news, entertainment media, social media, and fake news in flipping white voters.
10
Those presidential poll surveys including the NY Times's did our country a disservice by indicating for months leading up to Nov. 9 that Hillary was a shoo-in. It made us complacent so that we did not campaign for her as hard as when we did for Obama in '08; some of her supporters may have stayed home on election day; and many threw away their vote by voting for a third party candidate just to make a statement (I cannot imagine that these people, who also believed the surveys, would have done that had the surveys shown it was actually too close for comfort). See how it worked out for us. It is time for the press including Upshot to admit the error of their ways, learn from their mistake and promise never to do it again.
7
The polls didn't give that impression, the people interpreting them did. Set aside for a moment that polls are not a predictor of the future but a snapshot in time. The polls themselves were actually quite accurate in showing erosion of support for Clinton, and were largely within the margin of error on election day. People in media who wanted Clinton to win saw what they wanted to see in the numbers, and "apostates" like the esteemed Nate Silver, who said it wasn't as much of a slam-dunk as everyone wanted to believe, were treated like a heretic in the Middle Ages. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
11
That happened too late, as you said on election day; i could not have gone to the phone banks by then, nor door-to-door in PA.
1
The graphic showing Hillary as a shoo-in ran on the front page of the Times for months. I would not be surprised if it caused Dems to become complacent and either stay home or vote for a third-party candidate. The Times has yet to acknowledge its error in this regard, instead it blamed faulty state polls and essentially called voters dumb for relying on the information.
All this hand wringing on why Hillary lost I find almost humorous, if it wasn't so deadly in just who is in the White House. She lost because, for any white male who has an income 25 K, lived in the South, or any other lightly populated areas West of the Mississippi, was only because, She is a woman! AS she had said herself years ago, that the perception of her was that she was "pushy"; look the male voters in that vein.
What angers me is that I have seen no articles by either side of the political spectrum have a voided this blatantly obvious reason for her defeat. I overheard in a local happy hour spot of mine n older blue collar type said (with no aspersions meant) "We gave them the Black Guy, and now they want as to give it to a woman? I don't think so!" Things are a lot simpler hat they seem, and no one catches on further deepens my belief of a complete distrust of the American Publlc. They just didn' want a woman in the White House.
What angers me is that I have seen no articles by either side of the political spectrum have a voided this blatantly obvious reason for her defeat. I overheard in a local happy hour spot of mine n older blue collar type said (with no aspersions meant) "We gave them the Black Guy, and now they want as to give it to a woman? I don't think so!" Things are a lot simpler hat they seem, and no one catches on further deepens my belief of a complete distrust of the American Publlc. They just didn' want a woman in the White House.
40
Not so in the midwestern states that she lost. It had nothing to do with being a woman. It has everything to do with not campaigning there in person. The on the ground workers waited and waited for Hillary or her surrogates to show up and speechify, but they didn't. Do you know why? Because Hillary's campaign arrogantly assumed they had locked in midwestern states. She was off mega fund raising, hob nobbing with Hollywood stars, Clooneys, Katy Perry. Meryl streep. None of that mattered to the midwestern American. Hillary's democratic party became the Davos party of the rich and the famous (with a liberal bent). It no longer represented the folks democrats have historically fought for. Except for Bernie. But the DNC squished and squashed Bernie when they realized he was for real, he was filling over capacity crowds wherever he went. People were singing Feel the bern...Bernie Bernie Bernie chants resonating everywhere.
4
Clinton and to a large extent any Democrat continually falls victim to Right Wing media being allowed to lie to the American public. Limbaugh, Hannity and all the other off-shoots of RWM drive what the Mainstream prints as well. The NYT gorged on Benghazi and e-mails with with nary a peep about Trumps cabal with Russian connections or the fact he was a sham of a businessman and a habitual liar. These detrimental facts were provable but ignored.
Throw in Russian meddling and presumably Russian money, wiki-leaks targeting only Dems and Clinton STILL would have likely pulled it out, until Comey. He chose to inform the US public 11 days before the election bogus information on "new" e-mails, except they weren't new, while at the same time NOT telling the American public about his investigation in Trump's ties to Russia. Still, she did get 3 million more votes, but the electoral college put the final nail in the coffin.
I haven't even touched on gerrymandering or voter suppression in Democratic districts.
Throw in Russian meddling and presumably Russian money, wiki-leaks targeting only Dems and Clinton STILL would have likely pulled it out, until Comey. He chose to inform the US public 11 days before the election bogus information on "new" e-mails, except they weren't new, while at the same time NOT telling the American public about his investigation in Trump's ties to Russia. Still, she did get 3 million more votes, but the electoral college put the final nail in the coffin.
I haven't even touched on gerrymandering or voter suppression in Democratic districts.
113
Over the last TEN years the democratic party has lost over 900 seats at the federal, state and local levels. When they started to take corporate dollars and distance themselves from their base, becoming in essence, a Republican Lite Party in the process, it was all downhill from there. At present, gerrymandering, voter suppression and the electoral college is the LEAST of the democrats problem. They DO NOT have a message that is registering with the voters.
14
The Democratic National Party must not target pointy-headed elites in academia, tree huggers, bicoastal America, and Hollywood. It must target Middle America white middle class, especially guys, who want to know, what is for them.
Without doing this, we will lose again.
Without doing this, we will lose again.
18
A few weeks ago the NYT published an article that featured 2 auto union execs talking about their hopes for Trump created auto jobs. When asked about the 80% loss of jobs to robots they replied that they were dangerous jobs. If you want to believe stupid be my guest. But don't ask me to vote for people who lie to people who can't see the writing on the wall. If you think dumping wastewater from coal mining into streams is good, drink the stuff before you vote and then ask the children who unknowingly drank it how they are doing 20 years from now.
BTW, the school where Mickey Mantle went in Oklahoma had a 25% learning disability rate. His father, uncles and he himself worked there (during high school). They mined lead and played in the tailings. They were one of the first super funds.
BTW, the school where Mickey Mantle went in Oklahoma had a 25% learning disability rate. His father, uncles and he himself worked there (during high school). They mined lead and played in the tailings. They were one of the first super funds.
3
You mean white middle class guys who want to know what's IN it for them. Well most of them would never vote for a female President anyway. And it would not matter what her name is. They look down on women as the "weak" sex and would say that she was getting to big for her britches.
5
Tim Ryan (D, Ohio) would be excellent as a future candidate imo. He is a younger, Biden-type Democrat, a "working Joe," who seems to have those mid-west, "working class instincts," is well spoken and can think on his feet. Every time I see him being interviewed I'm impressed. Why he wasn't elected minority leader instead of Pelosi was a little baffling and backward-looking.
6
The analysis would be more persuasive had the writer so much as mentioned, let alone explained, where his assessment, days before the election, that the Democrat had a ninety percent chance of winning, went wrong. Instead he asserts most of his projections were accurate--except of course for the most important one.
19
I thought the "90%" figure came from bettors' odds? The bookies picked the wrong horse; but, that didn't have anything to do with polling (unless the bookies were taken in by the polling, and the polling was taken in by the bookies, and so forth and so on).
@ Joanna Whitmire - I think you are confusing the US with the UK. US polls and statistical models were the basis for the 90% projection.
It may be that 1 in 4 white working-class Obama voters switched their allegiance to Trump, but what goes unsaid is how many white working class voters supported Obama to begin with--not many.
About 40% of white voters in 2012 supported Obama; of his 66 million votes, 26 million were from white people. Of that 26 million, about half had graduated from college, so 13 million could be considered "working class".
Assuming 1 in 4 of these people defected, you have a loss on the D side of a little over 3 million voters; a large number, to be sure, but far from the kind of mass defection this article points to as the culprit for Clinton's loss.
Far more interesting to me is that if you look at the total number of votes received by the GOP candidate for president over the last 4 elections, it looks like this:
Bush, 2004: 62 million
McCain, 2008: 61 million
Romney, 2012: 59 million
Trump 2016: 62 million
This does not suggest a growing, dynamic political party. If indeed Trump exceeded expectations by wooing 3 million potential Democratic voters, it still only got him to where George W Bush was 12 years ago. By contrast, the Democratic candidates:
Kerry, 2004: 59 million
Obama, 2008: 69 million
Obama, 2012: 66 million
Clinton, 2016: 66 million
In 2016, Hillary Clinton--a polarizing, mediocre candidate--got almost as many votes as Obama in 2008. The REAL Upshot is that, sooner rather than later, the quirkiness of the electoral college will not be enough to save Republicans.
About 40% of white voters in 2012 supported Obama; of his 66 million votes, 26 million were from white people. Of that 26 million, about half had graduated from college, so 13 million could be considered "working class".
Assuming 1 in 4 of these people defected, you have a loss on the D side of a little over 3 million voters; a large number, to be sure, but far from the kind of mass defection this article points to as the culprit for Clinton's loss.
Far more interesting to me is that if you look at the total number of votes received by the GOP candidate for president over the last 4 elections, it looks like this:
Bush, 2004: 62 million
McCain, 2008: 61 million
Romney, 2012: 59 million
Trump 2016: 62 million
This does not suggest a growing, dynamic political party. If indeed Trump exceeded expectations by wooing 3 million potential Democratic voters, it still only got him to where George W Bush was 12 years ago. By contrast, the Democratic candidates:
Kerry, 2004: 59 million
Obama, 2008: 69 million
Obama, 2012: 66 million
Clinton, 2016: 66 million
In 2016, Hillary Clinton--a polarizing, mediocre candidate--got almost as many votes as Obama in 2008. The REAL Upshot is that, sooner rather than later, the quirkiness of the electoral college will not be enough to save Republicans.
14
Polls. I live in rural CT. 100 miles from NY. Not exactly flyover country.
No cellphone service. Most polls were conducted on cellphones, not landlines. Trump signs were all over the place. There were few Clinton signs about. Many moderate Republicans were on the fence and frustrated by both candidates. The NYT coverage of the campaign issues vs. let's make it a horse race, was terrible. The non-stop negative coverage of those idiot emails, vs the media doing its job and covering Trump the way he should have been covered, cinched it.
You want to know how to poll? Get off your butt and go talk to people. And--many older people don't pick up their landlines because of non-stop robo scam calls. Polls work when you work up a sweat, people, and wear out your sneakers.
No cellphone service. Most polls were conducted on cellphones, not landlines. Trump signs were all over the place. There were few Clinton signs about. Many moderate Republicans were on the fence and frustrated by both candidates. The NYT coverage of the campaign issues vs. let's make it a horse race, was terrible. The non-stop negative coverage of those idiot emails, vs the media doing its job and covering Trump the way he should have been covered, cinched it.
You want to know how to poll? Get off your butt and go talk to people. And--many older people don't pick up their landlines because of non-stop robo scam calls. Polls work when you work up a sweat, people, and wear out your sneakers.
20
As a centrist Democrat myself, I wholeheartedly supported Clinton for president. I voted for her, donated to her campaign.
But despite the fact that she was light years ahead of Trump in knowledge, experience, and professionalism -- even I often wondered about her message. She spent countless hours bemoaning 'Muslim feelings,' connecting herself to questionable race-relations issues.
I often thought, 'I wonder how her message is playing in Peoria.' As we now know, it didn't.
Don't be fooled by Bernie. He may bring out some millennials, but they're not going to send him over the top. Progressives will rant, but you can't wish away the facts. Middle class white uneducated Americans (former Democrats) went to Trump.
How do you get them back? By supporting Democrats like Tim Ryan, the Ohio congressman who challenged Pelosi. And should've won.
But despite the fact that she was light years ahead of Trump in knowledge, experience, and professionalism -- even I often wondered about her message. She spent countless hours bemoaning 'Muslim feelings,' connecting herself to questionable race-relations issues.
I often thought, 'I wonder how her message is playing in Peoria.' As we now know, it didn't.
Don't be fooled by Bernie. He may bring out some millennials, but they're not going to send him over the top. Progressives will rant, but you can't wish away the facts. Middle class white uneducated Americans (former Democrats) went to Trump.
How do you get them back? By supporting Democrats like Tim Ryan, the Ohio congressman who challenged Pelosi. And should've won.
10
Trump lied repeatedly, and the simpletons ate it up. You don't need my advanced degree in statistics from Stanford to figure that out.
16
The long slide that began in the Reagan era was kicked off by the awful 1970's stagflation. Since this period people have seen their jobs freely-traded to others willing to work for less around the world, then get insulted by having to buy those same goods anyway.
The most powerful in society are always the most wealthy, that is the First Law of Civilization, and they accumulated almost all the wealth gains during this period of loss stated above.
Ironically and mendaciously, Trump said "I'm the one who can fix this." In the US there is a sufficient number of people who don't get irony and overlook mendacity, so they voted for him.
Clinton perpetuated the worst stereotypes of two-faced politicians, and for that she was unliked by a sufficient number of people. Clinton is the highest ranking member of the establishment, and so voters perceived her as the party responsible for the long slide over the past 40 years.
Could Bernie Sanders have beaten Trump? Well, Sanders had a more authentic version of the Trump message without the irony, mendacity and hatred, and Sanders was not seen as part of the establishment responsible for our ills. That's right, just like the NYT promoted the Iraq dogma that helped sell the Bush II war, so too did the paper of record abuse its power and escort Trump right into the Oval Office. For all intents and purposes, the NYT defamed Sanders by omitting and belittling him in favor of Clinton.
The most powerful in society are always the most wealthy, that is the First Law of Civilization, and they accumulated almost all the wealth gains during this period of loss stated above.
Ironically and mendaciously, Trump said "I'm the one who can fix this." In the US there is a sufficient number of people who don't get irony and overlook mendacity, so they voted for him.
Clinton perpetuated the worst stereotypes of two-faced politicians, and for that she was unliked by a sufficient number of people. Clinton is the highest ranking member of the establishment, and so voters perceived her as the party responsible for the long slide over the past 40 years.
Could Bernie Sanders have beaten Trump? Well, Sanders had a more authentic version of the Trump message without the irony, mendacity and hatred, and Sanders was not seen as part of the establishment responsible for our ills. That's right, just like the NYT promoted the Iraq dogma that helped sell the Bush II war, so too did the paper of record abuse its power and escort Trump right into the Oval Office. For all intents and purposes, the NYT defamed Sanders by omitting and belittling him in favor of Clinton.
86
Ah, Bernie. You bet -- let's put a Socialist Septuagenarian in charge.
That's the ticket.
By the way, there's Socialist thing is going on in Venezuela right now. How's that working out? Any word on that?
That's the ticket.
By the way, there's Socialist thing is going on in Venezuela right now. How's that working out? Any word on that?
1
Comparing the nation of Venezuela, a small and pitiful nation to the largest superpower the world has ever seen is your first mistake;
Comparing Sanders' European-style Democratic Socialism to the radical totalitarian socialism of Hugo Chavez is your second mistake;
Denigrating Sanders for his age is your third mistake.
From your petulant post, I and the 65 recommenders to my original comment can tell that you are ageist, you fail to understand basic geopolitics, and confuse the American democratic republic with a failed banana republic. How in the world does this cast your opinion in a good light, how do you think your point of view will ever be taken seriously? There are several legitimate ways you could have effectively rebutted the claims of my comment, but alas, you chose the most inept option.
Comparing Sanders' European-style Democratic Socialism to the radical totalitarian socialism of Hugo Chavez is your second mistake;
Denigrating Sanders for his age is your third mistake.
From your petulant post, I and the 65 recommenders to my original comment can tell that you are ageist, you fail to understand basic geopolitics, and confuse the American democratic republic with a failed banana republic. How in the world does this cast your opinion in a good light, how do you think your point of view will ever be taken seriously? There are several legitimate ways you could have effectively rebutted the claims of my comment, but alas, you chose the most inept option.
when will the Time do an analysis of how Clinton was projected to 96% chance of win 7:00 PM election night and still lost?
it would be helpful to understand why the projections not just wrong, but completely wrong.
it would be helpful to understand why the projections not just wrong, but completely wrong.
FAR overblown. Comey, Russia, and Republican outrageous lies. Here endeth the lesson of the day. Learn it, or be damned into the future.
9
Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Abolition of the Electoral College must be the Democrats' number one priority coupled with automatic voter registration for all citizens 18 years and older and voting by mail in all states. As dumb as a great many Americans are, I believe that they can get their heads around the simple construct that one person means one vote.
11
Abolition of the electoral college requires 3/4 of the states to sign on. A number of states benefit from the current situation.
I'm not saying not to try, but that's a really long range number 1 priority.
I'm not saying not to try, but that's a really long range number 1 priority.
9
"One person" perhaps should read "one citizen". Or perhaps you openly support the illegal alien vote?
8
The number 43 million has been bandied about as the number of Americans who could have voted but did not. If that's true, they carry a great deal of the responsibility for our current monster in the Mar a Lago/White House, a long with the monsters voter, of course. Whatever Clinton's faults as a candidate, they were nothing compared to the unfitness of the sick joke we currently have in office. Our enemies all over the work must be so thrilled at the vast stupidity of so many Americans.
12
43 million non voters by choice?
that would be paradise.
the actual number is 90 million.
that would be paradise.
the actual number is 90 million.
If anything, this shows the importance of the trade message in securing the Upper Midwest and PA. Simply put, no candidate from either party had pushed a protectionist agenda in decades. Much of the Rust Belt blames its economic woes on free trade. As long as both parties offered a free trade vision - as happened in 2008 and 2012 - white working class Rust Belt voters are likely to think of general union support and stay with Democrats. Trump sold these people a bill of goods - trade will not solve their problems. But he took the time to make that case. And they swallowed it. Now we all have to pay for it.
12
Neither turnout nor Russia had anything to do with Hillary Clinton's defeat; nor did her being a woman candidate.
Her obstinate refusal to seriously campaign in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan is what did her in.
This is exactly what happened to her in 2008 when Barack Obama concentrated on small amounts of delegates from all over the nation, while Hillary followed the advice of her "advisors" and the big moneyed interests of both coasts. As a result she blew that chance to be the nominee.
That she repeated the same mistake in 2016 is incredible.
Her advisors were poorly selected and they were blinded by their inability to read the political landscape correctly.
She ran 2 terrible campaigns and that happens to be a fact, no matter how smart she is or qualified she is to hold the top office in the land.
(Note: I voted for her but it was incomprehensible to me how she just didn't "get it.")
Her obstinate refusal to seriously campaign in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan is what did her in.
This is exactly what happened to her in 2008 when Barack Obama concentrated on small amounts of delegates from all over the nation, while Hillary followed the advice of her "advisors" and the big moneyed interests of both coasts. As a result she blew that chance to be the nominee.
That she repeated the same mistake in 2016 is incredible.
Her advisors were poorly selected and they were blinded by their inability to read the political landscape correctly.
She ran 2 terrible campaigns and that happens to be a fact, no matter how smart she is or qualified she is to hold the top office in the land.
(Note: I voted for her but it was incomprehensible to me how she just didn't "get it.")
53
Just think if Hillary had won, we would have actually accomplished something by this point. Healthcare would be on its way to being improved and programs to create jobs and to make education affordable would be in place. Unlike Petulant Trump, President Clinton would not be bent on destroying the environment or reducing childcare or the meals on wheels programs. We are lucky the thirty or so Republicans who wanted health care to be even worse, stopped the bill from getting a vote.
20
The thirty of so Republicans who wanted to keep ACA health care only did so because they want to be reelected. They realized that Trump does not know what he is talking about. Hopefully they will be open to objecting to other Trump fiascos in favor of the people they represent (as we all know there will be more). And the other one they need to get rid of is Ryan.
3
I suggest that these hyper analyzed election stories go away and never come back. They have little to no credibility after the outcome of the election. The headline and premise of the story are that it was not the turnout that decided the outcome but the story concludes it was the turnout. Of course it was the turnout, which no one predicted because people either lied about who they were going to vote for or they yanked the media's chain or both.
As much as the left loves to parse things through a race/gender lens, the reality of what these numbers show is the effect of the DISAFFECTED VOTER, i.e. the independent, the "no party preference", the people disgusted with the two wings of the same bird. However, little will be said about this, because it implies a loss of faith in the contrived institution of a two party (and increasingly competitive authoritarian in nature) system.
9
Clinton won the popular vote. She won, not Donald Trump. Any analysis into what went wrong needs to include that as the first and last line. Clinton won, Donald is President and the system is broken, very, very broken.
13
To put it another way, Democrats have won six of the last seven elections. Yet the lasting damage from this latest election, even if we manage to vote him out in 2020 and reverse his idiocies, may be a SCOTUS tilted right for a generation.
1
Actually Margaritakel, she didn't win. Trump won. Much to the chagrin of the Left and Democrats in general. Trump won in the states that actually counted not just the 3 million in California that gave her the popular vote. Once you wrap that little factoid around your brain you'd understand that She actually lost and Trump did win.
12
Once again your analysis seems to be narrow. That is not to say you are completely wrong, but there are so many other factors that played into Secretary Clinton's loss. Your number-crunching gives us an incomplete perspective. This election was too complex and seemingly less than ethical. Yes, Ms Clinton did not work hard enough to emphasize the importance - and basic Democratic tenet - of assisting our working class. But it is becoming clearer each day that outside forces played an extraordinary and unprecedented role in this election. One can not underestimate both the FBI's and, more ominous, Putin's adverse influence. Couple that with relentless badgering and, in most cases, unjust character assassination, one can see in hindsight that she didn't have a chance. And I believe that even if we had Senator Sanders as our nominee, lies, and possibly anti-semitism, would have defeated him. That, folks, seems to be the sad and dangerous story of our 2016 so-called presidential election.
14
Enough! Hillary Clinton was fatally flawed from day one of her campaign. It was not the Russians or Comey that did her in, it was the absolute, undeniable fact that voters as a whole did not trust or like her. You can follow this back to her loss to Obama in 2008 and his "You're likable enough" jab. Should we blame Obama for saying what was on the minds of the electorate? Should we blame Sanders for having the audacity to challenge her and beat her in 22 primaries and caucuses? She lost to Bernie in the states she lost to Trump - a pattern her campaign seemed to miss or gloss over in wooing every mini-minority under the sun while ignoring those who were ostensibly solid Democratic voters. She was a terrible candidate who ran an assumptive and poorly managed campaign.
23
How do you explain such a flawed candidate winning the popular vote by some 3 million votes?
1
Californians vote for party before candidate. Anecdotal sure but many people I know would have preferred the Dems to give us a choice instead of shoving Hillary down our throats.
Many of our Independent and moderate Republicans became anyone but Trump voters.
And California accounts for an awful lot of voters.
Many of our Independent and moderate Republicans became anyone but Trump voters.
And California accounts for an awful lot of voters.
2
Unbelievable that many are blaming Hillary's stand on abortion as the reason why she lost the Catholic vote. Unbelievable also that Catholics are still considered a voting block, given its core members are dying off or are very old; the RC church is not gaining members due to its dirty secrets now in the open. It would be a good idea to do some research on this.....One last thing: I still do not understand why in this day and age there are men who want to control other people's reproductive rights; and more surprising to me is why there are women today who want to be controlled by others when it comes to their own reproductive lives. "The bible says so," is not a good enough reason.
8
Why do you think African Americans are still loyal to the Dems? They've oppressed them, they haven't done anything for them including the man who last occupied the WH. Why indeed.
5
And yet she won!
8
I am so happy Hillary is not the president or will ever be the president. I have quickly and thoroughly been cured of my depressive state of the past 7 years. Life is good, play it forward
8
I am glad you are over your depression, if the Republicans ever get their health insurance/tax break for the rich program through, their will be no mental health coverage for you.
21
FYI, nothing has actually changed since the Obama presidency because Trump et all have been incapable of getting anything done despite having the entire government on their side. So if you were looking for an extension of the Obama years fueled by epititude-driven inaction, congrats!
6
Don't you count Executive orders? Also Gorsuch will soon be on the USSC. Undoing the Obama legacy will take time
1
I live in Pennsylvania. Turnout was not the problem. Ask who they actually voted for. I know 5 people who went to the polls and did not vote for Clinton or for Trump. They wrote in a name or they voted for one of the independent candidates. And if you did that, you basically gave Trump the election.
17
Do not blame people who didn't vote along a party line. It's time that we did have a viable third party-- and in state elections as well. You know the Repubs actually did well in House and Senate races.. and therein also lies a problem. Forget about Hillary and think about Congress -- that's where the Dems are really losing. Is it all gerrymandering?? Please analyze.
2
I wish that Nate had data for Wisconsin and Michigan instead of North Carolina (which Clinton lost by more than 3 pts.) and Florida (which she lost by more than a point).
I also think this tells us nothing about the Clinton's campaign conclusion that the Comey letter caused a number of her weak supporters (Bernie supporters) to choose a third-party candidate in the waning days of the campaign. Black voter turnout was down, a number of her weak supporters voted third-party, and she lost MI by .3%, WI by .8% and PA by .7%. This was a game of inches and Comey, in my assessment, gave Trump the extra inch or two he needed.
I also think this tells us nothing about the Clinton's campaign conclusion that the Comey letter caused a number of her weak supporters (Bernie supporters) to choose a third-party candidate in the waning days of the campaign. Black voter turnout was down, a number of her weak supporters voted third-party, and she lost MI by .3%, WI by .8% and PA by .7%. This was a game of inches and Comey, in my assessment, gave Trump the extra inch or two he needed.
13
Your study actually confirms that the Trump Campaign’s strategy of fake news, disinformation and negativity which the campaign reportedly proudly said was designed to suppress turnout among women, blacks and liberals, did in fact work enough to shift the margin enough in those battleground states. Even 1% down from one side is effectively 2%, and Trump won the three states electoral votes by a total of 70,000, enough to make those 70,000 votes more valuable than the 3 million popular vote margin for Clinton.
11
and Comey. Don't forget Comey as this analysis supports the contention that Comey's late finger on the scale provided cover for whites to vote for an ignorant bigot who they were afraid to support because it would you know, expose their bigotry.
3
Here's another way to think about what happened.
Party D has morphed into a party where the key positions are abortion on demand without any restriction, socialized medicine, open borders, gun control, political correctness, climate change, transgender bathrooms, Black Lives Matter, feminism, comfort with a regulatory state, a living constitution where judges can rule on the basis of "social justice," multi-lateral trade deals, and where the Weltanschauung is leavened by a globalist, anti-military, anti-market, and anti-patriotic streak. Its important constituencies are hedge fund managers, university professors, high-tech billionaires, Hollywood impressarios, the NYC-DC media complex, ensconced bureaucrats, ossified vestiges of Civil Rights organizations, and high income earners in urban/coastal enclaves.
Party R's positions include controlling illegal immigration, concern that the Islamic religion is antithetical to core Western values, scaling back the administrative state, taking an originalist tack to legal rulings, bilateral trade deals, national sovereignty over internationalist inclinations, more free-market solutions, enhancing energy production, a strong military. Its key intellectual and cultural constituencies consist of think tankers of a conservative and libertarian stripe, wealthy small business owners/Chamber of Commerce types, and big business leaders.
Given the policy positions, and the constituencies, who do you think the American people will go for?
Party D has morphed into a party where the key positions are abortion on demand without any restriction, socialized medicine, open borders, gun control, political correctness, climate change, transgender bathrooms, Black Lives Matter, feminism, comfort with a regulatory state, a living constitution where judges can rule on the basis of "social justice," multi-lateral trade deals, and where the Weltanschauung is leavened by a globalist, anti-military, anti-market, and anti-patriotic streak. Its important constituencies are hedge fund managers, university professors, high-tech billionaires, Hollywood impressarios, the NYC-DC media complex, ensconced bureaucrats, ossified vestiges of Civil Rights organizations, and high income earners in urban/coastal enclaves.
Party R's positions include controlling illegal immigration, concern that the Islamic religion is antithetical to core Western values, scaling back the administrative state, taking an originalist tack to legal rulings, bilateral trade deals, national sovereignty over internationalist inclinations, more free-market solutions, enhancing energy production, a strong military. Its key intellectual and cultural constituencies consist of think tankers of a conservative and libertarian stripe, wealthy small business owners/Chamber of Commerce types, and big business leaders.
Given the policy positions, and the constituencies, who do you think the American people will go for?
13
Overwhelmingly for the D, as the 2016 election proved.
That the lessor candidate won was simply a travesty of the electoral college.
That the lessor candidate won was simply a travesty of the electoral college.
7
here's another way to look at it:
Party R, similar to party N in a country called G in the middle of the 20th C, relied on age old tropes, propaganda and misinformation to convince an insecure electorate that they needed to be afraid of something imaginary.
Party D, on the other hand, ran on a platform of what might be called "inconvenient truths:"
The truth that people of color are equally important to Whites.
The truth that women have a right to control their own bodies
The truth that immigrants are a necessary and vital part of our economy
The truth that the government of the United States exists to enhance the lies of the people of the United States
The truth that global warming is real and fossil fuel consumption threatens our planet's survival.
And most importantly: The truth that we should not be stuck in the mold of the founders, brilliant though they were, but have the right and obligation to adjudicate the law for the benefit of the people.
Party R, similar to party N in a country called G in the middle of the 20th C, relied on age old tropes, propaganda and misinformation to convince an insecure electorate that they needed to be afraid of something imaginary.
Party D, on the other hand, ran on a platform of what might be called "inconvenient truths:"
The truth that people of color are equally important to Whites.
The truth that women have a right to control their own bodies
The truth that immigrants are a necessary and vital part of our economy
The truth that the government of the United States exists to enhance the lies of the people of the United States
The truth that global warming is real and fossil fuel consumption threatens our planet's survival.
And most importantly: The truth that we should not be stuck in the mold of the founders, brilliant though they were, but have the right and obligation to adjudicate the law for the benefit of the people.
8
False equivalence.
Here, let me rewrite some of this for you:
Party R has morphed into a party where the key positions are control of women's bodies without restriction, no medicine, closed borders, no gun control, open hostility to "the other", denial of climate change, no choice of what bathroom to use, Black Lives Don't Matter, white male supremacy, no regulations, a static constitution where judges can rule on the basis of 18th century social mores, no trade deals, and where the Weltanschauung is leavened by a anti-globalist, fervent pro-military, profits at any cost, and faux patriotic streak. Its important constituencies are hedge fund managers, people without a university education, planet-destroying billionaires, Wall Street impressarios, the billionaire-backed Fox News media complex, ensconced bureaucrats, ossified vestiges of slave owners, and low income earners in isolated, landlocked enclaves.
Here, let me rewrite some of this for you:
Party R has morphed into a party where the key positions are control of women's bodies without restriction, no medicine, closed borders, no gun control, open hostility to "the other", denial of climate change, no choice of what bathroom to use, Black Lives Don't Matter, white male supremacy, no regulations, a static constitution where judges can rule on the basis of 18th century social mores, no trade deals, and where the Weltanschauung is leavened by a anti-globalist, fervent pro-military, profits at any cost, and faux patriotic streak. Its important constituencies are hedge fund managers, people without a university education, planet-destroying billionaires, Wall Street impressarios, the billionaire-backed Fox News media complex, ensconced bureaucrats, ossified vestiges of slave owners, and low income earners in isolated, landlocked enclaves.
5
In the throes of the dirtiest meanest and ugliest Presidency ever, the Dems find themselves right on every issue. They should stop picking at data and start screaming--about the environment, health care, and the robbery of a nation by its richest 1%. That's all they need to do. Simple.
44
Among other problems for Clinton and the Democrats is that Clinton was/is the wrong person to deliver a convincing economic message to the "losers" of globalization. She gives six-figure lunchtime talks to Wall Street fat cats, refuses — that is refuses — to divulge their content to the plebes, who are furious about Wall Street bailouts, then expects people to vote for her?
Talk about making it easy for your opponent.
In addition to that, she was associated with NAFTA, she was for the TPP before she was against it, she was in cahoots with Debbie Wasserman-Shultz to shaft Bernie and the progressives, and she is not a particularly dynamic political figure — more or a policy wonk.
Plus she ran a poor campaign, refusing to campaign in her "firewall" states. Voters felt like she was taking them for granted.
If the Dems want to win, the MUST go progressive. Push all the triangulating, money-grubbing millionaires out, and truly stand with the people. There can be a People's Globalization, but it has to start with the people.
Talk about making it easy for your opponent.
In addition to that, she was associated with NAFTA, she was for the TPP before she was against it, she was in cahoots with Debbie Wasserman-Shultz to shaft Bernie and the progressives, and she is not a particularly dynamic political figure — more or a policy wonk.
Plus she ran a poor campaign, refusing to campaign in her "firewall" states. Voters felt like she was taking them for granted.
If the Dems want to win, the MUST go progressive. Push all the triangulating, money-grubbing millionaires out, and truly stand with the people. There can be a People's Globalization, but it has to start with the people.
104
Dems should go progressive. The primary was stolen from Bernie by the party elite, with the help of big media. Will they try it again when Hillary runs in 2020?
12
2020? No stay home Hillary. Your time came and went. No more dynasties, no Trumps, Obama's and certainly no more Clintons. Including Chelsea.
3
And the clean out of the barns should begin with Pelosi and Schumer.
Clinton, Inc. took control of the Dem Natl machine and delivered a flawed candidate. Why?
Did they not see that Clinton did poorly against charismatic insurgents?
She lost against a charismatic insurgent in 2008. His name was Obama.
She had a surprisingly tough nominating fight against another charismatic insurgent, Sanders, to win the nomination.
Her dismal performance for all the marbles against yet another charismatic insurgent was the end of the line.
I'm an amateur pollster-pundit, and six weeks before election day, I smelled trouble for Clinton. In key states her lead never went above a precious one or two percent. I wondered why she didn't see what I saw; didn't set up camp in the Upper Midwest; didn't make a bold statement on taxation or healthcare to steal some of Trump's lightning and divert attention from the emails.
As Sanders said of Clinton, her judgment is flawed. The election was hers to lose, and she lost it.
Did they not see that Clinton did poorly against charismatic insurgents?
She lost against a charismatic insurgent in 2008. His name was Obama.
She had a surprisingly tough nominating fight against another charismatic insurgent, Sanders, to win the nomination.
Her dismal performance for all the marbles against yet another charismatic insurgent was the end of the line.
I'm an amateur pollster-pundit, and six weeks before election day, I smelled trouble for Clinton. In key states her lead never went above a precious one or two percent. I wondered why she didn't see what I saw; didn't set up camp in the Upper Midwest; didn't make a bold statement on taxation or healthcare to steal some of Trump's lightning and divert attention from the emails.
As Sanders said of Clinton, her judgment is flawed. The election was hers to lose, and she lost it.
148
Kilroy was here and nailed it.
It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump, Naomi Klein, The Guardian, Nov. 9, 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-...
It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump, Naomi Klein, The Guardian, Nov. 9, 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-...
2
@Kilroy
Clinton did not see what you saw because she and her team at the DNC felt it was 'her turn.' All of her campaign was informed by that mindset: This is a coronation not an election. Clinton and her team were totally blind to and uninterested in the needs of the constituency.
Clinton did not see what you saw because she and her team at the DNC felt it was 'her turn.' All of her campaign was informed by that mindset: This is a coronation not an election. Clinton and her team were totally blind to and uninterested in the needs of the constituency.
1
This piece is indicative of the reluctance of both the media and Democrats to honestly assess their losses in 2016; HRC was simply a bad candidate that was hoisted onto the voting public.
Clinton had the second-lowest approval rating in the history of presidential candidates (second only to Trump) - quite an accomplishment.
The DNC willfully rigged the primary in HRC's favor, alienating both Sanders supporters and potential independents needed to win the general.
The Democratic Party put far more energy and resources to keep a Democratic socialist out of office than they did to keep Trump out of office.
Clinton's campaign was simply pathetic by every standard. Almost a billion dollars spent and she couldn't be bothered to physically campaign in those irrelevant states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, or stand in front of a camera with reporters.
Why can't the press get this story right? The vast majority of thinking voters see that the Democrats have gone off the rails. HRC did absolutely nothing for the party except to make it a center-right lobby for corporations. Her reluctance to stick to retail politics and actually get out to answer tough questions was the nail in her coffin. And now with Perez at the helm, we have another guarantee that the party will continue to grovel for lobbyist money and steer the conversation away from meaningful policy.
Clinton had the second-lowest approval rating in the history of presidential candidates (second only to Trump) - quite an accomplishment.
The DNC willfully rigged the primary in HRC's favor, alienating both Sanders supporters and potential independents needed to win the general.
The Democratic Party put far more energy and resources to keep a Democratic socialist out of office than they did to keep Trump out of office.
Clinton's campaign was simply pathetic by every standard. Almost a billion dollars spent and she couldn't be bothered to physically campaign in those irrelevant states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, or stand in front of a camera with reporters.
Why can't the press get this story right? The vast majority of thinking voters see that the Democrats have gone off the rails. HRC did absolutely nothing for the party except to make it a center-right lobby for corporations. Her reluctance to stick to retail politics and actually get out to answer tough questions was the nail in her coffin. And now with Perez at the helm, we have another guarantee that the party will continue to grovel for lobbyist money and steer the conversation away from meaningful policy.
179
Clinton was not a good candidate and did not campaign very well against a thug and a liar who has no business being in elected office of any kind let alone president. She lost the day she called Trump's supporters deplorables. Years ago she called Republicans evil. Even if those are true statements and they are for the most part you don't say it in public. Plus the nation suffered from Clinton fatigue. Still even with her deficiencies she is a saint compared to Trump, and she is smart, tough and a person of conviction. She would have done a fine job as prez, maybe even a very good one. It was not meant to be. The stars were badly misaligned.
9
I respectfully disagree. Hillary was the most qualified candidate the DP could have had then based on her work experience, service track record and intellectual horsepower. It is sad that our society goes for pop personalities for such an important position. E.g. I disagree with Van Jones's (I believe non-ironic) opinion that Oprah should run for president on the DP ticket next.
6
"Even if those are true statements and they are for the most part you don't say it in public"
Using the same logic and editiorial license there are also more than a few "true statements" you don't say in public about Democrats.
Or would we be better served if everyone just said what they thought?
Using the same logic and editiorial license there are also more than a few "true statements" you don't say in public about Democrats.
Or would we be better served if everyone just said what they thought?
The Democratic message was micro and fractured. Trumps message was macro and unified. You cannot win a general election if your message is too complex for a bumper sticker (or a hat). The Democrats alienated every person who could not buy all the various identity politics issues they were pushing. If your confused or uncertain about transgender bathrooms or police behavior then your stupid and ultimately a deplorable. Hillary insulted the swing vote and bored the base and turnout was an issue in the swing states for sure.
13
Fascinating thing is that husband Bill understood this. "It's the economy, stupid." "Keep it simply stupid." These were his campaign mantras.
Once you have that message going you can focus on other important issues, such as discrimination.
Did he change? Did she not listen? What happened in her campaign's decision-making process?
Once you have that message going you can focus on other important issues, such as discrimination.
Did he change? Did she not listen? What happened in her campaign's decision-making process?
8
Mrs. Clinton won the election by 3 million votes. Many voters didn't trust her; she didn't have a good clear message; and she exhibited little empathy for the pain of blue collar white men, but she won the vote.
The archaic Electoral College delivered the Presidency to Mr. Trump. As much as I like Nate Cohn's journalism, an analysis that doesn't mention the Electoral College distracts us from its central and disastrous role and the need to abolish it.
The archaic Electoral College delivered the Presidency to Mr. Trump. As much as I like Nate Cohn's journalism, an analysis that doesn't mention the Electoral College distracts us from its central and disastrous role and the need to abolish it.
18
Agreed, but I'd add that the absence of the word 'misogyny' is just as obscurant.
4
So Anne, you opt for two states to decide who gets to be President? Really. Interesting.
2
Yet you opt for 3 states to decide and 77K people versus 3 million. Really. Interesting.
Don't miss the newest TV blockbuster! "The White House of Cards,"
now running 24/7 on all major TV news channels.
now running 24/7 on all major TV news channels.
4
One interesting result of Cohn's analysis is that it conflicts with the view that Trump won because of his appeal to racism. White voters who supported and voted for Obama clearly are not racists. But their votes, according to Cohn's analysis accounts for Trump's victory over Clinton.
We can all, I think, feel good about this result. It's a better and happier result not to think that racism in our country could have such sway.
We can all, I think, feel good about this result. It's a better and happier result not to think that racism in our country could have such sway.
3
I think it's clear that old white guys tricked gullible pollsters, eased out of their lazyboys and treacherously voted to keep her out of the whitehouse.
4
The Democrats lost because they nominated the weaker of the two candidates.
85
And the weaker one never articulated what she stands for other than "I am not trump". Well, she proved that because trump now sits in the WH and pushes his brand once every three days or so (see WPost's analysis). Perhaps she can still make it by talking yet again to Goldman Sachs who former execs are now working for "I am trump".
5
And there it is -- see my post, 7 comments down.
Hillary was a poor candidate. Bernie wasn't a lot better.
Yes he might have kept may of the Obama to Trump switches, but probably not those who put immigration at the top of their "fear" list. it's not at all certain that he could have held all the "blue dogs" nor all the internationalists who saw Hillary as the only choice
He had no foreign policy to speak of--other than just saying no. Those concerned with ISIS would have had an ulcer over that. It also could have been used to demonize his policy toward immigrants generally.
Bernie was no stronger than Clinton in debates, perhaps even weaker.. It's easy to forget that Hillary did well in the debates with Trump.
And his single payer proposal might have backfired on him. Single payer has significant tradeoffs for people who currently have decent health insurance. It would have been pretty easy to demonize him on this.
Yes Hillary fouled up, big time. And I tend to agree that if she had run a more openly progressive campaign she might have won. But let's not pretend that Bernie was than he was.
Yes he might have kept may of the Obama to Trump switches, but probably not those who put immigration at the top of their "fear" list. it's not at all certain that he could have held all the "blue dogs" nor all the internationalists who saw Hillary as the only choice
He had no foreign policy to speak of--other than just saying no. Those concerned with ISIS would have had an ulcer over that. It also could have been used to demonize his policy toward immigrants generally.
Bernie was no stronger than Clinton in debates, perhaps even weaker.. It's easy to forget that Hillary did well in the debates with Trump.
And his single payer proposal might have backfired on him. Single payer has significant tradeoffs for people who currently have decent health insurance. It would have been pretty easy to demonize him on this.
Yes Hillary fouled up, big time. And I tend to agree that if she had run a more openly progressive campaign she might have won. But let's not pretend that Bernie was than he was.
2
yet another in a long long list of highly unsatisfactory, narrow views of the 2016 election
why don't we have the raw nep data ?
I think the entire msm shd be ashamed at how poorly it has done in providing a clear, simple explanation of 2106
why don't we have the raw nep data ?
I think the entire msm shd be ashamed at how poorly it has done in providing a clear, simple explanation of 2106
3
I stsrted reading this article, got about half way through, then said, " enough of this".
Clinton lost because she alienated many middle class white voters through her elitism and lack of empathy towards their everyday concerns. Her loss of swing states Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvsnia, and Florida says it all. And you know what? I still think Clinton et al do not get it.
Clinton lost because she alienated many middle class white voters through her elitism and lack of empathy towards their everyday concerns. Her loss of swing states Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvsnia, and Florida says it all. And you know what? I still think Clinton et al do not get it.
111
Your point is also the point of this article: Clinton didn't lose because people didn't show up, but because a large percentage of voters who went Obama last election went Trump or third party this time around.
1
Nothing Hillary, or anyone else for that matter, did or did not do was reason enough for choosing someone as amoral, as corrupt as Trump.
2
Well, you didn't even need to read the whole thing to get that it was working class not middle class. Maybe you should try again.
Once DSW proved she was biased then hired by Hillary, a Trump vote was in order.
The democrats aren't where they want to be, but they're where they deserve to be.
The democrats aren't where they want to be, but they're where they deserve to be.
10
Sure, because us white middle-class types will vote for a guy who lies about everything, cheats in business, gropes women, ogles teenage girls, dodges the draft, knows practically nothing, is a braggart and narcissist, has no curiosity and less character, and is illiterate and anti-intellectual, if ONLY he'll tell us that he'll make our world "great" again and let us imagine a world where we're "special." We're the "everybody-gets-a-trophy" generation, and we're entitled to be "great" (even if it's only in the promises of a con man).
11
More precisely, working class white women voters, who should have known better since they are the most dependent on safety net programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and subsidized day care.
3
You are hopelessly mixing up WORKING CLASS women -- who have jobs -- with poor women -- who do not, and stay home on welfare benefits.
1
If anything that should be learned from this past election is that we need more political parties. The 2 party system is not working for any of us, at all.
We must break up the mega duopoly of Red & Blue only. Sort of like a choice between Verizon and Comcast.
We must break up the mega duopoly of Red & Blue only. Sort of like a choice between Verizon and Comcast.
6
I don't understand this argument at all: You had third, and fourth parties and many more candidates besides that. If anything, multiple parties guarantee that the "winner" does not have majority support. Jill Stein siphoned enough votes away from those key battleground states to give the Electoral College to Trump, when I am quite sure the Stein voters did not want Trump to win. There should be a way of making the EC proportional by the state vote, and if no candidate gets 51%, to allow the 3rd, 4th, etc. candidates give their EC votes to a candidate so that one candidate winds up with 51%. Then you have an actual mechanism for multiple parties.
3
OK cue the arguments between the Hillary and Bernie supporters. There's still plenty of time between now and November 2018 to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
3
My takeaway from the election? Malicious gossip works.
26
So did Comey's letter to Congress. Oh wait, same thing, never mind...
2
A weak candidate also hurts.
7
Explain Trump then.
Evidently a lot of ignorant white people voted for Trump because they related to his bigotry and xenophobia and failed to grasp the basic absurdity of the man. It is also pretty obvious that the republican's 25-year long smear campaign against Hillary Clinton took a toll and elevated her negative perception by voters, and Putin and Comey helped fuel that fire. It's amazing: the republicans can be grossly mistaken about nearly everything, be blatantly dishonest most of the time, and still win elections! The Democrats have a lot of work to do.
25
If you had read the article, you would have understood that many of those "ignorant white people" had voted twice for Obama.
7
Many ask "Why did the Democrats run a such a terrible candidate?" One better question is "Why does the Democratic party have such an image problem with the American people?" The answer, in my humble opinion, is that the decision makers cannot or will not recognize that they are the problem. The 2018 Republican ads are already in the can "Nancy Pelosi" enough said. So long as she is the face of the Democratic party, a Democratic House of Representatives will not be attained.
9
So the face of a woman kills their prospects? Think you're right on that. That's pretty disgusting.
2
To me it was not a women face but another woman who has been demonized for so long that the hatred of her equals that of Hillary. Also, there is a staleness to the Democratic leadership.
It was Comey. Without his intervention, Clinton would have won by a 6-point margin.
9
The next time the Dems control the executive and legislative branches, they need to do away with the electoral college. It's crazy that Dems now need a 4 or 5M vote advantage to actually WIN the election. Whereas Republicans "only" need to lose by 3M to win it.
11
In then end, Clinton did not win because she was a not a strong candidate. Period.
9
She was weak, unfocused, and kept flip flopping on critical issues like health care and the TPP. It was clear at times she was lying to get BernieBros votes. She had every intent to sign the TPP. She was NEVER going to give a public option or work for single payer -- NEVER EVER EVER.
It did not help that she was older, and overweight and wore awful tacky pantsuits. She should have fired her stylist! Trump looked terrible too, but our culture expects women to be better dressers and look sharp. For all her lack of intellect, Sarah Palin KNEW how to dress as a powerful woman -- sharp suits, glasses, great makeup & hair, high heels. If you could combine that look with intelligence and negotiating skills, you'd have an unbeatable female candidate.
It did not help that she was older, and overweight and wore awful tacky pantsuits. She should have fired her stylist! Trump looked terrible too, but our culture expects women to be better dressers and look sharp. For all her lack of intellect, Sarah Palin KNEW how to dress as a powerful woman -- sharp suits, glasses, great makeup & hair, high heels. If you could combine that look with intelligence and negotiating skills, you'd have an unbeatable female candidate.
If Dems had really wanted to win, HRC and Bernie would have compromised on their differences and run as a team. Even a [insert your favorite perjorative] like Chris Christie knows that job #1 is to win. Maybe it'll happen next time around, though Dems always seem to find new ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And I say this as someone who has voted Dem since my first prez vote for McGovern.
3
The midterms will be interesting, eh? Sure, the districts are gerrymandered. But I think that the working class white southerners/midwesterners that we're all so obsessed with don't care about party anymore. The GOP can't rely on that. And fundraising is not as successful a victory predictor anymore. I'm not saying that the Dem's will take the House or Senate, but I do think that 2018 will be very messy and will tie both the Freedom Caucus and the establishments types up in knots.
1
In the end, Clinton did not win because she was not a strong candidate. Period.
15
No it wasn't. It was because of weak voter turnout. Most voters thought Hillary was going to cake walk into the WH because of ridiculous predictions by the media.
Next time there's an election make sure you turn up, despite all the noise around you.
Next time there's an election make sure you turn up, despite all the noise around you.
4
Maybe, but there were no candidates stronger than her on the Democratic side (including Sanders, who never had to face the tsunami of opposition material the Republicans had on him). Every campaign makes mistakes, but Clinton did everything she needed to win this election in a fair contest. The last minute intervention by Comey changed all that and tilted the election to Trump. Turns out Comey had nothing to report about Clinton after all, but he did have something on Trump that he kept under wraps till well after the election.
1
"Over all, almost one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-class supporters defected from the Democrats in 2016 ..."
We would have done a lot better with those voters if we had run the candidate with a proven concern for the interests of working-class Americans: Bernie Sanders. Instead, we ran a corporate shill with a long record of support for free trade and its attendant de-industrialization. Big mistake--even if she had managed to win.
We would have done a lot better with those voters if we had run the candidate with a proven concern for the interests of working-class Americans: Bernie Sanders. Instead, we ran a corporate shill with a long record of support for free trade and its attendant de-industrialization. Big mistake--even if she had managed to win.
16
Phillip - that is just childish in it's ignorant simplicity. Manufacturing jobs migrate to cheap labor and weak environmental rules. Has nothing to do with policy. the real question is what do you do with people displaced by that movement? Training, which was proposed and paid for by HRC's policies. The Bernie stupidity is beyond the pale at this point - dude is not a democrat, and he would have gotten slaughtered in the general election with no minority support. duh...
2
rocko, clearly you don't have kids
2
Did Trump actually flip the Obama voters, or did hackers in Russia flip the actual totals?
3
Important to note that despite his claims, Sanders failed to bring white working class voters to Clinton or to the Democrats.
4
He wasn't the one on the ballot, and for all of his own popularity, a mere surrogate wasn't going to be able to countermand the well established image that Clinton has - deservedly or not - in middle America.
6
Could we also ask Mr. Cohn and his fellow election pundits at The Upshot to explain a few things for us?
Not only did he whitewash the effect of Republican voter suppression laws on the election, not only did he write a column about Clinton's loss without pointing out that she actually won by nearly 3 million votes, but I think it's time for The Upshot to explain how t it got its predictions horribly wrong.
Up to the night of the election, The Upshot said Hillary Clinton had a 85% chance of winning the presidency.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forec...
And that percentage was blasted across every election-related article for weeks on end. Could The Times and Mr. Cohn explain to us how it blew it so badly? Why it was permitted to put those predictions into online articles at The Times? And why no mea culpa was ever offered?
But now we're told HRC "lost" the vote, when she actually won.
There needs to be some explaining here. And some apologies to Times readers. And some explanation as to what credibility The Upshot has remaining after its failures.
Not only did he whitewash the effect of Republican voter suppression laws on the election, not only did he write a column about Clinton's loss without pointing out that she actually won by nearly 3 million votes, but I think it's time for The Upshot to explain how t it got its predictions horribly wrong.
Up to the night of the election, The Upshot said Hillary Clinton had a 85% chance of winning the presidency.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forec...
And that percentage was blasted across every election-related article for weeks on end. Could The Times and Mr. Cohn explain to us how it blew it so badly? Why it was permitted to put those predictions into online articles at The Times? And why no mea culpa was ever offered?
But now we're told HRC "lost" the vote, when she actually won.
There needs to be some explaining here. And some apologies to Times readers. And some explanation as to what credibility The Upshot has remaining after its failures.
135
No, actually she lost, at Keats until the rules governing how we elect a President are changed. A please stop with your tired fantasy of voter suppression.
5
Chris - fantasy nothing. look at the long lines in every city with more than 50,000 just to start. or the lack of registration in Texas alone. If Texas had even average political participation, it would easily be a blue state.
4
Dear Rocko World,
I came back to the US to vote. I voted in Houston, TX and the line was not big deal. Further in listening to NPR on my way home from voting the report was that turnout was good but no one who wanted to vote was turned away.
You shouldn't make up stuff, it is really tacky.
I came back to the US to vote. I voted in Houston, TX and the line was not big deal. Further in listening to NPR on my way home from voting the report was that turnout was good but no one who wanted to vote was turned away.
You shouldn't make up stuff, it is really tacky.
5
"If turnout played only a modest role in Mr. Trump’s victory, then the big driver of his gains was persuasion"
Con men are notoriously persuasive.
Con men are notoriously persuasive.
9
We need to go back to the smoke filled rooms at the convention. It may have not been the best system, but it eliminated the possibility of someone completely insane from becoming a nominee. And while we're at it, we can go back to the original rule of sentors being elected by state legislatures. These rules were in place for a reason. Let's face the fact that the will of the public is often times not the best choice. The public is uninformed and susceptible to irrational propaganda. And it's NOT because the public is stupid, it's because we have jobs, families, and other responsibilities that monopolize our time. It's impossible for everyone to be well informed. Time to look at reality.
2
So you suggest we rely on others to think for us? No thanks. I'll take my chances with the " uninformed" public that apparently is more susceptible to irrational propaganda than the would be overlords you seem to want. Where do most NYT readers learn civics?
4
Much as I appreciate Silver's analysis, I joint with others below who are saying, in essence, that turnout should be looked at in more granular terms. That's particularly true, given the overall differential in popular vote. Nonetheless, if turnout didn't determine, the next question is, who made the better (or best) case? Clinton was daunted by a failure to connect, damaged by ("you need a miracle, I give you the FBI") Comey, and followed a strategy that I'll never understand of casting herself as Obama II, which paved the way for The Donald to con his way into the presidency by his dystopian vision.
Wish I could edit. It's Nate, but Cohn not Silver, and join not "joint "(though the pun is worth considering). Sorry.
3
Granular? Daunted? "The next question is.."?
YOU are WHY the Dems lost! Many smart, good-hearted Dems are incapable of looking at life thru any filter other than white, highly educated, privileged, and analytical. You can't relate to the working people you righteously claim to care about. Your tight language choice proves this.
Elections are always about emotions, not facts. You sound like Spock, as did HRC. Trump was Kirk. Recall who was Captain.
YOU are WHY the Dems lost! Many smart, good-hearted Dems are incapable of looking at life thru any filter other than white, highly educated, privileged, and analytical. You can't relate to the working people you righteously claim to care about. Your tight language choice proves this.
Elections are always about emotions, not facts. You sound like Spock, as did HRC. Trump was Kirk. Recall who was Captain.
3
Having all that power is quite a responsibility. Seriously, Trump got a lot of votes from smart, white, etc. folks. More seriously -- and I really mean insidiously, look it up -- implying that non-white, less-educated, etc. make decisions by emotion is a little too, um, convenient.
2
What this election cycle has shown most clearly is the fragility of our electoral system, whose outcome hinges on the emotional state of the least educated segments of the population. The system could be vastly improved by introducing a second round, which gives voters the chance to improve on the outcome of the first round, as is done in France and other nations. The true cost of the current system, where the least prepared among voters have the greatest weight, will become obvious when Trump and his coterie of incompetents are through inflicting massive damage to the country and the world.
12
Who knows if and how we will survive Trump's incompetence and Republican meanness?
3
Of course, if the GOP's Russia connection had been more fully explored by the press, those disaffected Democrats would have switched back to HRC. There is great remorse out there in Voterland now and more to come. What's more, HRC won the popular majority by 2.4 million voters, and was kept out of the presidency by an obsolete and anti-democratic 18th century clause in the Constitution.
17
The two parties presented us with the two worst candidates to choose from that I can remember and the worst of the two was put into office by the Electoral College. It can be argued that HRC ran one of the worst campaigns ever and that she basically failed to generate sufficient enthusiasm among independents and millennials.
I'd say that we deserve better than this but didn't we, though the primary votes, inflict this upon ourselves? Someone please remove the punch bowl before we drink ourselves into oblivion.
I'd say that we deserve better than this but didn't we, though the primary votes, inflict this upon ourselves? Someone please remove the punch bowl before we drink ourselves into oblivion.
14
Really my friend even now how can use the false equivalency argument- "the two worst candidates" - Clinton on her worst day in my opinion could never sink to the lows of Trump as his performance or lack there of indicates. The man is a train wreck- anything that HRC would have done would be better than trump and his awful insane agenda. Coal as the basis of the US energy policy? What are are we back in the days of the Molly McGuires?
8
The Democratic Party in 2016 represented decades of their neoliberal shift toward wealthy interests, and people across the country who have been harmed by those policies stopped being the Democrats' natural constituency.
53
So instead they chose the party that invented those policies, actively campaigns on them, and was headed by a billionaire capitalist grifter?
Sometimes reality does not fit the narratives we have tailor-made for ourselves.
Sometimes reality does not fit the narratives we have tailor-made for ourselves.
8
Because the Republicans have proven to defend the working class with policies that advance the interests of the working class, such as the health bill that failed?
6
Looking at Trump and the people around him in official and unoffical roles, I think we need to discuss a general shift of political power toward wealthy interests. The people who have been harmed by this shift had no one to vote for in this election, which made their loyalties unpredictable and the outcome all the more risky for them, as we are seeing in the promises Trump is breaking under the table.
5
In Michigan, which Trump won by 9,528, voter turnout in Wayne Country was 60,000 fewer. Only, 17% of students at the University of Michigan voted. I don't know how many of them were eligible to vote, but the university has 45,000. A better turnout at either place would have easily given the victory to Clinton. The percentage of turnout as a factory cannot be dismissed.
50
Yup. Young, left-leaning voters are essential for Democrats to succeed. Obama had them, Hillary did not. Bill Clinton had them, John Kerry did not. 1976 Jimmy Carter had them, 1980 Jimmy Carter did not. This pattern repeats throughout the years. Democrats fail to learn this lesson at all of our peril.
6
I asked all my college students whom I teach would they vote and they laughed at me: 'Both parties are corrupt and it is no choice. We will make our own way, leave you old losers to fight over a non-choice. Your system is broken and we no longer believe in it.'
Our legacy to our youth...
Who see future trends much better than people our age. People who still read a newspaper when they get news off FB.
Our legacy to our youth...
Who see future trends much better than people our age. People who still read a newspaper when they get news off FB.
5
Early post election reports attributed Trump's win to larger than expected numbers of white women switching from Hillary to Trump at the last minute.
But that narrative never seemed to ring true when in the immediate days after the election millions of women took to the streets protesting. An immediate and visceral reaction by this same demographic group that was supposedly Trump friendly.
Consider the minuscule numbers needed in a small selection of a few state precincts that gave Trump the electoral numbers to win. Similar to the results you'd expect to find in gerrymandered districts. Where a strategy is used to predetermine the outcome of votes to support one party's candidate over the other party's.
Everyone says that vote totals were accurate and tabulation of votes was not influenced or affected by hacking. But how do we know for sure some of those key local precincts were not hacked?
The CIA was hacked and our country's most secret and well protected secrets were stolen and made public. Local electronic voting machines are nearly two decades old, run on outdated software, were not designed with security in mind, and many have proven vulnerabilities to hacking. Some can be hacked within a matter of minutes. Some can be hacked wirelessly from a distance.
If foreign state or other high level hackers can reach into a secure environment like the CIA, who's to say some local voting machines weren't hacked?
But that narrative never seemed to ring true when in the immediate days after the election millions of women took to the streets protesting. An immediate and visceral reaction by this same demographic group that was supposedly Trump friendly.
Consider the minuscule numbers needed in a small selection of a few state precincts that gave Trump the electoral numbers to win. Similar to the results you'd expect to find in gerrymandered districts. Where a strategy is used to predetermine the outcome of votes to support one party's candidate over the other party's.
Everyone says that vote totals were accurate and tabulation of votes was not influenced or affected by hacking. But how do we know for sure some of those key local precincts were not hacked?
The CIA was hacked and our country's most secret and well protected secrets were stolen and made public. Local electronic voting machines are nearly two decades old, run on outdated software, were not designed with security in mind, and many have proven vulnerabilities to hacking. Some can be hacked within a matter of minutes. Some can be hacked wirelessly from a distance.
If foreign state or other high level hackers can reach into a secure environment like the CIA, who's to say some local voting machines weren't hacked?
7
To medianone ~ Interesting comment and I hope many read and ponder. It seems very strange to me that there is not more suspicion about some of those old voting machines being hacked especially in light of as you wrote "the minuscule numbers needed in a small selection of a few state precincts that gave Trump the electoral numbers to win."
No other candidate has ever won the popular vote by 3 million and lost the electoral college. For me it does scream that something is amiss. So, thankyou for articulating so well some of what I have been thinking.
Re: all those women marching. Great demonstration of protest. But, I do wonder how many of those marchers voted third party because they just "couldn't vote for Hillary", a rationalization I have heard many times. That march was historic and I wouldn't doubt if some of those marchers voted for the current occupant of the White House.
No other candidate has ever won the popular vote by 3 million and lost the electoral college. For me it does scream that something is amiss. So, thankyou for articulating so well some of what I have been thinking.
Re: all those women marching. Great demonstration of protest. But, I do wonder how many of those marchers voted third party because they just "couldn't vote for Hillary", a rationalization I have heard many times. That march was historic and I wouldn't doubt if some of those marchers voted for the current occupant of the White House.
2
LOL, the women marching were pretty obviously disappointed Hillary voters, and not Trump voters. Though 3-4 million is a lot for a march, it is only a small fraction of the electorate.
Why did Clinton lose the election? People do not read newspapers anymore, they get their news from TV and Fake News.
Ill-informed people made a decision on non-stop coverage by TV of Trump and they hyped about Clinton's emails where there was nothing but ignored all Trump's gaffes day in - day out.
If Gary Hart lost the bid to run for the presidency because he had a picture of a woman (not his wife) on his lap, where are our morals today? We elected sexist, xenophobic, narcissistic, pathological liar into the White House. Thanks to the TV Media for non-stop coverage.
Ill-informed people made a decision on non-stop coverage by TV of Trump and they hyped about Clinton's emails where there was nothing but ignored all Trump's gaffes day in - day out.
If Gary Hart lost the bid to run for the presidency because he had a picture of a woman (not his wife) on his lap, where are our morals today? We elected sexist, xenophobic, narcissistic, pathological liar into the White House. Thanks to the TV Media for non-stop coverage.
253
Your letter implies that the "ill-informed" Trump voters are nothing more than ignorant lemmings who swallowed the Trump media hype hook line and sinker. Nothing can be further from the truth. Many - even most - of us middle-american Trump voters agonized over whether to vote for him. In the end many of us voted for him as the lesser of two evils. HRC lost because of her decades of scandal and her taking areas of the country for granted. But the voters in those areas were very well-informed about what we were doing - not duped into it by the media.
8
"We elected sexist, xenophobic, narcissistic, pathological liar into the White House."
You're absolutely right...it's easy to see how the election of Bill Clinton paved the way for Mr. Trump. Ironic, no?
You're absolutely right...it's easy to see how the election of Bill Clinton paved the way for Mr. Trump. Ironic, no?
4
Americans elect the hipper-perceived candidate, always. It is not more complex than any high school election.
The NYTimes needs to do an analysis of that theory and will prove me right. But it is so.. unintelligent and too hard to have to admit we're so shallow. Their PhD writers are compelled by hubris to search deeper, to prove those PhD's were worth getting... to be an underpaid, independent contractor newspaper writers...
They, you all, want to ascribe this loss to bigger events. Like refusing to believe an Oswald could kill a JFK. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
HRC was a robot; Spock; bloodless; a droning preening bore.
Trump played the part of Tough President on The Apprentice.
America, over-armed, always likes a Tough Guy, always elects the Tough Guy. Get over it.
Just really stop w the pedantic over-analysis one time and you may win an election. This was yours to lose and by God, you did!
The NYTimes needs to do an analysis of that theory and will prove me right. But it is so.. unintelligent and too hard to have to admit we're so shallow. Their PhD writers are compelled by hubris to search deeper, to prove those PhD's were worth getting... to be an underpaid, independent contractor newspaper writers...
They, you all, want to ascribe this loss to bigger events. Like refusing to believe an Oswald could kill a JFK. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
HRC was a robot; Spock; bloodless; a droning preening bore.
Trump played the part of Tough President on The Apprentice.
America, over-armed, always likes a Tough Guy, always elects the Tough Guy. Get over it.
Just really stop w the pedantic over-analysis one time and you may win an election. This was yours to lose and by God, you did!
3
Nothing really new here. I followed the election closely and went under the hood in analyzing the polls. In the polls that broke out whites by class & gender, Clinton routinely was pulling <25% with working class white men. Towards the last week or so several had it below 20% and her numbers with working class white women were scarcely better.
I also thought too much was being made of her strength among college educated whites. In my opinion that is a large grouping that contains disparate groups. People think college educated & think coastal city, affluent suburb when it's just as likely to mean a cop or nurse in an Atlanta exurb.
At the end of the day I think Clinton and the Dems have alienated themselves culturally from a large number of people. Just like the Republicans have done with minorities and urban, affluent whites. Problem for the Dems is they're alienating more people in the wrong places.
I also thought too much was being made of her strength among college educated whites. In my opinion that is a large grouping that contains disparate groups. People think college educated & think coastal city, affluent suburb when it's just as likely to mean a cop or nurse in an Atlanta exurb.
At the end of the day I think Clinton and the Dems have alienated themselves culturally from a large number of people. Just like the Republicans have done with minorities and urban, affluent whites. Problem for the Dems is they're alienating more people in the wrong places.
42
Ed - if you really got under the hood on the polls, you missed how drastically they changed 11 days before the election when Comey sent his letter to congress. If you are going to claim you looked at the polls, you might actually want to let the data drive your conclusions instead of the other way around.
2
The 2016 presidential election has to be analyses in light of the truly peculiar nature of the two candidates. The strength, size and cross-party negative bias toward Mrs. Clinton was unprecedented. Imagine if a less polarizing candidate like Mr. Biden had run in her stead. Mr. Trump has the unfortunate ability to lie convincingly while while blinding the gullible with his glamor and self-touted business acumen. This was an extremely unusual pairing of rivals.
20
Actually, not unusual at all.
It was JFK-Nixon redux using your analysis.
It was JFK-Nixon redux using your analysis.
All of this data, useful and interesting as it is, leaves out the vital question of why in the world did the Democrats run such a ghastly candidate? The list of candidates who would most likely have trounced Mr. Trump is not limited to Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden. It is time and past time for a realignment away from Neoliberalism for the Democratic party.
167
The "ghastly" candidate won by more than 2 million votes. She was subject to Russian interference, FBI intervention, and fake news attacks (PizzaGate, etc.), not to mention incredible misogyny. I'd say she did pretty well, all things considered.
6
Because she had the most cash and politicians need it in our corrupt system. They've spread it around for so long, like Mayor Bloomberg did, they make anyone else nonviable.
Sanders would have lost like McGovern on steroids. Biden like a Dukakis because he lacks discipline.
Your 2 proffered choices, respectfully, shows why you lost: you STILL don't get Americans.
I'll bet you put up Sen. Corey Booker next, thinking he's a cool smart hipster, with-it guy, when he's another bought and paid for guy enriching himself and his cronies, hanging with millionaires as he publicly shovels driveways as photo-ops.
No, we GET the gov't we deserve.
Sanders would have lost like McGovern on steroids. Biden like a Dukakis because he lacks discipline.
Your 2 proffered choices, respectfully, shows why you lost: you STILL don't get Americans.
I'll bet you put up Sen. Corey Booker next, thinking he's a cool smart hipster, with-it guy, when he's another bought and paid for guy enriching himself and his cronies, hanging with millionaires as he publicly shovels driveways as photo-ops.
No, we GET the gov't we deserve.
2
"why in the world did the Democrats run such a ghastly candidate?" begs for the question 'why in the world did the Republicans run such a ghastly candidate?'
The occupant in the White House is the ghastly one, not Sec. Clinton!
The occupant in the White House is the ghastly one, not Sec. Clinton!
3
Really? -- Blaming poor Democratic turnout and a lost election on Black voters???
No offense, Mr. Cohn, but weren't you the same person who so blithely stated a Clinton win in the first place?
In spit of your calculations, what you seem to forget is that Donald Trump had less than 10% support among African-Americans, mainly because no Black person in their right mind would ever vote for such a blatant bigot -- which leaves the "race-card"..... And it would be a big mistake to think that HRC lost the Black vote simply because unlike Obama, she wasn't Black.
Try again.
No offense, Mr. Cohn, but weren't you the same person who so blithely stated a Clinton win in the first place?
In spit of your calculations, what you seem to forget is that Donald Trump had less than 10% support among African-Americans, mainly because no Black person in their right mind would ever vote for such a blatant bigot -- which leaves the "race-card"..... And it would be a big mistake to think that HRC lost the Black vote simply because unlike Obama, she wasn't Black.
Try again.
10
He is saying exactly the opposite. He attributes DT's narrow victory primarily to white working class voters' disproportionate support compared to 2008 and 2012.
4
He wasn't blaming turnout. He said that the decrease in black turnout was not the main reason why Clinton lost. The idea that turnout is overrated as the reason for Clinton's defeat is literally the purpose of this article.
6
if one reads past the 3rd paragraph, (all the way to the 4th actually) one would see he does no such thing as blame low black voter turnout:
"Instead, it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump. Over all, almost one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-class supporters defected from the Democrats in 2016, either supporting Mr. Trump or voting for a third-party candidate."
"Instead, it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump. Over all, almost one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-class supporters defected from the Democrats in 2016, either supporting Mr. Trump or voting for a third-party candidate."
3
The aftermath of the election can be rehashed until the cows come home. Hillary lost the election not because of turnout or lack of it. She lost because Trump connected with millions of white, middle class people who lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost the ability to save for retirement and generally lost their future. So, Trump tuned in and told those people what they wanted to hear. Hillary lost because people no longer trusted her after Benghazi and after her e-mail fiasco. They didn't trust her after the Podesta e-mails were loosed. And they didn't trust her after Wasserman-Shultz revealed her deep biases and prejuidice in sinking Bernie Sanders. Hillary's arrogance and disconnect from working people killed her chances. Hillary lost the election. So did the Democratic elites who backed her. Maybe now the middle class, what's left of it, will have a chance in the next election. Maybe.
306
Absolutely! Clinton lost for these reasons, and a few more! Yet you have many of the Liberals/democrats blaming the Russians... Russia didn't cast votes at the voting booths; American people did. If the Democrats want to get back in the race, they have to stop and acknowledge the reality of why they lost, and start building back their party! The longer they keep deflecting the "blame" unto others/Russia, the longer they will remain out of office!
The democrats right now seem to just want to oppose everything and anything Trump puts on the table, fighting all the way, AGAINST Trump... But not really thinking of the country... At least it seems that way. An analogy that has been stated various times: if you keep hoping the pilot of the plane you're on fails, chances are things are not going to turn out all that great...
The democrats right now seem to just want to oppose everything and anything Trump puts on the table, fighting all the way, AGAINST Trump... But not really thinking of the country... At least it seems that way. An analogy that has been stated various times: if you keep hoping the pilot of the plane you're on fails, chances are things are not going to turn out all that great...
4
We are opposing everything trump puts on the table because they all are disastrous policies for our country. Don't think you are safe up there in Montreal either--his policies are disastrous for the world also.
9
Not so fast. I am a white middle class voter, formerly Independent and lately Democrat. I've lost my home and my job, and my retirement won't be that great. I may have to continue working into my 70s. Well into my 70s.
I voted for Hillary because I trusted her MORE than I trusted any of the Republicans, especially that con man they picked as their candidate.
Let's wait and see what the Russian and conflict-of-interest investigations bring forth.
I voted for Hillary because I trusted her MORE than I trusted any of the Republicans, especially that con man they picked as their candidate.
Let's wait and see what the Russian and conflict-of-interest investigations bring forth.
14
Trump's vote share was lower than Romney's. It is not plausible that millions of Obama voters switched to Trump. Mr. Cohn, you are a numbers guy. Why don't you give us the numbers? By your estimates, how many voters switched which way? Isn't it still the case that most of the missing Hillary voters voted for spoiler candidates?
15
Turnout by itself may not account for the outcome of the 2016 election. Running a bad campaign will, and Clinton's team just failed. They took Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for granted. And they lost in those states with by some 70,000 votes total (over all three).
The failure of the Republicans "healthcare bill" (read: tax-cut bill for the wealthy) shows that the Democrats can do better. But they've lost their message, and Trump took it up: I'll create better jobs. I don't think he will, but his supporters won't realize that until 2018. Then we shall see.
The failure of the Republicans "healthcare bill" (read: tax-cut bill for the wealthy) shows that the Democrats can do better. But they've lost their message, and Trump took it up: I'll create better jobs. I don't think he will, but his supporters won't realize that until 2018. Then we shall see.
14
I can't get over the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by 3 MILLION - that isn't a close call! We have to get rid of the archaic Electoral College, or get enough states to sign on with the National Popular Vote that will ensure their electoral votes will be cast with the popular vote winner, thereby bypassing the need to eliminate the Electoral College.
379
The Electoral College functioned precisely as it was designed to do: Prevent large states (New York, California) from dominating over small states. Without New York and California, Trump would have won the popular vote by 3M votes. The Electoral College isn't going away.
10
You've got your work cut out for you if you want to get rid of the "archaic Electoral College." As for the National Popular Vote movement, you're pretty much left with the same cast of lock step blue states like California, New York, Massachusetts, et al. You'll unlikely ever get enough states to join - any competitive state has a significant disincentive to join and none of the red states would concede their sovereignty to such a hair brained scheme.
6
Yes, it is a shame the Clinton were never told that the winner is determined by the Electoral College.
10
Interesting, but I'll wait until the "male/female", the breakdown of the "others", and the specifics of "religion", the three factors that I consider more important than "Dem/Rep" or even "race", to come out.
9
This story is the reason why I like "Upshot".
You make an honest effort to cut thru the bull and come up with the truth.
One can come up with various analyses of your data but the Pa, Wisc, Mich. one is the most striking.
These are three states that Hillary had a clear, albeit small lead, thru out the campaign till the very end and was supposed to win.
If she paid more attention to the plight of the rust belt blue collar worker instead of running as a identity candidate campaign and reversed one percent of the votes in these states, she would have been our president instead of the demagogue Trump..
You make an honest effort to cut thru the bull and come up with the truth.
One can come up with various analyses of your data but the Pa, Wisc, Mich. one is the most striking.
These are three states that Hillary had a clear, albeit small lead, thru out the campaign till the very end and was supposed to win.
If she paid more attention to the plight of the rust belt blue collar worker instead of running as a identity candidate campaign and reversed one percent of the votes in these states, she would have been our president instead of the demagogue Trump..
54
Clinton failed to campaign in Minnesota (if you discount her fundraisers here attended only by our wealthiest Minnesotans). And she nearly lost Minnesota, too.
Misallocation of campaign resources, reportedly caused by dependence on a popular but flawed algorithm? A strategy of promising more of the same after nearly forty years when working class whites did not get a raise? Maybe all of the above and more? Trump should not have been within twenty points of a competent Democratic candidate. That is the reason Clinton lost, and that is on her, not Trump. Emails, "deplorables", and all the other negatives only appear important in hindsight because Clinton let Trump get close enough that these insignificant things loomed large.
Misallocation of campaign resources, reportedly caused by dependence on a popular but flawed algorithm? A strategy of promising more of the same after nearly forty years when working class whites did not get a raise? Maybe all of the above and more? Trump should not have been within twenty points of a competent Democratic candidate. That is the reason Clinton lost, and that is on her, not Trump. Emails, "deplorables", and all the other negatives only appear important in hindsight because Clinton let Trump get close enough that these insignificant things loomed large.
7
Prairie Populist...
Half agree.
Trump voters were wrong for voting for Trump. He is a bigoted, rabble rousing, sexual predator, pathological lying ego maniac demagogue. Hillary was not.
It is like blaming the young woman for getting raped for walking alone at night. She was not the bad guy, the rapist was.
Having said that, you are right re the incredible stupid way Hillary ran the race as a identity politics candidate without addressing any of the legit issues the Trump voters were concerned about. She left them no other choice.
It is like the young woman walking alone on a deserted street at night, saying I have the right to do it. She is right but shows incredible poor judgment...In both cases two wrongs don't make a right.
Learn from history or forever be condemned to repeat its' worst failures...
Half agree.
Trump voters were wrong for voting for Trump. He is a bigoted, rabble rousing, sexual predator, pathological lying ego maniac demagogue. Hillary was not.
It is like blaming the young woman for getting raped for walking alone at night. She was not the bad guy, the rapist was.
Having said that, you are right re the incredible stupid way Hillary ran the race as a identity politics candidate without addressing any of the legit issues the Trump voters were concerned about. She left them no other choice.
It is like the young woman walking alone on a deserted street at night, saying I have the right to do it. She is right but shows incredible poor judgment...In both cases two wrongs don't make a right.
Learn from history or forever be condemned to repeat its' worst failures...
1
I think that Hillary supporters were too convinced that she was surely going to win this election. Sadly, they were wrong so now we have Don the Con.
10
"What was consistent across most states, however, was higher-than-expected white turnout."....Not exactly. One of the key flip states was Wisconsin where Romney got more votes in 2012 than Trump did in in 2016, and Romney still lost the state to Obama.
15
A long column on voter turnout, but not a single word about voter suppression? Not a word about how Wisconsin went for Trump by less than 30,000 votes, but that voter suppression was responsible for blocking over 300,000 voters, mostly Democratic, and mostly minority and poor, from voting? Not a word about how North Carolina Republicans boasted after the election that their voter suppression efforts had reduced Black voter turnout by 8%? Not a word about the confusion that reduced Black and Hispanic voter participation in Texas after parts of that state's voter suppression bill were blocked, but poll officials still required those ID's that were supposedly not required?
Not a single word about this from the supposed authority on voter turnout at The Times.
Shameful. Truly shameful.
Not a single word about this from the supposed authority on voter turnout at The Times.
Shameful. Truly shameful.
674
Voter suppression is very much a part of the story but if you think Clinton would've won red states like North Carolina & Texas without voter suppression, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Voter suppression was NOT relevant in Pennsylvania or Michigan.
11
A headline challenging the perceived factor in the election is far more enticing than the same old voter suppression headline. Besides, people become inured to issues such as voter suppression after they have been a fact of life after decades and that is the truly sad reality here.
2
Voter suppression? Fake news! I vote in the people's republic of Alexandria and I have to show my driver's license every time. Every time. I don't feel suppressed for having to prove who I am.
2
Comparing turn out to your pre election expectations totally misses the message that voters were sending. Both candidates were unusually unpopular with high net negatives in the polls. While Trump managed to excite far right voters with increasingly inflammatory rhetoric, HRC turned off both progressives and traditional working class voters with her shift toward the right. HRC had such strong negatives with potential new voters both among young people and minorities, that large numbers of them were not even motivated to register. Trump's strong negatives would have brought enough votes from turnout of new voters against him to easily flip this close election if HRCs equally strong negatives hadn't canceled them out.
48
To a large degree, the Democratic Party made the choice to lose this election by insisting on HRC as candidate. It may turn out to be a good thing, by arousing young people, minorities, women, and progressives from our stupor, but it should also be a lesson - running a candidate with such strong negatives among core Democrats and Independents will give enormous advantage to the Republican opposition. if the Democrats ever want to win again, they absolutely must care about who they are alienating, and not just care about what their big donors want.
310
You missed the whole point, turnout was basically unchanged amongst middle-aged white voters, however, many of these traditionally democratic voters were swayed by Trump's rhetoric. The hate and opportunity to take out their frustrations on the most vulnerable members of society was too good to pass up. The increases in voter turnout amongst young whites and Hispanics was not enough to counter the hate in key swing states. That is why Trump won. Now we had all better learn how to say MAGA in Russian.
55
Given that 53% of White women voted for Trump, I don't think you want to just lump women into the group with progressives that will rise up.
7
What I would like to see is an analysis of how the two most disliked candidates in modern American history managed to become the only viable options for president.
While all campaigns feature a large number of voters who vote against the other guy rather than voting in favor of a candidate (that's why negative campaigning works) the past election seemed to be dominated by voters who's attitude was "My candidate has all sorts of problems, but the other candidate is even worse."
While all campaigns feature a large number of voters who vote against the other guy rather than voting in favor of a candidate (that's why negative campaigning works) the past election seemed to be dominated by voters who's attitude was "My candidate has all sorts of problems, but the other candidate is even worse."
90
There is no money in that. The money is in professional campaign management - nice work if you can get it.
2
I'm not convinced by this. Did "millions" of white working class voters switch from Obama to Trump? Or, according to the Cook Political Report, was it about 780,000, in about 10 states? After all, the margins by which Trump won the electoral college votes were tiny and he lost to Clinton by nearly 3 million votes. I'm also more interested in those 8 million people who voted for a third party. That may be the most significant part of this - if it is right that almost 25% of the Obama's white working class voters voted for Trump or a third party, how many went with the third party? That matters. Also, the number of people that 25% amounts to is also significant. More information, please.
123
3rd party...
The top 2 "3rd party" candidates were the Libertarian and Green party people. A few weeks back I looked at the numbers on that. As I recall, the Libertarian candidate got roughly 3 times the votes of the Green candidate. This applied in swing states as well.
Typically, disaffected GOP voters will consider a Libertarian, not so much the disaffected DEM voter. The DEM voter may lean towards the Green candidate.
My conclusion was that the Libertarian candidate probably took more votes from Trump than the Green candidate did from Clinton.
In short, Trump may have done better had there been no 3rd party candidates.
The only way to know for sure is to track down a large number of those specific voters, which I doubt anybody is doing.
The top 2 "3rd party" candidates were the Libertarian and Green party people. A few weeks back I looked at the numbers on that. As I recall, the Libertarian candidate got roughly 3 times the votes of the Green candidate. This applied in swing states as well.
Typically, disaffected GOP voters will consider a Libertarian, not so much the disaffected DEM voter. The DEM voter may lean towards the Green candidate.
My conclusion was that the Libertarian candidate probably took more votes from Trump than the Green candidate did from Clinton.
In short, Trump may have done better had there been no 3rd party candidates.
The only way to know for sure is to track down a large number of those specific voters, which I doubt anybody is doing.
There's a great editorial today about left-wing Brexit supporters (Lexiteers).
Everything the Lexiteers dislike about the EU is applicable to Clinton, who she is, and what she represents.
Because of the internet, average people are now able to see the big picture of climate-changing globalism, the propaganda of party-first politics aimed (effectively) at older voters, and the decimation of the working class and middle class.
More states wanted to escape the whirlpool of destruction than embrace that status quo. The awakening is much, much bigger than Clinton.
Everything the Lexiteers dislike about the EU is applicable to Clinton, who she is, and what she represents.
Because of the internet, average people are now able to see the big picture of climate-changing globalism, the propaganda of party-first politics aimed (effectively) at older voters, and the decimation of the working class and middle class.
More states wanted to escape the whirlpool of destruction than embrace that status quo. The awakening is much, much bigger than Clinton.
20
Pure mythology. The Brexit and Trump voters as the ones who "see the big picture of climate-changing globalism"? Theyn why are they are eager for more fossil fuel burning (Trump) and more trade liberalization (Brexit)? It makes no sense whatsoever but I understand it may make some disappointed leftists feel better. Once the extreme right has consolidated power, or once it has crashed and burned our democratic institutions, will those pseudo-leftists take responsibility?
22
"Because of the internet, average people are now able to see the big picture of climate-changing globalism, the propaganda of party-first politics aimed (effectively) at older voters, and the decimation of the working class and middle class."
May be you should check your internet sources to explain why the Labor Party has a record low membership post-Brexit vote and why GB will now turn into a a much more frightening, right-wing free market haven thanks to the record-low corporate tax rates it has to offer so that industry will remain headquartered there and the suffering those who depend on welfare and the NHS will endure due to the depleted government funds.
I don't know where you get your "internet news" from, but the EU is the global driver of climate change control and it was thanks to the EU that British scientists received endowments and students received scholarships. Enjoy the populistTrump/Brexit revolution orchestrated by the radical-right billionaire oligarchs, the Mercer family, and get back to me in a few years to tell me how it all worked out for the working class.
May be you should check your internet sources to explain why the Labor Party has a record low membership post-Brexit vote and why GB will now turn into a a much more frightening, right-wing free market haven thanks to the record-low corporate tax rates it has to offer so that industry will remain headquartered there and the suffering those who depend on welfare and the NHS will endure due to the depleted government funds.
I don't know where you get your "internet news" from, but the EU is the global driver of climate change control and it was thanks to the EU that British scientists received endowments and students received scholarships. Enjoy the populistTrump/Brexit revolution orchestrated by the radical-right billionaire oligarchs, the Mercer family, and get back to me in a few years to tell me how it all worked out for the working class.
4
It's not that they "see the big picture," it's that they think they do thanks to the skillfully disseminated propaganda from the right.
7
Why did Clinton lose? Because political reporting failed to devote even 10% of the time spent on turnout models and polls to analyzing the impact of proposed policies on different groups of voters.
371
Of course, this is also the reason why Clinton won the Democratic Primary.
4
Just as now, all the major print media and all of the cable news shows feature nothing but political pundits talking about the health care bills. No actuaries, no economists, insurance regulators, or other "real world" people who can talk about the real-world effects of the various proposals beyond the CBO report.
So sick of the he-said, she-said approach to reporting. Whatever happened to real journalism vs. stenography? And those abysmal panels on shows like Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett -- the producers ought to be ashamed. I've seen episodes of Let's Make a Deal that were more cerebral.
So sick of the he-said, she-said approach to reporting. Whatever happened to real journalism vs. stenography? And those abysmal panels on shows like Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett -- the producers ought to be ashamed. I've seen episodes of Let's Make a Deal that were more cerebral.
8
Historically all pubs have their candidates. So what the NYT decided to do is their own business. But what about the DNC who abandoned many of their own party? Why does this fundamental question continue to be ignored? Who needs the Russians interfering with our country's elections? We have the DNC doing it already.