Post-election analysis and questions
Donald Trump did not win the presidency.
Hillary Clinton lost the presidency. The simple answer as to why can be found in the popular vote totals.
In 2012, President Obama received 65,915,795 votes. Mitt Romney got 60,933,504 votes. As of today, 11/14/2016, the 2016 popular vote totals showed Hillary Clinton with 61,313,976 and Donald Trump with 60,537,336. While there are still tens of thousands of ballots that remain uncounted, nearly one week after the election, Secretary Clinton's final tally will be millions short of that of President Obama in 2012. It should be noted that in 2008, President Obama actually received even more votes with a total that approached 70 million.
No matter how you look at the numbers as a whole, it is clear that the total of Donald Trump will be very close to that of the last two Republican presidential nominees, especially when adjusted for the growth in our nation's population over the last four years. Meanwhile, the turnout in support of the Democratic nominee fell in 2012 and then dropped through the floor in 2016. So the simple answer is that Secretary Clinton lost because Democrats chose not to vote. Not because they switched to the other side of the political aisle and voted for Donald Trump.
Much is being made of the large turnout for Mr. Trump among women, white women in particular and an even more extreme number of white women who aren't college educated. The problem with buying into that being a major factor is that without those votes, his totals would have been smaller than those of the two prior nominees. To use a golf metaphor, Trump made par, but he didn't birdie, let alone eagle the vote totals.
It would be a mistake to buy into the "Bernie would have won" simplification of what transpired. We don't know that he would have won, we don't know what would have happened if he'd chosen to run as an independent and such musings are merely informed speculation. But we can consider that the actions of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the others in positions of power at the DNC to ensure the nomination went to Secretary Clinton might well be a factor in the reduced turnout.
We can also consider that there may have been a significant impact on the turnout due to the claims of "new email scandal" from FBI Director James Comey. Congress needs to investigate whether or not he violated the Hatch Act We won't know if there is a large bloc of voters who were going to go to the polls and vote for Hillary who had a change of heart due to his letter to Congress unless and until significant research is done involving those who did not cast a ballot.
I want to offer another possibility as to why Hillary Clinton lost this election. It wasn't the issues. It was simply that Donald Trump was more successful in making this all about Hillary Clinton than Secretary Clinton was able to make it about Mr. Trump. When one candidate succeeds in making the election a referendum on their opponent, they will almost always triumph.
Along with some changes I suggested for the DNC moving forward in another blog, they need to invest in some detailed research into the non-votes of 2016. Why did those people stay home, or even worse, skip voting for Secretary Clinton while at the polls casting votes in other contests? The answer to that question will be critical if the DNC wants to have any hope of winning in the mid-term and next presidential elections.
In the 2020 contest, whoever runs against Donald Trump must make that contest all about what he does, or doesn't accomplish during the next four years. Otherwise we will be feeling this post-election nausea at the prospect of a second Trump term. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Hillary Clinton lost the presidency. The simple answer as to why can be found in the popular vote totals.
In 2012, President Obama received 65,915,795 votes. Mitt Romney got 60,933,504 votes. As of today, 11/14/2016, the 2016 popular vote totals showed Hillary Clinton with 61,313,976 and Donald Trump with 60,537,336. While there are still tens of thousands of ballots that remain uncounted, nearly one week after the election, Secretary Clinton's final tally will be millions short of that of President Obama in 2012. It should be noted that in 2008, President Obama actually received even more votes with a total that approached 70 million.
No matter how you look at the numbers as a whole, it is clear that the total of Donald Trump will be very close to that of the last two Republican presidential nominees, especially when adjusted for the growth in our nation's population over the last four years. Meanwhile, the turnout in support of the Democratic nominee fell in 2012 and then dropped through the floor in 2016. So the simple answer is that Secretary Clinton lost because Democrats chose not to vote. Not because they switched to the other side of the political aisle and voted for Donald Trump.
Much is being made of the large turnout for Mr. Trump among women, white women in particular and an even more extreme number of white women who aren't college educated. The problem with buying into that being a major factor is that without those votes, his totals would have been smaller than those of the two prior nominees. To use a golf metaphor, Trump made par, but he didn't birdie, let alone eagle the vote totals.
It would be a mistake to buy into the "Bernie would have won" simplification of what transpired. We don't know that he would have won, we don't know what would have happened if he'd chosen to run as an independent and such musings are merely informed speculation. But we can consider that the actions of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the others in positions of power at the DNC to ensure the nomination went to Secretary Clinton might well be a factor in the reduced turnout.
We can also consider that there may have been a significant impact on the turnout due to the claims of "new email scandal" from FBI Director James Comey. Congress needs to investigate whether or not he violated the Hatch Act We won't know if there is a large bloc of voters who were going to go to the polls and vote for Hillary who had a change of heart due to his letter to Congress unless and until significant research is done involving those who did not cast a ballot.
I want to offer another possibility as to why Hillary Clinton lost this election. It wasn't the issues. It was simply that Donald Trump was more successful in making this all about Hillary Clinton than Secretary Clinton was able to make it about Mr. Trump. When one candidate succeeds in making the election a referendum on their opponent, they will almost always triumph.
Along with some changes I suggested for the DNC moving forward in another blog, they need to invest in some detailed research into the non-votes of 2016. Why did those people stay home, or even worse, skip voting for Secretary Clinton while at the polls casting votes in other contests? The answer to that question will be critical if the DNC wants to have any hope of winning in the mid-term and next presidential elections.
In the 2020 contest, whoever runs against Donald Trump must make that contest all about what he does, or doesn't accomplish during the next four years. Otherwise we will be feeling this post-election nausea at the prospect of a second Trump term. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
posted by me at 9:49 PM
<< Home