2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Hillary Lost: An Exhaustive Look
Last edited Wed Jan 18, 2017, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Covering all of the bases:
http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2017/01/why-hillary-lost-exhaustive-look.html
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)And the problem is not just that Hillary lost, but Democrats also lost down-ballot races as well.
We need to understand why, and adjust.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512681084
still_one
(96,521 posts)congress had nothing to do with it, nor the media mischaracterizing it as "the email investigation was being reopened", A LIE, nor the 14 states which added new strict voting, and voter ID requirements since 2013, which included, Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina.
Then of course is the fact that there were people who identified themselves as progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, and either voted third party or didn't vote
47% of those who were eligible to vote didn't.
In Michigan Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein won 1.1%. Similar results in Wisconsin and the other swing states.
Hillary didn't lose to those who voted for trump, she lost because of the FBI interference, and because some progressives decided to vote third party or didn't vote.
Those down ballot losses were also a reflection of the FBI interference, which contributed to some of the 47% not showing up to vote
What added insult to injury was the down ballot races.
Russ Feingold and every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states as you mentioned, lost to the establishment, incumbent republican.
I am not sure that Wisconsin can even be designated as a swing state anymore. Wisconsin is now controlled by right to work, anti-union republicans. That Scott Walker not one survived his recall, but won multiple elections in that state is testimony to that.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(120,815 posts)If you lose the EC you can win the popular vote by the millions - and she did - and still not get to be President. So she didn't win, unfortunately.
still_one
(96,521 posts)11 days before the election.
I am looking forward where the post mortem group will fade away
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Thats like saying Al Gore won, despite never taking office.
I don't get this stubborn refusal to admit she lost. Denying reality is a republican trait.
That said, the wording in the OP is childish, and distracts from a thoughtful analysis of the election.
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)All the analysis and dissecting won't explain THAT away!
dionysus
(26,467 posts)votes, yes, a lot more, but she didn't win! Had she won she qould be president!
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,691 posts)Filed under: wtf
BeyondGeography
(40,013 posts)democratisphere
(17,235 posts)This is exhausting.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Stein was almost a non-factor and if you subtract the numbers of people that voted for her in 2012 or the greens in 2008 it is reduced to even less of a factor.
If your campaign relies on getting all of the votes of a third party candidate, when half of those that vote for that candidate vote third party every year, then your campaign is inviting defeat and failure.
underpants
(186,612 posts)There ARE Green Party voters who will always vote that way. That's how you build a party. Likewise there ARE Libertarians who had a 50 state candidate (first time?) and were going to vote Libertarian. Now some of those votes were Brexit/joke/protest votes but not most of them.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Just a guess. If you think they are, you're mistaken.
WWC is just easier to say.
And like the saying with terrorists, while most racists are part of the wwc, not all wwc are racist.
There are actually racists in all demographics.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)That much is obvious...
Some amount of his voters believe that when we call him a racist, it's a left wing lie. It's crazy, but it happens.
underpants
(186,612 posts)At the beginning it was clear that he was going after the scrim but he was good for ratings and god forbid the media be seen as liberal (which they will anyway).
40yearyellowdog
(4 posts)rather than dismissing them as racists, we likely would have won.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 08:30 PM - Edit history (2)
40yearyellowdog
(4 posts)care if people call him racist or not. Clinton and her PACs outspent Trump and his PACs by 2X. I am glad she has ads pointing out Trump's racist demagoguery, but she didn't need to run those ads continually until they bored people. She would have be more effective if she had had more different types of ads, including some directed at people concerned about job growth in rust-belt towns. We lost by very small margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; with the right strategy, we could have won.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)Operation Crosscheck.
underpants
(186,612 posts)This analysis is good but it's missing the carpet when describing the design.
Raster
(20,999 posts)...Voter supression is probably the single-most effective nefarious tool the rethuglicans use to affect elections. They don't have to worry about someone voting against them, IF THEY CAN KEEP THEM FROM VOTING. That simple.
Crossheck is yet another rethuglican tool to disenfranchise legal, lawful voters with a patina of legitimacy, when in effect, it still boils down to depriving lawful voters of their chance to participate in democracy.
It fucking sucks. And I wonder -after each election- why this is seemingly never addressed until it is too late.
underpants
(186,612 posts)still_one
(96,521 posts)Let's also ignore the fact that 11 day before the election Comey released a letter to the republicans in Congress where MSNBC was the first to incorrectly report as "Breaking News", that the FBI had reopened the email investigation, and then for the next hour paraded every right wing politician across their screen to propagate the LIE, with other networks soon following suit
Let's also examine those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary by either voting third party or not voting.
Let's also observe that in Michigan Hillary lost by .3%, and Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in the other swing states.
Let's also observe that every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states, lost to the establishment, republican, incumbent.
and in spite of the media's double standard coverage, misinformation, and falsehoods, Hillary still won the popular vote by more than 3 million.
The articles mentions Comey and Jill Stein and the closeness of the turned states. Did you read it?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)read the friggin thing...
tgards79
(1,452 posts)still_one
(96,521 posts)was primarily due to the white working class voter
still_one
(96,521 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and third parties.
still_one
(96,521 posts)NAACP successfully challenged the law, and got those voters reinstated, but I suspect since it got reinstated late in the game, some voters who were initially removed from the voting lists, didn't end up voting after all.
Here is a map of those states with strict voter ID laws:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx
While I agree the effect on the results is debatable, I don't think it will be debatable after the next four years, and the republicans have consolidated power by appointing judges who will insure that strict voting requirements get instituted.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)That is reason for a lot of the purging. Not denying GOPers have restricted votes, but their are usually ways around it.
In NC a utility bill, etc., wI'll get you a mail in ballot.
still_one
(96,521 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The Get Out the Vote efforts need to focus on that aspect and encourage people to vote early and by mail when possible. My experience with South Carolinians is that a few alleged purged voters didn't make a difference in Trump winning.
still_one
(96,521 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)still_one
(96,521 posts)call banking helped, but since Deborah Ross and Hillary lost, I doubt it
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)StevieM
(10,540 posts)Here is my post on this subject.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028471760
And here is the article that the post links to:
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-92304395/
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)"Clinton did MUCH worse than Obama among all Non-White voters, a drop of 8 points, some of whom, shockingly, went to Trump (3 points) and more of whom (5 points) went to Johnson/Stein. When you drill down, Trump actually did better among Latinos a group he directly insulted (at least Mexicans) than Romney"?
StevieM
(10,540 posts)it is a fact.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)The methodology is fascinating.
Blue_Tires
(55,778 posts)"Not enough Dems turned out to vote?"
underpants
(186,612 posts)Some were suppressed and I think the "she's won" lead others to not think they needed to vote.
My full analysis (because your life wouldn't be complete without it) is below.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)tgards79
(1,452 posts)Changed per your valid critique....thank you.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)happens every election. Funny how the poor districts always have few machines, breakdowns, and large lines!
The way you worded ot originally will make heads explode. Hell, posting it worhlit comment will make heads explode.
But it's fair and covers the whole range of reasons, we'd be foolish not to analyze our mistakes and learn from them.
Burying our heads in the sand will not help things one bit!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)LisaL
(46,601 posts)Emails, Comey or Russians wouldn't have had an effect they did, if not for the media running with these stories the way media did. 2 weeks before the election, Clinton's coverage turned extremely negative. Comey's vague letter was talked about non-stop, even though we all know there was nothing of importance in the emails. But it wasn't covered that way.
underpants
(186,612 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:28 PM - Edit history (2)
60% Airtime
He was on like "The Truman Show" - full speeches (even speech setup while Bernie was addressing 10k or so) - when a product is on that much enough people will convince themselves to buy it.
Hillary got 4 direct contacts with the audience (convention and debates) - we heard ABOUT her not FROM her and CNN had two Trump plants (Lord and Lewandowski) on constantly. CNN was the news network for the middle/"undecided".
10% voter suppression/Crosscheck
10% the 25 year (empty) campaign against Hillary
10% all of Comey's appearances. Couple with the long campaign against her
3% there are Green and Libertarian voters.
5% Brexit/protest/joke votes in all the wrong spots
The remaining 2% was sadly that it was going to be hard for the first woman President to come right after the first black President.
Buckeye_Democrat
(15,042 posts)It seemed to be true in April 2008 as well.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1063a3The08Race.pdf
Obama 49%
McCain 44%
Clinton 45%
McCain 48%
The number of Americans who see Clinton unfavorably overall has risen to a record high in ABC/Post polling, 54 percent up 14 points since January. Obamas unfavorable score has reached a new high as well, up 9 points, but to a lower 39 percent. A favorability rating is the most basic measure of any public figures popularity; its trouble when unfavorable views outscore favorable ones. Thats now the case for Clinton, alone among the current candidates.
40yearyellowdog
(4 posts)Clinton, Clinton would have won." I am so glad to finally see this in writing, it was like it was illegal to say it.
StevieM
(10,540 posts)Then James Comey intervened to rig the election.
She ran a great race. But the election just wasn't winnable.
We will never know for sure what they had in store for Sanders or O'Malley. But they certainly would have behaved every bit as unethically, possibly including a bogus FBI investigation.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)tgards79
(1,452 posts)..the shit show is just getting started.