I think it was a combination of things. In some areas white people came out in bigger numbers for Trump; in others(such as Wisconsin, where he actually got fewer votes than Romney got) they did not. Just as big an issue if not bigger is the lower turnout for Clinton, particularly in urban areas; there's also the fact that the 'persuadable middle' shifted towards Trump compared to the last two elections.

I think some are trying to look for a simple answer to an election that was sum of multiple smaller effects.

It wasn't just coastal elites that the Dems catered to, but suburbanites. And they won many of them (as I posted earlier, they won Cobb County for the first time since 1976). And IS didn't say not to go after the working class, but just not to go after them to the detriment of all else.

One thing that Frank Bruni writes in an insightful article is there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the time Obama came into ofice and what the GOP has gained over that time and what lies ahead.
"A party that keeps the White House for eight years customarily suffers losses elsewhere, as if the electorate insists on some kind of equilibrium. That happened under Bill Clinton and again under George W. Bush — but not to the extent that it has happened under Obama.

His presidency will end with Democrats in possession of 11 fewer Senate seats (depending on how you count), more than 60 fewer House seats, at least 14 fewer governorships and more than 900 fewer seats in state legislatures than when it began. That’s a staggering toll.

While the 2016 race for governor in North Carolina remains undecided, the settled contests guarantee the G.O.P. the governor’s office in 33 states: its most bountiful harvest since 1922.

If Democrats don’t quickly figure out how to sturdy themselves — a process larger than the selection of the right new party chairman — they could wind up in even worse shape. They’re defending more than twice the number of Senate seats in 2018 that Republicans are, a situation that gives the G.O.P. a shot at a filibuster-proof majority.

Meantime, the perpetuation of Republican dominance at the state level through 2020 would grant the G.O.P. the upper hand in redrawing congressional districts after the next census."

The Democrats Screwed Up




Is there too much of a drift to the progressive. populist left wing of the party (Warren, Sanders, ect.) that is pushing away the swing voters in the middle needed to win? Is the smugness of liberals driving away moderates and independents? (The smug style in American liberalism - Vox)

The Dems got significantly more votes for the House and more votes for the Senate than did the GOP. The problem nationally is demographic trends bunching Dems together and gerrymandering giving some blue and purple states a solid red congressional delegation.

Now the Dems also don't stand for anything and are generally stupid and spineless, so they should change there too.

Yes, but it was Donald Fucking Trump.
Never mind that he won, that he was even in the game is reson enough to take a long look in the mirror.

Just saw a poll today, after the election, of Trump voters that had Berine Sanders winning 56 to 44.

Saying everything is fine, and this was just a blip, is denial.

It's kind of interesting, this whole Dems abandoned the working class argument, because that's a very liberal argument to make. I can tell you that wasn't the argument being made in 2000 or 2004 or even earlier when Dems lost. When they appealed to the working class, they were called socialists who were engaging in class warfare. People were saying they needed to support a more pro-business agenda (Like Bill did in the 90s).

I don't see how anyone could possibly make this argument considering the Dems nominated Clinton, who was as far away from that wing as possible. And even Obama himself was routinely criticized by that wing of the party.

Trump got 58% while Romney got 59%. It seems the lower number for Clinton is because white voters went 3rd party at a higher rate. 5% of white voters voted for a 3rd party compared to 2% in 2012.

So you can say that white voters hurt her, but that's because they voted 3rd party, not Trump.

But you're still missing the point in the different types of white voters. Trump lost lots of suburban white voters, but made up for that with working class white voters. That hurt him in some places, but helped him in WI/MI/PA. And even if they went third party, I thought we were talking about why Dems lost white voters, so it shouldn't matter where they went.

I think it's interesting to get into these discussion of what happened to the voters and the strategic ramifications of choices each party made, but comments like, "The left just wants to blame white people" are trollish and inaccurate.

Spare me the euphemisms. White people made Trump president. - The Washington Post
White people put Trump in office | Fusion
White People Just Made Trump the Most Powerful Man in the Free World | The Daily Dot
http://www.refinery29.com/2016/11/12...ion-heartbreak
White People Elected Donald Trump | Essence.com
I'm Tired of Good White People | GQ
Samantha Bee: White People Have Ruined America | Video | RealClearPolitics
Dear Fellow White Women: We F**ked This Up | The Huffington Post
Fuck Everything And Blame Everyone
White women sold out the sisterhood and the world by voting for Trump.
White Men Must Bear the Blame — and Shame — for Trump | News | Philadelphia Magazine
So, Who Do We Blame?: Gothamist

This is just a quick Google news search. Pretty much every left-leaning media outlet put up their own piece blaming white people for this.

Literally every person I know who voted for Hillary is blaming this on white people.

+1 but certain kind of white people, not white like them but white like those people.

BUt it's funny that those were the kind of people the Dems used to gobble up in the 1970s (and presumably before). Guess they didn't get the memo that they were supposed to 'progress' into something they were not.

And every conservative I know is telling me the Dems were dumb for ignoring white people.

Are they saying white people or working class?

I haven't parsed out the precinct maps & totals for Cobb but ... that shift most likely isn't about any successful "suburban" tactic, it's about "Hispanic" voters.

It was a 15 point shift from the last election. I don't think you can solely attribute that to Hispanic voters. I'd say that's a more likely reason she won Gwinnet.

The thinking,for quite a while now (at least 4-6 years) is that the shift to minority population in Cobb is still having an impact electorally. Gwinnett, eh, it's been a factor there for ages.

I don't blame any sane person for wanting to get out of either county*, but their exit over the past decade (or more) has certainly contributed to a bit of a political map problem. I look forward to the next redistricting round, maybe the issues can at least be minimized.


*for traffic reasons

I think things got a little confusing during this little digression. We had been talking about how the Dems screwed up and Quik mentioned some white voters being more motivated than usual. There was a response that it wasn't just white voters, which I disputed. And then Rainmaker said it wasn't white voters, that was just made up so the left could blame whites.


Are there liberals who are writing dumb columns and angrily blaming white people for saddling us with Trump? Absolutely. My whole point in this digression is that the idea of white voters being a deciding factor in this election wasn't made up by the left. The right, the left, the middle have all been making this point. Nate Silver used data to back up this point. I agree with this point, not because I "blame" white people, but because I think it was a missed opportunity for Dems.

NSFW (Uh, just a bit of language ;))

But...oh my.

As the board's Cobb county resident, I'd say you're on the money with that thought. The minority population has increased tremendously in areas like Mableton, Austell, Powder Springs...basically the area south of Dallas Highway. All the people who can't live with that change have left the area for Paulding, Cherokee and, more decisively, Bartow.

Cobb in 2012
Romney 171,464 - 56%
Obama 132,526 - 43%

303,990 total voters

Cobb in 2016
Clinton 159,416 - 49%
Trump 152,602 - 47%

312,018 - 2.6% increase in total voters from 2012


Paulding in 2012
Romney 40,771 - 71%
Obama 15,779 - 28%

56,550 total voters

Paulding in 2016
Trump 44,646 - 69%
Clinton 18,004 - 28%

62,650 - 10.8% increase in total voters from 2012


Cherokee in 2012
Romney 76,473 - 78%
Obama 19,813 - 20%

96,286 total voters

Cherokee in 2016
Trump 80,611 - 73%
Clinton 25,203 - 23%

105,814 - 9.9% increase in total voters from 2012


Bartow in 2012
Romney 18,719 - 74.4%
Obama 6,019 - 23.9%

24,738 total voters

Bartow in 2016
Trump 29,879 - 76%
Clinton 8,204 - 21%

38,083 - 53.9% increase in total voters from 2012

I'm in Cobb County as well and have seen the same demographic shifts. I agree that it's a factor, but I don't think that alone can account for a 15 point swing in 4 years.

If you don't like Cobb County, look at Orange County, California. I never thought I'd see a Dem take Orange, and yet somehow she took Orange and lost.

#calexit

#PLEASE

I saw these two tweets and noticed something:


A small portion of Americans aren't proud, but are excited about Trump's victory.

Same survey, or separate (i.e. different respondents)?

Excited could be of different contexts. I'm sure a lot of people when they stood up against the machine saw a shiny red button with TRUMP on it. And above that button there was a sign saying do not push. With Hillary we all know what we're getting, we don't know with Trump. Some people just wanna push that button and see what happens next. And of course there are other people who will push that button with malicious intent.

After Gary Johnson imploded, I didn't know who I wanted to vote. I almost considered pushing that button, I was really damn close.

Reminds me of the West Wing episode where Toby rambles on about the 15% of respondents who think the US is spending too much on foreign aid, but don't want it cut. People aren't always consistent, to put it mildly.

That's the best thing I've heard s liberal say since....well, a long time. Hahaha!

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Clinton blames Comey.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politi...fbi/index.html

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Most people had their mind made up before that circus the last week or so of the campaign.

Nate Silver seems to think that has some merit. He was surprised more Dems hadn't been making that point. Given how close the margins were in the deciding states, I don't it's so crazy.

I think of all of the posts in this thread, this (posted 08/06) was the most accurate.

Uh oh; run Comey run!!!! Save yourself, she can't take one of FOFC's own.

Nailed it.

Is it a factor? Sure. To blame the election on that or even mostly on that is silly though. There are a lot of other things that could have turned it. Turnout issues that have been discussed, the many mistakes made by and flaws in each candidate, etc. At least a dozen such factors seem to be obviously of greater impact/importance than Comey.

Turnout is a result, not a cause.

Sure, but there are a lot of reasons for it. I've seen no evidence to indicate Comey ranks significantly high among them.

Those that made up their mind about a week before the election broke overwhelmingly towards Trump. Those that made up their mind in the last few days broke evenly.

What happened about a week before the election?

What happened a few days before the election?

It certainly isn't the only possible reason, but in a close election a dozen different things could be "the" reason.

I think we're pretty much talking at cross-points here so I'll get off the merry-go-round. Seems to be the same thing I said a few posts up.

The more I read about the Clinton campaign, the more it reads like a Moneyball article to me. The campaign is being criticized for being 'too analytical'. They decided to go for suburbanites and minorities because their statistical analysis indicated that's where the votes were to win. Those criticizing the campaign are saying they were too much into the stats to listen to those who had the instinct that those in the Upper Midwest weren't going to go the way the models showed.

Seriously reads like the locker room dramas with Billy Beane and the old grizzled scouts in the book.

And besides, election coalitions change and adapt. The 'base' in 1970 isn't going to your 'base' today. Nor should it. Larrymcg is right that in the 1980s, the Dems clung to their white working class base and were getting trounced until they pivoted to a third-way policy under Bill Clinton.

There is a secondary lesson here. I was a reading a Vox article that pointed out (and I totally didn't even think of it until I read it) that Clinton never ran to the center during the general election. She continued to run on her very left leaning primary policy. Generally we always hear that you run to the extremes in the primary and then to the center in the general. Clinton didn't. So an overcorrection to appeal to the white working class by going populist may actually misdiagnose some things.

I think a bigger problem is that the average voter had no idea what she or a Dem congress would do if given the chance. "We're not crazy," isn't a compelling marketing pitch.

Actually, I suspect they thought she would be much like Obama, i.e. not much changing, and for a large segment of the populace (at least in key spots), that wasn't good enough.

But Obama has an approval rating of almost 60%.

Hillary Clinton's Hallelujah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG-_ZDrypec

Exactly. If you want to know why Trump managed to win this thing, and why the polls couldn't find the Trump supporters, that video summed it up nicely. Well, not nicely, maybe angrily / nastily, but the points he makes are spot on.

I didn't pick Clinton because I thought she was the more electable candidate. I argued several times in this thread that the reason I supported her is because I thought she'd make a better President than Sanders. I stand by that and I'm not at all convinced that Sanders would've won. We would've heard "Socialist" about 5 million times in the campaign.

You would have heard the sharp report as a fatal round was fired toward Sanders head. Zero percent chance in hell that bastard would have lived long enough to win the election. He was easy enough to ignore as a comedy act in the other party's primary but if there'd ever been an actual chance he'd win ... no. Seriously.

His running mate -- Sam Webb maybe -- might have gotten the sympathy vote and won, but Sanders would never have gotten that far (had he gotten that far).

For me, and I may well be far enough away from JIMGA's views on Sanders, who I think has been a largely misguided but quite honorable public servant and in terms of being evil or insane is far less so than Trump, to make it possibly not even something we can rationally discuss -- but for me, this election has really changed my perspective in terms of saying 'this would happen' or 'that's how it would go'. And yes, that was a horrible sentence that any self-respecting English teacher would crucify. Grammar Nazis, have at it if you wish(I'm looking at you, Izulde, if you read this). I know it's terrible. Deal with it :P.

But seriously, my box in terms of what's possible or even fairly likely has been expanded by about a factor of a hundred. Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States. This is not true in a bad work of fiction, or a somebody's drug-induced vision, or some absurdly over-the-top Hollywood movie(I'm looking at you, Ben Affleck, for the very premise of The Accountant). I was more right than many about this election, and I was horribly wrong in the final analysis. Donald Trump is the president-elect. On that basis, what is there that really couldn't happen? Seriously. The next time I'm playing some wasteful time-sink of a computer game and I come across something that seems absurdly unrealistic, I'm going to think about that.

Donald Trump is the president-elect. There is very little that reaches a greater level of absurdity than that.

I am curious as to what Clinton supporters here think of this piece by an avowed Sanders supporter:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/opinio...ini/index.html

[excerpt]

Clearly that wasn't held up by working class voters in WI, OH, PA, etc.

I don't see how that's clear at all. Obama wasn't on the ballot.

Sure sounds like a Republican economic plan to me.

I do have to laugh when people relate Obama's approval rating to this election. This loss had everything to do with Hillary and nothing to do with Obama.

When an idiot like MBBF can point out weeks ago in this very thread exactly what was going to happen in the election, you need to rethink your logic when it comes to this election thing.

Or it wasn't about being to similar too Obama.

The large group of people in those states that switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 also suggests that the issue wasn't about being to close to Obama.

Interesting discussion......

Facebook's Fight Against Fake News Was Undercut by Fear of Conservative Backlash

It's an avowed Sanders supporter who thinks that Sanders would have won and therefore portrays anything to the right of Sanders as wrong. The 'light touch of regulation' and 'meek taxes on the wealthy' charges are somewhat ridiculous considering just how left Clinton was portrayed by those on the right.

So you have Sanderistas saying she's a Republican and you have Republicans saying she's the farthest left candidate we've ever had. I think it's fair to say that Clinton falls in the middle of those caricatures.

Put it another way, y'all know me around her. I'd say that my policies are equivalent to Clinton's policies. I basically believe the same things that she does (I may be slightly more circumspect on abortion, but aside from that I'm totally on board). I don't know anyone on this board who would consider me a Republican. But also people on this board wouldn't consider me far left (with some exceptions ;) ) either. That's where Clinton ends up on the spectrum.

They're idiots just like Colin Kaepernick. But it's worth noting that due to the electoral college, they would've had zero effect on the outcome of the election.

This is honestly one of my biggest questions about the protests....

How many voiced their opinions when it really mattered?

That's very true, but I wonder how many of them know that it's also not just president you're voting on. When it comes to local elections, those tiny numbers make a difference.

Abolishing the electoral college would boost overall voting participation rates for this reason.

Not to mention having a much greater impact on their daily lives. Stupid not to vote for local/state amendments/offices.

Sometimes I wonder if all this effort to improve voting rates is really a good thing. Most people can't articulate the policy positions of the presidential candidates, much less the local county judge.

It should require much more than living long enough and staying out of federal prison to be eligible to vote.

If the idea wasn't prone to abuse, I think people should have to pass a citizenship test every 10 years or so to be eligible to vote.

Realistically, your one vote isn't going to change any election, even if you live in a swing state, and even if went to a popular vote system. Voting is more of a duty. I think it's the fundamental duty that demonstrates that you care how your federal, state, and local government operate. There's many other things you can do that will have a more direct, positive impact, but if you don't even fulfill that first fundamental duty, I doubt your sincerity in those other things.

No no no no no.

Popular vote would/could also suppress voter turnout. The better option, and one that jibes more with the intent of the electoral college, is allocating the EC votes proportionally the way Maine and Nebraska do. They're the only holdovers at this point, but many states had some kind of proportional assignment of their EC votes in their early history.

How so? Genuinely curious.

Recent history has taught us that most presidential candidates don't articulate their own policies - they simply say how much their opponents suck.

One candidate seems like the sure winner, so those who want to vote for the other decide it's not worth the effort.

One candidate is the clear choice of the urban voter, so the badly outnumbered rural voters don't bother.

Those two are the easiest ones to see happening and I would venture there are other scenarios.

I didn't vote major party because I wanted to get a third party eligible for federal campaign funds, and I felt comfortable doing so because I knew my vote didn't matter in my state. It was going to go to the less horrible of the two major options, and wouldn't be overridden by people outside of my state, so I knew I had the option to try and broaden the overall conversation for 2020. If we're going by popular vote, I'm likely casting my vote for one of the big two options, especially if it appears that it could be close.

Not sure if this made it here yet or not.

Maine became the first state in the country Tuesday to pass ranked choice voting

I would love for the EC to allocate their votes proportionally, but that is NOT how Maine and Nebraska do it. They do it based on congressional districts. If gerrymandering was bad now, imagine how bad it would be if Presidential elections depended on it.

There are other races besides the President that are on the ballot.

And today Trump now loves the electoral college.

It's clear someone in his team just sat him down and educated him on the conservative argument for the electoral college.

I agree, which is why I called those people and Kaepernick idiots. I was just pointing out how dumb the winner take all aspect of the EC is, as it makes extra voters in states completely meaningless.

It would render votes outside a relative handful of urban centers meaningless.

The depressive effect on turnout -- barring an incredibly successful get out the vote effort across every other area, en masse -- would be enormous.

This is exactly why I don't think it would be as cut/dry as everyone else seems to think it will.

I'm not sure what the true total impact would be, but I don't think it is simple.

Anyone aware of any proposed EC modifications? Such as candidates being awarded a % of the EC votes rather than winner take all? Are there drawbacks to something like that?

Seems like it would make each vote more relevant while also keeping it as a 50 state campaign rather than the (more typical) handful of swing states.

This. I think it would likely open up way more of the map than is typical. In most campaigns 80% or more of the map can be ignored after the primaries. Suddenly the difference between 80/20 and 60/40 could swing the election. Not only would Dems have a reason to campaign in red states, but GOPers would have a reason to visit upstate NY and interior CA.

This would be an interesting compromise as it is closer to a popular vote system, but the smaller states retain their voting power per person advantage.

The one drawback is you couldn't do fractional electors for a state. So for a 3 electoral vote state, if it went 51-49, you couldn't give them each 1.5 electors. The 51% would get 2 and the 49% would get 1. So you wouldn't be able to do a true proportional system, but it would still be better than winner take all, which makes zero sense.

Short version, 'cause I'm doing like 12 things atm (11 of which are ostensibly work-related). You should be able to work out the issue from this quick fact:

Roughly 1/3rd of the U.S. population is contained in just the top 11-12 media markets ... out of 210 markets.

Without the EC, anything below market 35 or so (and that might be generous) become meaningless to candidates.

I think the theory is more that candidates will concentrate their campaigning in more populated areas, and areas that are heavily slanted in their direction. (f.e. Dems campaign in Cali/northeast corridor, Republicans campaign in Texas & the south/midwest).

I'm not sure if it would have an appreciable effect on turnout either way, but it would certainly change which states are targeted, and I think it would exacerbate the echo chambers and resentment felt by the opposing team. Proportional electors from each state seems like a much better idea, though it would have to be a large amount of states agreeing at once, otherwise if just a California passed a resolution it would benefit Republicans too much etc.

You think there's mega-urban vs the rest divide now? Oh my goodness, I'm not sure most people can grasp the extent it would rise to.

I realize that there's no shortage of folks in some of those cities content to burn their own stuff down but something like this comes to pass they'd very likely have a lot of willing help.

If you think people who live closer together deserve less rights than people who live far apart, then the Electoral College is a great system.

What I find interesting is the Supreme Court said states can't use their own EC-style system to decide elections on a statewide level (see: Baker v. Carr). So our own method of selecting a President is unconstitutional for the states to implement for selecting a Governor.

This doesn't make sense. As of now the 3 biggest states are relatively ignored, while the candidates focus on the rust belt, NH, Nevada, Florida, now North Carolina and maybe Arizona/Colorado. (Outside of an arrogant enough candidate like HRC to think she had enough of a lead Texas & Georgia were in play.) And I assume legislatures in Montana, Idaho, the Dakota's, Vermont, Alaska etc can do the math and see they have a proportionally bigger voice in the EC system than they do as a straight % of population. Popular vote might happen, but the impetus will come from those coastal elites, not as a response to them.

I mean...I'm probably out of step. But why do people actually care if a candidate comes to their state/hometown? I mean, I have a pretty good idea who a candidate is from, uh, basically having my eyes open. I mean, we're inundated by this stuff. I guess I don't see the appeal of "s/he came to our town! that shows s/he really cares about us!" Who gives a rat's ass where they campaign.

People, man. I don't get 'em.

It's not about the visits per se, it's about whether the issues of Area X will/won't be addressed.

Given the voting proclivities of many of those urban centers, I'd prefer to see those people disenfranchised entirely. They're contributing to the rapid decay & decline of the entire nation.

Like Jon said, it's the issues they focus on. Because the Rust Belt played such a big role in this election & presumably will do so in the next one, the Dems in particular are much more likely to nominate an anti-free trade candidate or have their politicians tack that way in the campaign. If Silicon Valley or the Boston tech hub were in play maybe an issue like net neutrality would have a bigger profile and force politicians to stake out a position more in-depth than "Hackers are fat and bad. Email security. CYBER!" a.k.a. I'll do whatever Comcast wants once I'm in office.

Gay marriage is another good example - >60% support it in national polls, but because it's much closer to 50/50 in toss up states like Ohio, Florida, North Carolina even liberal candidates hedge their bets instead of strongly supporting it.

This I can understand more. I was perhaps getting hung up on the "candidates will concentrate their campaigning in more populated areas" idea. Campaigning on the issues of more populated areas is a bit different, to me.

But why shouldn't the issues of more populated areas win out if there is in fact more of them overall? Here in Georgia, the less populated areas win out over more populated areas and have been for two decades now. Should we adopt some warped system to make sure that Atlanta isn't subject to the values of the rest of the state?

No, Voter Turnout Wasn’t Way Down From 2012 | FiveThirtyEight