Reports Are Now Coming Out Why Hillary Lost the General Election And Where We Go From Here

[lovemydogs]

This is about the reports that have come out, which all reach a similar conclusion, and not about causing anyone to get mad, fight or be upset.
I just thought that people would like to know what many Democratic political firms have been finding.
It is meant for people to take in, process and think about. Not attack each other or democratic politicians, ect.

To begin with, the argument that the base did not turn out is wrong. It was because she failed to get the support and votes from a group that voted for Obama twice. Hillary lost support with some key groups needed to win in a general election. The big problem is getting party leaders, hardcore Hillary supporters to accept the results and come to terms with why.

Hillary lost alot of Obama supporters, mainly Working Class Whites.

'Indeed, the voters who flipped from Obama to Trump in just four years have amassed 70 percent of the reason why Clinton lost the election, according to an analysis by the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. Matt Canter, the senior vice president of the firm, has delivered these reports to party operatives, congressman, senators and think-tank leaders in order to properly inform and educate the party on what exactly happened.'

Cantor also added that its important to learn lessons from the loss and not just tell ourselves things to make us feel better.

Not only did Cantor's group but, Hillary's Priorities USA and the New York Times have conducted similar studies. They all reached the same conclusion:

'Each group made its assessment by analyzing voter files, reports that show who voted in every state, and matching them to pre-existing data about the voters, including demographic information and prior vote history. Using this process, the groups have determined how people voted – in what amounts to the most comprehensive way to analyze the electorate short of a full-blown census.'

This is what happened with Working Class Whites:

'This comes at a time when one poll shows that 67 percent of the public believes that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of most people. “This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesn’t work,” Canter told McClatchy. “We have to do both.”

Clinton lost was unable to persuade working class white voters mainly because she didn’t differ from the status-quo, and Trump was a candidate that ran on abolishing the establishment class, even though he was never actually going to anyways.'

Hillary's group, Priorities also add:

' “Officials with the group have preached in recent months that Democrats can both reach out to white working-class voters and their base with a strong message rooted in economic populism,” McClatchy reported.'

They all say the biggest problem for the Democratic Party now with rebuilding is that the party is leaderless. There is no one voice to lead the party and unite it. As well as address the problems that hurt Hillary in the general.

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/01/it-was-working-class-whites-hillary-clinton-lost-a-lot-of-obama-voters-to-donald-trump-democratic-firm-says/

[Me.]

1. And Do They Ignore

The Comey letter that lost her points in a week, wikileaks, being bashed by both cons and dems alike, a constant barrage of media bias (in fact, including many, many pieces from Salon by Goodman damning her), and so on and so forth?

[lovemydogs]

4. They studied voter roles, voting patterns, ect.

[blm]

2. Crosscheck purging Dem voters in swing states HAPPENED. Increased voter restrictions in swing states

targeting Dem voters HAPPENED. Limiting access to voting machines in Dem stronghold areas HAPPENED.

A tsunami of Russia propaganda in coordination with GOP and amplified 24/7 by mainstream media HAPPENED.

The problem with Dem political 'strategists' is that there is no big paycheck for shining a light on GOP's vote suppression tactics.

[lovemydogs]

11. I am just posting about the article. Not saying it was

this or that.
I think there were alot of factors.
I do think the Russian messed with voting machines.
But, what I am posting is what the article says

[blm]

17. I know - it's the article that I am answering.

It totally ignored Crosscheck's voter roll purges in EVERY swing state.

[andym]

3. Switching of votes from Obama to Trump is not a matter of opinion, it's simple math and stats

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

They absolutely know who (by name) is registered in pretty much every district/precinct (public record) and who voted (by name), often what their party affiliation is (not always available), and they have this data historically and they know how the precinct/district voted now and in the past. That's how they can infer what happened to a large degree. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of statistics. For example, if they know a precinct has 5000 voters in 2016 and 2012 (for simplicity), and Obama won 3000 to 2000, but Trump also won 3000 to 2000 and there were only 100 voters who were new in 2016, and 100 who voted in 2012, but not in 2016, then even if you assume all 100 voter differences favored Trump, you can still state that at least 900 Obama voters must have shifted to Trump.

They can also assess quantitatively if voters were unethusiastic (did not vote) or suppressed (removed from the voter rolls).

The opinion comes in as to why it happened (Comey, misogyny, Russians vs desire for change, etc). So I take this analysis very seriously.

[lovemydogs]

6. There were a combination of things from voter mood, to

wanting a change from status quo politicians.
I know many voted to send a message.
But, I personally think Comey did alot of damage to Hillary - whether it turned the election, we will never know for sure

[andym]

10. Comey probably turned enough votes to win it for Trump

but the election should never have been so close even before. The only times the polls really reflected how things should have gone, given how bad a candidate Trump was, was directly after Access Hollywood. Why the election was so relatively close even before Comey needs to be explored.

[Eko]

5. The big question is

why does the public believe that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of most people?. One side of the democratic party believes it is because of economic reasons and the other that it is because of what And Do They Ignore said in post 1. I go with post 1.

[lovemydogs]

8. I've read alot of history about the 20th century and

the era when the democrats were strong.
Many feel the party is more interested in pleasing Silcon Valley and Wall Street professionals. Many feel the party abandoned the average person, which they traditionally were known for for decades, and the concerns of average people.
When democrats became cozy with Wall Street and embraced privatizing, school choice, ect., they felt the party left them for the professionals and well heeled. They did not speak to or about or the language of everyday people.

Some of that impression I think was because of the policy wonk answers they gave to simple questions rather then talk in plain language. That told people the party was not about the average guy.

[Eko]

13. I never trust someone

who says "Many feel" to make a point.
Here is a better link for those that want a piece not so biased. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029000498

[Eko]

7. It is a bit more nuanced than what you think.

"Democrats are quick to acknowledge that even if voters switching allegiance had been Clinton’s biggest problem, in such a close election she still could have defeated Trump with better turnout. She could have won, for instance, if African-American turnout in Michigan and Florida matched 2012 levels."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html

[lovemydogs]

9. I am just reporting the article and what it said

What the groups who did the studies had to say. It was not saying voter turn out was or was not a factor

[Eko]

12. Very first paragraph of the salon page that you linked to.

"or many Democrats, coming to terms with the unfortunate realities of the November election is still quite difficult, but new data shows that the argument many of the party’s leaders have asserted — that Hillary Clinton lost because her base didn’t turn out — doesn’t add up."
And the very first link on the salon page leads you to the McClatchy page I linked to. Obviously the Salon page is an opinion page as evidenced by the last paragraph.
"But the Democrats still have no real leader at the moment, and have not taken positions that embrace a populist economic message, or true progressive values. Their last leader Obama is instead giving a $400,000 speech to a Wall Street firm, accentuating the fact that Democratic elites continue to remain out of touch with real American voters. But polls continue to show that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is the most popular politician in the country, but many Democrats haven’t sided with Sanders’ single-payer health care system even though it resonates with the majority of Americans."
Kind of deceptive.

[David__77]

14. I think Obama voters switching to Trump wasn't the most important factor.

2012
Obama - 65,915,795
Romney - 60,933,504

Clinton - 65,853,516
Trump - 62,984,825


Clinton national popular vote lead was equal to 58% of Obama's lead in 2012. I think more important factors include decreased mobilization of those who would have voted for Clinton, and possibly increased mobilization of Trump voters, as compared with would-be Romney voters.

Anecdotally, I think I have one friend who voted for Obama in 2008, Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016, who also voted for Sanders in the primary - this is in California.

[andym]

15. Their analysis is precinct by precinct in individual states

so they both know how Democrats did better than in 2012 and worse with much more precision than just looking at the overall numbers. They can quantify mobilization of voters etc pretty well. They know in which precincts voters switched.

See my post #3 above for an explanation.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=12588

[David__77]

16. Thanks for the information!

Indeed, that is the level at which such an analysis should be conducted. Where I live, in Sacramento Country, California, I noticed how some precincts in locations that I would call "affluent" and historically Republican, voted for Clinton, and some precincts in locations that I think historically voted Democratic, voted for Trump.