We had 2 major candidates (Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton) who had won their party's primaries but alienated the general public.
We also had 3rd party candidates who had some appeal to those alienated voters. That would include Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Evan McMullin.
But only 1 could be the winner!
1) Winning the Electoral Vote
Hillary Clinton got the most voters, but that's not what counts in US presidential elections.
What counts is the Electoral College, in which each state gets a certain # of votes. With that, Donald Trump has won!
Presidential campaigns use strategies to win the Electoral College. They use strategies to spend the most time & money to win over states that could go either way.
So instead of campaigning in states where the Republicans are guaranteed to win (ie. Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Oklahoma etc) or where the Democrats are guaranteed to win (ie. California, New York, Hawaii, Massachussetts, etc.), the candidates spend most of their time in states that are no easy guarantees (ie. Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc)
If the US presidential elections were decided on the popular votes, the campaigns would have been run differently. Both Trump & Clinton would've spent more campaigning in New York, California, Texas or Illinois. The results would've been different.
Being that's the case, Hillary Clinton campaign failed. She knew way ahead of time that the elections are decided on the Electoral College, her campaign was structured in an attempt to win the Electoral College, and the results didn't go her way!
2) Donald Trump's victory
The Republican Party was at a crossroad.
For the last few decades, they relied on religious social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign policy hawks. The Republican Party had much success with European-Americans, not so much with non-white minorities (with the exception being Cuban-American activists who can't forgive the Democrats for not being tough enough on Fidel Castro).
With the non-white population increasing (especially the Latinos and Asians), it seemed urgent for the Republicans to do more outreach. George W. Bush was planning for a more lenient immigration policy. However, much of the European-American who traditionally supported Republicans are alienated by any talk of a lenient immigration policy.
Jeb Bush wanted to continue his brother's plan for a lenient immigration policy. Donald Trump hedged his bets on European-Americans who felt economically & physically threatened by Latino & Muslim immigrants. Donald Trump was a loudmouth who relished verbal combat. Jeb Bush was a gentle soul that didn't stand a chance.
Ted Cruz was a favorite among many social conservatives but alienated everyone else. Donald Trump wasn't anywhere close to a social conservative, but he knew that many working-class European-Americans who didn't live by social conservative values but who were alienated by any talk of diversity!
Marco Rubio was a dream candidate for those who felt Republicans need to do more outreach among Latinos and other racial minorities. However, his plan for limited amnesty for illegal immigrants alienated European-Americans who felt he was "assisting law-breakers".
The other candidates included governors (Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, John Gilmore, John Kasich) who don't excite crowds the way Donald Trump does.
Besides his anti-immigration talk, what stood out for Donald Trump was his aggressive criticism of trade deals that George Bush (the father and the son) supported. Many voters in the industrial Midwest blamed those trade deals for their job losses. Some companies moved their factories to Mexico or China. Donald Trump loudly claim that past presidents made bad deals with Mexico & China!
The industrial Midwest was long alienated from the Bushes support of those trade deals. John McCain & Mitt Romney supported those same trade deals. Obama criticized those deals and earned the Midwest votes in 2008 & 2012.
Donald Trump also appealed to the people of Appalachian region which has long been called "coal country". Many in the region were alienated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's environmental policies to reduce the use of coal, and felt that Hillary Clinton was a threat to their jobs. They also felt that the hype of solar panels wouldn't help since the solar panels would most likely be made in China
=======
With all that, Donald Trump's strategy was
- appeal to European-Americans who were afraid of Latino & Muslim immigration
- appeal to Midwest voters alienated by foreign trade deals
- appeal to coal miners who feel Obama/Hillary's environmental policies were threatening their jobs
- appeal to nervous European-American alienated by urban riots associated with African-Americans protesting police brutality
- yell "political correctness" when confronted by any criticism of his racial fears & his harsh response to female critics
- pick Mike Pence as VP to appeal to social conservatives alienated by Trump's vulgar personality & hedonistic past
All of that attracted big passionate crowds. All of that attracted supporters who were turned of by your usual boring politicians.
But many wondered if that would be effective in an era where the non-white population was growing, the younger generation was becoming more liberal, and where women were now becoming less hesitant about calling themselves "feminists"
It didn't win him the popular vote, but as I mentioned earlier, that doesnt matter. Presidents are picked by the Electoral College, and presidential campaigns are designed to win that!
Too many working-class Europeans didn't care how dangerous Donald Trump's anti-nonwhite immigration rhetoric was to many nonwhite ethnic minority! They didn't have an Instant Gag Reflex to his comments about Mexican immigrants brining drugs, crime and rape! They didn't have an Instant Gag Reflex to his comments about Syrian refugees (and Muslims in general) being a national security threat!
Many Trump supporters might insist "I'm not a racist, I'm nice to my African-American co-worker, I'm nice to that Latina who cleans up my workplace, I don't commit hate crimes" But the fact remains that they supported a man who made aggressive anti-immigration propaganda, and a man who gave moral support to white supremacist thugs who now use "Build a Wall" as a new way of saying "Go back to Mexico you f------- wetback"
Too many working-class Europeans didn't care how dangerous Donald Trump's anti-nonwhite immigration rhetoric was to many nonwhite ethnic minority! They didn't have an Instant Gag Reflex to his comments about Mexican immigrants brining drugs, crime and rape! They didn't have an Instant Gag Reflex to his comments about Syrian refugees (and Muslims in general) being a national security threat!
Many Trump supporters might insist "I'm not a racist, I'm nice to my African-American co-worker, I'm nice to that Latina who cleans up my workplace, I don't commit hate crimes" But the fact remains that they supported a man who made aggressive anti-immigration propaganda, and a man who gave moral support to white supremacist thugs who now use "Build a Wall" as a new way of saying "Go back to Mexico you f------- wetback"
But what about his opponent, Hillary Clinton?
What was it about her that lost to this racist loudmouth?
3) Hillary's loss
She started the primary campaign with name recognition, prestige and big money donors. She was the "Establishment candidate".
However, many millennial liberals felt the Establishment failed them. They are a generation that is saddled with college debt! They are the generation that felt the sting of the Recession partially caused by the banks that gave big donations to Hillary Clinton. They are a generation with strong ideals for a pacifist foreign policy whereas Hillary Clinton supported a more hawkish forcing policy. They are a generation with strong ideals on free college, and universal health care whereas they feel Hillary Clinton doesn't right hard enough for those ideals They are a generation in which LGBT rights are nothing to hesitate about, and Hillary Clinton spent a whole career being hesitant on the issue.
For that millennial liberals, Bernie Sanders was their man. He gave them everything they wanted to hear: a more pacifist foreign policy, more taxes on the wealthy, less tax breaks for the corporations, universal health care, free college education, and LGBT rights!
Bernie Sanders also appealed to the factory workers in the Northeast and Midwest who feel they are losing their jobs due to trade deals that Bill Clinton signed into law.
Bernie Sanders also appealed to the environmentalists who feel that Hillary Clinton was too compromised by her corporate connections, as well as human rights activists who feel that Hillary Clinton was too compromised by the donations by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE to her charity foundation.
However, Bernie Sanders was a "johnny come lately". He was an Independent for decades, only a recent joiner to the democratic party! He also started without much campaign funds, name recognition or media coverage.
Though he was a civil rights activist in the 1960s, he spent much of his political career in Vermont, a mostly European-American state which left him inexperienced when it comes to campaigning for votes from African-Americans & Hispanics. Whereas Hillary Clinton spent much of her political career in Arkansas and New York, and therefore had an extended network of African-American & Latino politicians and ministers. This especially helped her in getting primary votes in the South (where lot of African-Americans live) and in California/Florida/New York (where a lot of Latinos live).
Bernie Sanders campaign was savvy with social media which helped with millenials. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton had experience with traditional voter outreach which helped her with older folks(who vote more than the younger folks).
====
The primary campaign ended in June! It was too little, too late for Bernie Sanders, who was able to gain a passionate fanbase in a short amount of time!
However, when the convention happened in July, hacked emails revealed to the public exposed how the Democrat National Committee were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. This angered the Sanders supporters who felt the system was rigged against the candidate.
Also, Hillary Clinton had many other scandals.
Her use of a private email server while Secretary of State gave the impression that she had something to hide.
She wasn't forthcoming on the circumstances of the Benghazi embassy attacks made her less-than-trustworthy on national security.
Her husband Bill Clinton's sexual assault allegations, long forgotten, had now become exposed to a new generation that is now less forgiving about sexual assault allegations.
Hillary's defenders will claim all those scandals are a "smear campaign of a vast right-wing conspiracy".
But people know better. Donald Trump exploited all that! Unlike Bernie Sanders, he was willing to loudly talk about those scandals and how they make Hillary Clinton a less trustworthy leader.
=======
Hillary Clinton could've picked someone to appeal to Sander's supporters. Instead, she picked a moderate Virginia governor Tim Kaine.
In hindsight, that didn't work well, In his one chance to be heard by the general public, Tim Kaine kept interrupting Mike Pence during the VP debate. Mike Pence sounded more presidential whereas Tim Kaine sounded like a goofy know-it-all who can't pick his battles wisely.
Hillary Clinton might've been better picking a younger African-American liberal who speak across racial lines. The reason I say that is because the African-American voter turnout declined this year, and that could've made a difference in the industrial Midwest states where she lost in the Electoral College.
=================
Would Bernie Sanders beat Donald Trump?
He would've neutralized Trump on the trade issue in the industrial Midwest. He had a better chance to win there than Hillary did!
Bernie Sanders also understand that anti-gun fanaticism was poison in the Midwest as well as the more rural regions. Hillary Clinton wanted to sue gun manufacturers, Bernie Sanders didn't. Advantage to Bernie on this issue!
Bernie Sanders didn't have the email scandal, Benghazi scandal, Bill Clinton sexual assault scandal.
However, Bernie Sanders would've lost Florida, being that his past statements praising Fidel Castro alienated Cuban-Americans.
Joe Biden might also might have been a better candidate to go against Donald Trump. He was picked by Obama as VP because of his ability to communicate with working-class European-American voters. That in itself would've been an asset to win the industrial Midwest this year.
Also, Joe Biden would've been the perfect guy to go against Donald Trump, because Joe Biden relishes the verbal combat.
The "high road" doesn't work against Donald Trump.
You need a powerful take-no-crap attitude when going up against Donald Trump!
You need an "eff the pollsters, I'm going to say it" attitude when going up against Donald Trump!
Joe Biden had that important "it" to battle Donald Trump!
4) Other Voter Trends
Many thought that Donald Trump's recorded jokes about grabbing a woman's body parts, plus the sexual assault allegation would alienate women voters.
It did some.
But Donald Trump still won most of the European-American women voters.
That doesn't surprise me!
Many women love a "bad boy", as long as he's not too bad to them.
It's not just European-American women.
Go to any nightclub playing hip-hop music, many women are dancing to songs about "bitches and hos". While most people in the club are paying more attention to the beat than the lyrics, the rappers who recite those lyrics have many screaming female fans running towards them.
As for the sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump, had they come out sooner, there would've been less suspicion about the timing!
Plus, let's not forget that Hillary Clinton remained married to Bill years after all the sexual assault allegations against him became public. So Hillary Clinton was not a credible person to criticize Donald Trump on the issue! Bernie Sanders could've hit Donald Trump stronger on that issue!
Joe Biden could also make aggressive criticisms on that issue, though Donald Trump's campaigns could easily show videos of Biden giving shoulder rubs and squeezing face of female guests at functions. Granted, those videos are NOT rapes, NOR aggressive grabbing of private parts, but they would've put Joe Biden on the defensive and slowed his momentum.
Joe Biden could also make aggressive criticisms on that issue, though Donald Trump's campaigns could easily show videos of Biden giving shoulder rubs and squeezing face of female guests at functions. Granted, those videos are NOT rapes, NOR aggressive grabbing of private parts, but they would've put Joe Biden on the defensive and slowed his momentum.
====
Many expected a larger non-white voter turnout being that Donlad Trump said what he said about Mexican & Muslim immigration!
Latino & Asian voter turnout increased. Both groups had traditionally low voter turnout, so any increase would be noticeable!
The Latino vote was enough to keep Nevada & Colorado (both states won by Bush and Obama) in the Democrat column. Latino vote also made Hillary's already predicted winning margins even bigger. It did make Arizona & Texas more Democrat friendly, but it wasn't enough to overcome the traditionally strong Republican leanings of that state! Also, Donald Trump made a surprisingly good showing among Florida's Cuban-Americans who benefitted from a very lenient immigration policy that Trump didn't bother to go against.
Donald Trump did get slightly more Latino voters than Mitt Romney did in 2012. However, people forget that Romney did want a stricter immigration policy, he just said in softer tones than Trump did! Donald Trump did appeal to some American-born Latinos who resented more recent immigrants. That said both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush won a much larger level of Latino votes than Trump did!
However, the African-American vote decreased this year! Part of it was because Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot this time around. Yes, Hillary Clinton did gain support of older African-Americans living in the South, but that enthusiasm wasn't shared at the same level in other regions.
As mentioned earlier, the African-American vote went down so much in the Midwestern cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia that it made a difference between victory & defeat for Hillary Clinton for the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania!
Some African-American activists said the Democratic Party has taken the black voter for granted. It was true this year. As I mentioned, Hillary Clinton could've recruited a younger, progressive African-American politician as her VP! She probably now wish she did!
Also, Donald Trump had more African-American voters than Mitt Romney did a few years ago, His anti-immigration comments might've attracted a few African-American voters who resented Latino immigrants as "competition for jobs" as well as feared the presence of Latino gangs.
5) Third parties
Jill Stein (Green Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian), both of whom ran for president in 2012, came back with a stronger presence in 2016!
Both benefitted from their experience in previous campaigns as well as the unappealing nature of the 2 major candidates.
Gary Johnson attracted many former Republicans who are alienated by the belligerent Donald Trump, as well as some Bernie Sanders supporters alienated by Hillary Clinton's foreign policy hawkishness!
Gary Johnson emphasized his executive experience as the former governor of New Mexico. For his VP, he had Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts. This showed that the Libertarian Party candidates weren't just guys with ideas, but guys with experience, guys who were ready to take care of business! They definitely increased the Libertarian vote to 4.8%
However, there were things that could've been better for Gary Johnson. At an MSNBC interview, a reporter asked what he would do about Allepo. Gary Johnson's response "What is Allepo?" became the butt of many jokes.
When told that Allepo was a city in Syria damaged by warfare and a center of the refugee crisis, Gary Johnson did say that US intervention in foreign conflicts made things worse. He was later able to discuss details of the Syrian crisis in later interviews. But it was too late, the "what is Allepo?" became one of the biggest sounbites to go viral!
It got so bad that an Alt-Right website which came up with derogatory code words for different ethnic & political groups has adopted the term " a llepo" to insult libertarians
Gary Johnson was also asked by another MSNBC reporter to pick his favorite foreign leader, and his mind went blank. As John Stossel later said, asking a libertarian about a favorite political leader is like asking a vegan about his/her favorite steak. However, Johnson's non-answer added to the "what is Allepo?" jokes about his alleged ignorance of foreign policy.
Libertarians aren't interested in getting the US involved in foreign affairs, so that might've lead to Gary Johnson's brain-freeze on Allepo and foreign leaders. That said, many voters expect presidential candidates to be well-versed in foreign policy issues and the next Libertarian candidates will have to be well-versed too in order to avoid getting caught off-guard by reporter's questions.
Also, William Weld's statements that hinted his support Hillary Clinton's victory undermined Gary Johnson's campaign, making it sound as if there was friction between Johnson & Weld!
=============
Jill Stein also had an increase in support in 2016 versus 2012. She attracted many progressives who were alienated by Hillary Clinton's foreign policy hawkishness, corporate connections, her husband's harsh criminal justice laws, and her husband's sexual assault allegations. Many of those progressives were also angry at the Democratic National Committee favoritism towards Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the primaries.
However, I think that because Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump (and not someone less scary like Jeb Bush, John Kasich or Marco Rubio), some of the progressives pinched their noses and reluctantly voted for Hillary Clinton just to prevent immigrant-bashing, p****y grabbing Donald Trump from being president.
I think if Hillary Clinton was running against Jeb Bush (or John Kasich or Marco Rubio or anyone NOT Trump or Ted Cruz) that Jill Stein would've gotten even more votes this year!
==================
For conservative Republicans who were alienated by Donald Trump but were also uncomfortable about Gary Johnson's libertarian tendencies and foreign policy dovishness, there was Evan McMullin. He was a former CIA officer and foreign policy advisor who was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ & Latter Day Saints (LDS).
Because he wasn't attached to a political party and because he started his president campaign late, his name was on the ballot for only a few states. He did well in states with large Mormon populations (ie Utah, Idaho).
Not sure what his future would be, but he could spend the next few years building a larger political base, and attract more voters alienated by Donald Trump. He might make a bigger impact in 2020!
For more on 3rd party candidates and their voter trends
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/where-the-third-party-candidates-were-st
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/gary-johnson-jill-stein-voters-clinton
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/21/bernie-sanders-got-nearly-6-percent-of-t
Both benefitted from their experience in previous campaigns as well as the unappealing nature of the 2 major candidates.
Gary Johnson attracted many former Republicans who are alienated by the belligerent Donald Trump, as well as some Bernie Sanders supporters alienated by Hillary Clinton's foreign policy hawkishness!
Gary Johnson emphasized his executive experience as the former governor of New Mexico. For his VP, he had Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts. This showed that the Libertarian Party candidates weren't just guys with ideas, but guys with experience, guys who were ready to take care of business! They definitely increased the Libertarian vote to 4.8%
However, there were things that could've been better for Gary Johnson. At an MSNBC interview, a reporter asked what he would do about Allepo. Gary Johnson's response "What is Allepo?" became the butt of many jokes.
When told that Allepo was a city in Syria damaged by warfare and a center of the refugee crisis, Gary Johnson did say that US intervention in foreign conflicts made things worse. He was later able to discuss details of the Syrian crisis in later interviews. But it was too late, the "what is Allepo?" became one of the biggest sounbites to go viral!
It got so bad that an Alt-Right website which came up with derogatory code words for different ethnic & political groups has adopted the term " a llepo" to insult libertarians
Gary Johnson was also asked by another MSNBC reporter to pick his favorite foreign leader, and his mind went blank. As John Stossel later said, asking a libertarian about a favorite political leader is like asking a vegan about his/her favorite steak. However, Johnson's non-answer added to the "what is Allepo?" jokes about his alleged ignorance of foreign policy.
Libertarians aren't interested in getting the US involved in foreign affairs, so that might've lead to Gary Johnson's brain-freeze on Allepo and foreign leaders. That said, many voters expect presidential candidates to be well-versed in foreign policy issues and the next Libertarian candidates will have to be well-versed too in order to avoid getting caught off-guard by reporter's questions.
Also, William Weld's statements that hinted his support Hillary Clinton's victory undermined Gary Johnson's campaign, making it sound as if there was friction between Johnson & Weld!
=============
Jill Stein also had an increase in support in 2016 versus 2012. She attracted many progressives who were alienated by Hillary Clinton's foreign policy hawkishness, corporate connections, her husband's harsh criminal justice laws, and her husband's sexual assault allegations. Many of those progressives were also angry at the Democratic National Committee favoritism towards Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the primaries.
However, I think that because Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump (and not someone less scary like Jeb Bush, John Kasich or Marco Rubio), some of the progressives pinched their noses and reluctantly voted for Hillary Clinton just to prevent immigrant-bashing, p****y grabbing Donald Trump from being president.
I think if Hillary Clinton was running against Jeb Bush (or John Kasich or Marco Rubio or anyone NOT Trump or Ted Cruz) that Jill Stein would've gotten even more votes this year!
==================
For conservative Republicans who were alienated by Donald Trump but were also uncomfortable about Gary Johnson's libertarian tendencies and foreign policy dovishness, there was Evan McMullin. He was a former CIA officer and foreign policy advisor who was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ & Latter Day Saints (LDS).
Because he wasn't attached to a political party and because he started his president campaign late, his name was on the ballot for only a few states. He did well in states with large Mormon populations (ie Utah, Idaho).
Not sure what his future would be, but he could spend the next few years building a larger political base, and attract more voters alienated by Donald Trump. He might make a bigger impact in 2020!
For more on 3rd party candidates and their voter trends
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/where-the-third-party-candidates-were-st
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/gary-johnson-jill-stein-voters-clinton
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/21/bernie-sanders-got-nearly-6-percent-of-t
6) Hawaii
As usual, the Democrats gain the majority of the legislature, but this time, the Democrat NOT ONLY have a super-majority in the State Senate, they are EVERYBODY in the State Senate.
The lone Republican in the State Senate ---- Sam Slom lost to a young progressive Stanley Chang!
Sam Slom long represented East Honolulu, the most Republican section of the island.
But why did he lose to a young progressive there?
I predicted in 2013 that Sam Slom's comments in an interview with Bill O'Reilly was going to end his career.
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2013/03/sam-slom-diverse-cultures-and-sex.html
Granted, Stanley Chang didn't mention this issue in the campaign : He didn't have to!
Once Sam Slom said his comments, it became something you just can't unhear!
Once Sam Slom said his comment, he became poisonous to himself!
And the thing was that I used to respect Sam Slom. He was known as an advocate for small businesses, and he brought an entrepreneurial perspective to a state legislature filled with lawyers, union activists and semi-socialists.
All that went down the drain when Sam Slom made his comments, and he has only himself to blame.
The lone Republican in the State Senate ---- Sam Slom lost to a young progressive Stanley Chang!
Sam Slom long represented East Honolulu, the most Republican section of the island.
But why did he lose to a young progressive there?
I predicted in 2013 that Sam Slom's comments in an interview with Bill O'Reilly was going to end his career.
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2013/03/sam-slom-diverse-cultures-and-sex.html
Hawaii only has 1 Republican in its State Senate.
That would be Sam Slom!
And if after next election, there is zero Republicans in the State Senate, Sam Slom can blame ......................Sam Slom.
You see, a few days ago, Sam Slom was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News host who thinks Hawaii laws are too lenient.
(Yeah, I do think Hawaii's justice system can be too lenient on violent offenders, like I mentioned on http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-lenient-is-too-lenient.html )
Anyways, Bill O'Reilly asked Sam Slom why Hawaii's politicians refuse to pass laws with harsher sentences for sexual offenders
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2013/03/15/why-does-hawaii-oppose-jessicas-law
Here is Sam Slom's answer!SAM SLOM (R), HAWAII, STATE SENATOR: Well, aloha, Bill. The only thing I can tell you is basically what they say. And I think it's a case of misplaced compassion, compassion for perpetrators and there's also an underlying cultural problem here where some of our diverse cultures actually don't see any problem or any crime in having sexual relations with young children.You see what I highlighted in red?
And you wonder why Republicans are struggling with minority communities?You would think Sam Slom, a Hawaii senator would know better.Apparently not!
Granted, Stanley Chang didn't mention this issue in the campaign : He didn't have to!
Once Sam Slom said his comments, it became something you just can't unhear!
Once Sam Slom said his comment, he became poisonous to himself!
And the thing was that I used to respect Sam Slom. He was known as an advocate for small businesses, and he brought an entrepreneurial perspective to a state legislature filled with lawyers, union activists and semi-socialists.
All that went down the drain when Sam Slom made his comments, and he has only himself to blame.
