Two political con men enter the 2016 Presidential Election… Sounds like an intro to a bad joke. Given the way the election ended, and as a life-long Democrat, I wish it was. However, I’d argue that one con man lost in the Democratic Primary, but still managed to break the Obama coalition, and one con man became the 45th President of the United States.
An election is a choice, and a presidential election is a choice at the state level. So, what would cause the Obama coalition to break so hard against Hillary that would result in huge vote swings, not necessarily to Trump, but to third parties and abstentions (stayed home) in MI, PA, and WI, resulting in narrow losses in each state for Obama’s hand-picked successor, and the loss of the presidency? You see out there the pundits saying that it was Comey, the Russians, Hillary, heck so many different variables who knows, stuff happens… However, it’s important to think about the Obama coalition and the choice: Obama’s handpicked successor, Hillary vs a fascist, white supremacist, Trump. That is one hellva stark choice.
Only something or someone with huge credibility could break the Obama coalition; it had to be an inside job by an outsider; it was Bernie. The way Bernie ran against Hillary Democratic primary – the unrealistic promises, questioning her qualifications, her honesty, alleging a rigged system — broke the Obama coalition. All the Bernie attacks that Trump would level against her in the general election, which given Trump, would have likely fallen on deaf ears for the Obama coalition, and largely did (remember he’s losing the popular vote by 2.8M votes). But there was one key segment of the Obama coalition that was apparently listening – young people, millennials. The manner in which Hillary treated Bernie in the primary may also have had an influence. Because she didn’t think it was necessary to disqualify him to win, she never really attacked him on some very serious weaknesses. This might have led younger, less experienced voters to believe that Bernie had no weaknesses and that she really was just relying on a rigged system to beat him – recall all those polls during the primary that showed Bernie beating Trump by greater margins than Hillary.
It’s really strange – Obama’s overall approval rating is pushing 60% and he’s wildly popular with millennials, but he couldn’t get his handpicked successor elected against Donald Trump – Trump?
There are a couple of articles that follow shaping my thinking around this. The thrust of the WAPO article is that millennials abandoned Hillary in 2016 vs. Obama in 2012 at levels that likely cost her the election. The Slate article compares turnout data from 2012 and 2016 to argue that Trump didn’t actually flip the Rust Belt 5 (IA, OH, MI, PA, and WI), but instead, Hillary lost them to third parties and abstentions (stayed home). Other than these articles I haven’t seen much about what happened to the millennial vote in these three states.
Yes, you can blame millennials for Hillary Clinton’s loss. www.washingtonpost.com/...
“4. The real story—the one the pundits missed—is that voters who fled the Democrats in the Rust Belt 5 were twice as likely either to vote for a third party or to stay at home than to embrace Trump.” www.slate.com/...
If these articles are accurate, I hope that millennials who abandoned Hillary simply thought she had it in the bag and she didn’t need their votes – youthful inexperience? This might actually be the case – voters in the 18-29 year-old demographic we not eligible to vote in 2000 – Gore vs. Bush -- 90K Nader voters in FL who couldn’t bring themselves to vote Gore, elected W., and we all know how that turned out.
And I really hope that they were not listening to the Bernie or Bust fools, Susan, Cenk, Jill, and Gary – “a Trump election will spark the real revolution” – con men and women all. Dude, the unemployment rate is 4.6%, the Republicans have unified government – even a totally unfit-for-the office President Trump – is at much better than 50% odds for reelection. We’re probably looking at 8 years of Trump, not 4.
As the DNC nears its election of a new chairman, it would be wise to beware of con men bearing unrealistic promises. There appears to be a critical segment of the Obama coalition that was, for some reason, unable to make the right moral choice between Obama’s handpicked successor and a fascist, white supremacist -- sad.