United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost
Source:
Tribune Washington Bureau
URL Source: http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/polit ... ly-why-clinton-lost/ar-BBAz1Gn
Published: Apr 30, 2017
Author: Tribune Washington Bureau
Post Date: 2017-04-30 19:52:30 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 814
Comments: 6
"We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead," said Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (C) at a concession speech, after being defeated by Republican presidential-elect Donald Trump A group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year's presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they're right. Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton's defeat: Her base didn't turn out, Donald Trump's did and the difference was too much to overcome. But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later. Those Obama-Trump voters effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group's analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton's failure to reach Obama's vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters. Canter and other members of Global Strategy Group have delivered a detailed report of their findings to senators, congressmen, fellow operatives and think tank wonks — all part of an effort to educate party leaders about what the data say really happened in last year's election. "We have to make sure we learn the right lesson from 2016, that we don't just draw the lesson that makes us feel good at night, make us sleep well at night," Canter said. His firm's conclusion is shared broadly by other Democrats who have examined the data, including senior members of Clinton's campaign and officials at the Democratic data and analytics firm Catalist. (The New York Times, in its own analysis, reached a similar conclusion.) Each group made its assessment by analyzing voter files –– reports that show who voted in every state, and matching them to existing data about the voters, including demographic information and voting history. The groups determined how people voted — in what amounts to the most comprehensive way to analyze the electorate short of a full census. The findings are significant for a Democratic Party, at a historic low point, that's trying to figure out how it can win back power. Much of the debate over how to proceed has centered on whether the party should try to win back working-class white voters — who make up most of the Obama-Trump voters — or focus instead on mobilizing its base. Turning out the base is not good enough, the data suggest. "This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesn't work," Canter said. "We have to do both." 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. For example, she could have won if African-American turnout in Michigan and Florida matched 2012's. They also emphasize the need for the party to continue finding ways to stoke its base. Democrats can do both, said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, a super PAC that backed Clinton last year and now is trying to help Democrats return to power. After a bitter presidential campaign, all eyes were on Hillary Clinton as she joined her husband, former President Bill Clinton, at the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2017. In the image above, Hillary Clinton shakes hands with Trump shakes hands during the Inaugural luncheon at the National Statuary Hall. "I really do believe that we should reject this idea that if we just focus on turnout and the Democratic base that that will be enough," he said. "If that really is our approach, we're going to lose six or seven Senate seats in this election. But, I also believe that just talking about persuasion means we are not capitalizing on an enormous opportunity." Priorities USA released a poll last week, conducted in part by Cantor's firm, that found the Democratic base — including voters who usually sit out midterm elections —unusually motivated to participate in the next election. The group have said 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. Still, the data say turnout was less of a problem for Clinton than defections were. Even the oft-predicted surge of new voters backing Trump was more myth than reality. Global Strategy Group's review of Ohio, with Catalist, found that Clinton won a majority of new voters in the state. (Global Strategy Group examined North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada as part of its analysis). Belief that turnout was the main reason Clinton lost, however, remains a prominent theory among Democrats. "There's an active conversation within the party about whether persuasion was the problem or turnout," said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, vice president for social policy and politics at Third Way, a center-left Democratic think tank. That debate is complicated because some Democrats think winning over voters is already a lost cause, Hatalsky said. "There's still a real concern that persuasion is harder and costs more than mobilization, so let's just triple down on getting out the people who already agree with us," she said. "And I think there's a lot of worry that we don't actually know how to persuade anymore, and so maybe we should just go talk to the people we agree with." A conversation about where Democrats go next as a party inevitably turns into a discussion about whether it should embrace a form of economic populism similar to one pushed by Sen Bernie Sanders, or move instead to the political middle. Canter argued that Trump's president's "special sauce" combines his economic populism with a political populism that vilifies both parties. But he rejected the notion that his firm's report suggests the party should pursue either direction. Rather, he said he and his partners were simply trying to explain to party leaders exactly why Clinton lost. Without understanding how the party lost, it's hard to figure out how it can win again. "We don't need to be Republican lite," Canter said. "All we're saying is this is the electoral challenge. In order to win, this is the challenge we have to solve. And there are a lot of good arguments for how we can solve it."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
I guess they can say: they are fuckedupped people.
The bruthas picked the candidate most like Obama. Trump was born and raised in the ghettos of Queens, and knows what it's like to be a pimp in NYC. The Donald has lived the the black experience, ghetto pimps for Trump! I guess they can say: they are fuckedupped people. " It is simple. The Democrats candidate was a pile of horseshit. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Could it be that..... not enough people voted for her?
Yet more people voted for hildebeest than trump.
Yet more people voted for hildebeest than trump. Trump might have won the popular vote if he campaigned in California and tried to carve some of the 2/3rds of voters that went to Clinton. But he still never would have won the whole state so he allocated resources elsewhere.
Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost
#2. To: cranky, born and raised in the ghetto (#0)
bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: buckeroo (#1)
" Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost
#4. To: cranky (#0)
Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost
#5. To: Pinguinite (#4)
Could it be that..... not enough people voted for her?
#6. To: cranky (#5)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]