I kind of covered this tangentally in yesterday's article, but Nancy Pelosi said recently that no direction change is necessary for the democratic party and that the party needs to work on its messaging. Now, a lot of people castigated her over this already, and I can understand why, but in light of yesterday's article, I'm going to recognize that this could be interpreted in many different ways and that only some interpretations of this statement are bad.
First, the meaning many people took it as. That the democratic party is "doubling down on a failed strategy" as Jimmy Dore put it, and that they've learned nothing from their defeat. That they're already going to be pushing more Clintons in the future, and Pelosis, and Schumers, and that nothing is really going to change, then that's a problem. I'm already seeing people talking about centrists like Biden and Booker and Kaine in 2020, and I'm so enthused over these guys running I'm already considering another protest vote for the greens in 2020. The fact is, the direction the democratic party is on has been an unmitigated disaster, and the democrats seem to think running more to the right is the answer. It isn't. Again, I believe this wasn't a victory for the right. I believe it was a failure of the left. No one is inspired by people like Clinton. Well, except hardcore feminists maybe. People who showed up for Clinton voted while holding their nose for the most part. She was a very weak and uninspiring candidate. She was scandal laden and more or less forced down our throats. If this is what the dems mean, then the left, including myself, have every right to castigate them for this. It's a horrible strategy to run to the center when people are fed up and demoralized with centrists. It will just serve for future defeats because the establishment is just so clueless that they don't see the need for change.
If, however, this claim that the democrats don't need to change is based on their core values, which Pelosi implied, and that they need to focus on the details, I'm a bit more sympathetic here. I want the liberals to act like liberals. I want them to embrace their core values and not be shy in pushing them. It's possible that Clinton's approach was just bad messaging, and that Sanders represents a much better messaging of the same ideals, as well as a much more left wing approach to the same kinds of politics. If this is the kind of thing Pelosi was saying, I'm a bit more willing to work with her on that and support the democrats in future elections.
One thing is clear to me though, the democrats DO need to change in some way that involves moving to the left. Whether they mean the details of their plans or the big picture, something has to give. Their current trajectory is a death spiral.
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Monday, December 5, 2016
Are the democrats learning without actually admitting they're learning? A shift I've noticed from Hillary supporters over the past few days
I've noticed a strange approach among some democrats and Hillary supporters over the past few days, which actually seems to be an attempt to make a bridge between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters. It goes something like this." Hillary IS for the working class. The democrats ARE for the working class. We didn't abandon the working class, we're very much for them. What your concerns are over is different messaging, lack of focus, etc." I've even seen some Hillary supporters attempt to push the words "social democracy" in Hillary's way of thinking. I think that's a load of crap considering Clinton's comments about "not being Denmark, but the United States of America" as an excuse to run to the right and throw out actual social democratic ideas. Regardless, I must say, I approve of the approach. If the democrats are interested in fixing our economic system for the working class and others at the bottom, that's fine. And I approve of it. And like the article I posted above, I'm not even against trying to raise up standards for racial minorities and the like too. I just don't think that their concerns should be pursued at the exclusion of my own.
But the democrats needs to do more. They need to shift direction from the centrist "pragmatic" approach to a progressive one, and recognize, constantly, that progress is an ever changing goal, constantly moving to the left, not a stagnant one in which we stop after a president accomplishes his or her mission and that future presidents should continue that direction. Our economy is far more broken than the democrats realize it is, and we need bold solutions that rise to the times.
Clinton was a bad messenger. She wasn't the candidate of "yes we can", but "no we can't." She and the democrats dismissed the concerns of the Bernie wing of the party, ran to the center, and told us to settle for less and that we weren't being reasonable. Well, when you're buried under tens of thousands of student loan debt with no good economic prospects, don't tell me to be reasonable and suck it up and that I'm privileged. When your future looks grim and looks like it's wage slavery for the rest of your life, don't tell me to be reasonable. Don't call me privileged. Things are screwed up, white working class people have problems too, and the democrats had a serious disconnect this time around, to put it lightly, with many of their prospective voters. We told you what we wanted, and we were ignored. It's great to tell us now we're all on the same side and want the same things despite having different approaches of how to get there, but it's a little late at this point.
I appreciate the democrats' change in messaging here. It's very disarming, and it's much more likely to lead to a pleasant conversation from me about how to solve our problems than a confrontational one. But the democrats' "lack of messaging" has caused some serious rifts. It actually has pushed me to the left and made me less compromising. We do need systemic solutions to our problems. We do need to consider things like universal healthcare, and free education, and stronger labor laws, and more unions, and basic income, and workplace democracy. The democrats need to stop running to the right and selling out the left. They need to stop being apologetic for half heartedly embracing liberal values, they need to full throatedly say "this is what we stand for, and we're not sorry for doing so." The democrats need to walk the walk on top of talking the talk. They need to be receptive to their base. Not cast them aside and act like they don't give a crap what we think.
Perhaps Clinton was merely a bad messenger, and the DNC made a huge miscalculation in shoving her down our throats. Regardless, I think doing so caused a lot of damage, and I'm not sure if I can even trust them to care about my concerns at this point. I'm deeply skeptical of this organization, and believe this election has done a lot of damage to my trust in it. I don't think it's impossible to win me back, but they need to change their message, and their policies to better reflect these ideals they claim to be for.
For starters, I'll address the article I posted above to explain what I mean. here, they talk about how the democrats are for the working class, but that means that they need to pay special attention to people of color because they face special issues. They point out Newt Gingrich, and how he branded welfare as something that goes to other people and not the white working class and blah blah blah and how this poisoned the well.
Look, I totally get you here. I'm a former conservative. I grew up with this kind of messaging in my formative years. But now, I'm more educated, intelligent, and I've rejected that approach to politics. But, at the same time, the democrats did a POOR job expressing their perspective in messaging. When you use identity politics to push your ideas, the white working class doesn't hear that you care about THEM. Especially when you scream that they're bigoted and privileged when they try to tell you this. It really does set up an us vs them, and while yes, Gingrich is appealing to dog whistle politics, Clinton was appealing to the other side of the coin of that. I have nothing against policies that disproportionately help the underprivileged. But they should be inclusive and help everyone, including whites. This is why we need system wide overhauls. As long as the welfare system is a complex mess, working class whites will see themselves as paying into a system where the "others" scam the system and get crap for free. And the identity politics messaging doesn't help that. It actually hurts. What does help? Well, if we had a simplified welfare system like a basic income or equivalent negative income tax, it would be as simple as money in, money out. Even many conservative Americans like social security and medicare in my experience. Because it benefits THEM. If you have a system without labyrinthine requirements to get into it, where everyone can readily see the benefits in a check coming to them every month, or a refund when they file a tax return (in the case of an NIT), then guess what, you'll win over the white working class too. So you do need to change your message, you do need to change your policies. As long as you have a convoluted welfare system that many Americans don't see any benefit from, they will oppose it, because they see their money as going to other people and away from them. If you want a policy most will get behind, it has to be framed in universal terms, aka, the Sanders school of progressivism that requires overhauling the entire system. I'm a former conservative, I know how they think. I know most of them aren't ideologues and just vote in how they perceive their best interests. This is why Trump beat 16 other conservative purist candidates. They weren't interested in ideological purity, but problem solving. That's why they voted for the guy who wanted to "make America great again." If you can convince them that left wing politics are in their interest, and they will benefit from it, which is where the Clinton school of incrementalism fails miserably, then people will be on board with it. This is why I changed my ideology around 2012. I realized in the midst of the recession, holy crap, the government isn't taking tax dollars to give to others with no benefit to me, it actually helps people like me! And I want more of that in our society. We can engineer away poverty if we really really wanted to. We just choose not to. And the Clinton approach of incremental change is in part responsible for that.
Beyond that, another thing I want to emphasize in this article:
But yeah, conclusion. My conclusion is this. I approve of this subtle shift in messaging to try to convince people that the dems really are for the working class and blah blah blah. But honestly, they need to do more. They need to walk the walk. They need to push policies and change their messaging to actually fulfill our actual needs of the people. And this requires systemic change and an overhaul of our institutions, not mere incremental change and pragmatism. We need to fully embrace progressive values, not act apologetic for doing it. And we need the democrats constantly out there trying to connect with people, not telling them screw you like they did this year. Even if we can't pass all of our ideas given a conservative congress, we should still be raising awareness of these ideas among the American public and trying to build support so we CAN pass them. The democrats lose because they fail to do this and as such, end up in a death spiral. They lack morale, they don't do anything because of lack of morale, they lack morale because they don't do anything to build morale, and then they lose because they lack morale. This is why the democrats self destructed in 2014 and 2016. You have to look like you're trying to do something. Just like FDR did. Otherwise people will lose their will to vote for you, and then you'll lose. So yeah, a messaging overhaul is necessary, but so is a change in direction in policy. I like the fact that the democrats seem slightly more receptive now, even if they won't admit they did wrong, but a lot of work must still be done. Hopefully, they'll "get it" by the 2018 mid terms and the 2020 presidential election (the big year we NEED to win).
But the democrats needs to do more. They need to shift direction from the centrist "pragmatic" approach to a progressive one, and recognize, constantly, that progress is an ever changing goal, constantly moving to the left, not a stagnant one in which we stop after a president accomplishes his or her mission and that future presidents should continue that direction. Our economy is far more broken than the democrats realize it is, and we need bold solutions that rise to the times.
Clinton was a bad messenger. She wasn't the candidate of "yes we can", but "no we can't." She and the democrats dismissed the concerns of the Bernie wing of the party, ran to the center, and told us to settle for less and that we weren't being reasonable. Well, when you're buried under tens of thousands of student loan debt with no good economic prospects, don't tell me to be reasonable and suck it up and that I'm privileged. When your future looks grim and looks like it's wage slavery for the rest of your life, don't tell me to be reasonable. Don't call me privileged. Things are screwed up, white working class people have problems too, and the democrats had a serious disconnect this time around, to put it lightly, with many of their prospective voters. We told you what we wanted, and we were ignored. It's great to tell us now we're all on the same side and want the same things despite having different approaches of how to get there, but it's a little late at this point.
I appreciate the democrats' change in messaging here. It's very disarming, and it's much more likely to lead to a pleasant conversation from me about how to solve our problems than a confrontational one. But the democrats' "lack of messaging" has caused some serious rifts. It actually has pushed me to the left and made me less compromising. We do need systemic solutions to our problems. We do need to consider things like universal healthcare, and free education, and stronger labor laws, and more unions, and basic income, and workplace democracy. The democrats need to stop running to the right and selling out the left. They need to stop being apologetic for half heartedly embracing liberal values, they need to full throatedly say "this is what we stand for, and we're not sorry for doing so." The democrats need to walk the walk on top of talking the talk. They need to be receptive to their base. Not cast them aside and act like they don't give a crap what we think.
Perhaps Clinton was merely a bad messenger, and the DNC made a huge miscalculation in shoving her down our throats. Regardless, I think doing so caused a lot of damage, and I'm not sure if I can even trust them to care about my concerns at this point. I'm deeply skeptical of this organization, and believe this election has done a lot of damage to my trust in it. I don't think it's impossible to win me back, but they need to change their message, and their policies to better reflect these ideals they claim to be for.
For starters, I'll address the article I posted above to explain what I mean. here, they talk about how the democrats are for the working class, but that means that they need to pay special attention to people of color because they face special issues. They point out Newt Gingrich, and how he branded welfare as something that goes to other people and not the white working class and blah blah blah and how this poisoned the well.
Look, I totally get you here. I'm a former conservative. I grew up with this kind of messaging in my formative years. But now, I'm more educated, intelligent, and I've rejected that approach to politics. But, at the same time, the democrats did a POOR job expressing their perspective in messaging. When you use identity politics to push your ideas, the white working class doesn't hear that you care about THEM. Especially when you scream that they're bigoted and privileged when they try to tell you this. It really does set up an us vs them, and while yes, Gingrich is appealing to dog whistle politics, Clinton was appealing to the other side of the coin of that. I have nothing against policies that disproportionately help the underprivileged. But they should be inclusive and help everyone, including whites. This is why we need system wide overhauls. As long as the welfare system is a complex mess, working class whites will see themselves as paying into a system where the "others" scam the system and get crap for free. And the identity politics messaging doesn't help that. It actually hurts. What does help? Well, if we had a simplified welfare system like a basic income or equivalent negative income tax, it would be as simple as money in, money out. Even many conservative Americans like social security and medicare in my experience. Because it benefits THEM. If you have a system without labyrinthine requirements to get into it, where everyone can readily see the benefits in a check coming to them every month, or a refund when they file a tax return (in the case of an NIT), then guess what, you'll win over the white working class too. So you do need to change your message, you do need to change your policies. As long as you have a convoluted welfare system that many Americans don't see any benefit from, they will oppose it, because they see their money as going to other people and away from them. If you want a policy most will get behind, it has to be framed in universal terms, aka, the Sanders school of progressivism that requires overhauling the entire system. I'm a former conservative, I know how they think. I know most of them aren't ideologues and just vote in how they perceive their best interests. This is why Trump beat 16 other conservative purist candidates. They weren't interested in ideological purity, but problem solving. That's why they voted for the guy who wanted to "make America great again." If you can convince them that left wing politics are in their interest, and they will benefit from it, which is where the Clinton school of incrementalism fails miserably, then people will be on board with it. This is why I changed my ideology around 2012. I realized in the midst of the recession, holy crap, the government isn't taking tax dollars to give to others with no benefit to me, it actually helps people like me! And I want more of that in our society. We can engineer away poverty if we really really wanted to. We just choose not to. And the Clinton approach of incremental change is in part responsible for that.
Beyond that, another thing I want to emphasize in this article:
"But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost." (emphasis mine)Okay, this is one area I CAN'T speak for the rest of Americans, since I know my views are unpopular, but look at what I highlighted and bolded. Particularly the "dignity of work" part. To me, I find this whole obsession with the dignity of work creepy. It reads to me like "arbeit macht frei", you know, what they had on the entrances of the concentration camps (means "work makes you free."). This is the kind of packaging I expect from conservative purists like Paul Ryan. Look. Creating jobs in and of itself isn't a bad thing. But look at my post on the labor market I wrote as one of my first posts ever. Jobs will NEVER EVER be enough, nor should they be. To me, at least, in my more anti-work left approach to politics, this kind of phrasing if offputting, and it's a reason why I tend to dislike the democrat's messaging. Admittedly, even Sanders' policies are work oriented, and I admit I'm jumping the gun before we even get to the point we can adequately debate this openly in society before committing political suicide, but honestly, we will never ever ever fix the problems of our society through work. Creating work for the purpose of making paychecks is asinine to me, and honestly, considering how our economy works, there will never ever be enough jobs, that pay highly enough, and give people a sense of meaning or transcendent purpose that makes them LIKE doing them or WANT to do thing. Our system, at its core structure, will always ensure poverty, exploitation, and unemployment, unless we try to fix these problems directly through other means. We're merely talking about creating opportunities to people to slave their lives away so we can justify paying them and not letting them starve to death. It's a stupid and asinine idea. Jobs should exist because people want work done, we shouldn't talk about creating them for the sake of justifying the idea of giving people a paycheck. This is stupid. I was listening to Jimmy Dore recently and he pointed out about how some people don't want to cut the military industrial complex so we stop bombing brown people because it will kill jobs. Really?! That's your argument (for the record he was on the same page as me here)? I mean, the emperor made unemployment on the death star zero percent, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. The fact is, make work is stupid, and dignifying it is even stupider. This is another aspect in which the democratic message fails to grip me, although honestly I can compromise on this given the reality of politics in 2016. Still. I would like to see adequate progress made where we can message the kinds of ideals I hold in the future without being laughed out of politics for it. Because considering future technological employment, and just how stupid the concept is when you think about it, I think eventually liberating people from work is a good thing. We shouldn't be creating jobs for the sake of giving people checks and talking about how dignified it is. This is a bad message for me. A necessary evil of the times perhaps, but still not something that gets me enthused. I understand I may be thinking several decades ahead of my time though here.
But yeah, conclusion. My conclusion is this. I approve of this subtle shift in messaging to try to convince people that the dems really are for the working class and blah blah blah. But honestly, they need to do more. They need to walk the walk. They need to push policies and change their messaging to actually fulfill our actual needs of the people. And this requires systemic change and an overhaul of our institutions, not mere incremental change and pragmatism. We need to fully embrace progressive values, not act apologetic for doing it. And we need the democrats constantly out there trying to connect with people, not telling them screw you like they did this year. Even if we can't pass all of our ideas given a conservative congress, we should still be raising awareness of these ideas among the American public and trying to build support so we CAN pass them. The democrats lose because they fail to do this and as such, end up in a death spiral. They lack morale, they don't do anything because of lack of morale, they lack morale because they don't do anything to build morale, and then they lose because they lack morale. This is why the democrats self destructed in 2014 and 2016. You have to look like you're trying to do something. Just like FDR did. Otherwise people will lose their will to vote for you, and then you'll lose. So yeah, a messaging overhaul is necessary, but so is a change in direction in policy. I like the fact that the democrats seem slightly more receptive now, even if they won't admit they did wrong, but a lot of work must still be done. Hopefully, they'll "get it" by the 2018 mid terms and the 2020 presidential election (the big year we NEED to win).
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Freaking finally: Obama stops DAPL
Not going to write something long on this subject since I already discussed it, I just wanted to post an update on it. They're stopping it. It's done. Obama finally did something about this. I wish he would've done it a month ago but better late than never.
Vote count update
Okay, well, I officially lost all rights to say that Clinton got a significantly fewer amount of votes than Obama did in 2012. Apparently that 60 million figure was more or a preliminary count and now Clinton is at 65 million votes and Trump at 62 million votes. Despite losing the popular vote by around 2.5 million votes, Trump still won because of the electoral college.
I also want to look at what happened in the rust belt again vs. 2012, because my last analysis showed that voters didn't show up. But if there are more votes in, the picture might change.
Michigan
Clinton net votes vs. 2012: -295,730
Trump net votes vs. 2012: +164,287
Total net vote difference (including third parties): +68,323
Ohio
Clinton net votes vs. 2012: -433,457
Trump net votes vs. 2012: +179,598
Total net vote difference (including third parties): -84,353
Pennsylvania
Clinton net votes vs. 2012: -75,852
Trump net votes vs. 2012: +280,753
Total net vote difference (including third parties): +336,634
Wisconsin
Clinton net votes vs. 2012: -239,162
Trump net votes vs. 2012: +3,966
Total net vote difference (including third parties): -93,121
Updated opinion
All in all, my opinion is weakened, but I still ultimately see the election in a similar way. In three of the four states I looked at, all of which Obama won in 2012, Clinton's losses far exceeded Trump's gains. People stayed home or voted third party. The democrats had nothing to offer the rust belt. In Pennsylvania, we saw a general shift to Trump from Clinton. Voter turnout increased, and this favored Trump. On the country level, if we had a popular vote, we can now say that people did come out for Clinton and would have won, but as far as the electoral college goes, she lost miserably in the mid west.
I also want to look at what happened in the rust belt again vs. 2012, because my last analysis showed that voters didn't show up. But if there are more votes in, the picture might change.
Michigan
Clinton net votes vs. 2012: -295,730
Trump net votes vs. 2012: +164,287
Total net vote difference (including third parties): +68,323
Ohio
Clinton net votes vs. 2012: -433,457
Trump net votes vs. 2012: +179,598
Total net vote difference (including third parties): -84,353
Pennsylvania
Clinton net votes vs. 2012: -75,852
Trump net votes vs. 2012: +280,753
Total net vote difference (including third parties): +336,634
Wisconsin
Clinton net votes vs. 2012: -239,162
Trump net votes vs. 2012: +3,966
Total net vote difference (including third parties): -93,121
Updated opinion
All in all, my opinion is weakened, but I still ultimately see the election in a similar way. In three of the four states I looked at, all of which Obama won in 2012, Clinton's losses far exceeded Trump's gains. People stayed home or voted third party. The democrats had nothing to offer the rust belt. In Pennsylvania, we saw a general shift to Trump from Clinton. Voter turnout increased, and this favored Trump. On the country level, if we had a popular vote, we can now say that people did come out for Clinton and would have won, but as far as the electoral college goes, she lost miserably in the mid west.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
What lessons can be learned from McGovern's defeat in 1972? Not the ones establishment democrats think...
So, in discussing my far left ideas with Hillbots, I run into a lot of revisionist history. A big reason I hear democrats can't move left is because George McGovern was too far left and that's why he lost. This is normally an argument for why we can't have Sanders because if he ran he would be the next McGovern. As such, I thought I should set the record straight and argue why this is false.
First of all, 1972 was 44 years ago. The political climate of the time means absolutely nothing in relation to the climate today. You know who became president 44 years before 1972? Herbert Hoover, who was elected in 1928. We didn't even have the great depression or the new deal yet. The gilded age was still in full swing. Imagine if, in the 1970s the republicans argued we couldn't move to far right because Hoover was far to the right? Does that make sense? Because it didn't stop Reagan from rising to prominence in the primary in 1976, or from winning in 1980. Political paradigms shift, and as I've been saying, I believe we are undergoing a party realignment that is, in essence, a reverse of the one that happened back in the 1970s when McGovern lost. So, what relevance does McGovern have on today's political discourse? It should be nothing. A different age, with a different electorate. The youngest people who could even vote for McGovern in 1972 were baby boomers born in the 50s. So people who are 60+ years old today are the YOUNGEST people to vote for McGovern. The country has moved on, there are people today who are grandparents (assuming they had their children young) who weren't even born when McGovern ran for office.
And beyond that, let's look at his campaign itself, starting with his controversial left wing positions. Yes, on economics the guy was basically a basic income supporter like me, but reading the synopsis on his election, I don't get the impression this is what cost him the election. His controversial positions were essentially based around the three As: "amnesty, abortion, and acid." In short, the guy wanted amnesty for draft dodgers from the Vietnam war, which was controversial at the time. He was very anti war to a fault. Yes, the war was controversial at the time, but that is like settled history today. And today, democrats actually favor anti war candidates I think. Obama ran on getting out of Iraq for crying out loud. Would Sanders really be too dovish in the 2016 democratic party today? Probably not. McGovern was for abortion, in an era before Roe v. Wade was decided. This has no relevance on 2016, when abortion is front and center for democrats these days, including Clinton, Obama, and every other democratic politician worth their salt. And "acid" actually referred to wanting to legalize marijuana...something some states are doing, and which I think we will see happen in the coming decades.
What's mysteriously missing from criticisms of McGovern? Economics. Yes, his ideas weren't popular in the face of a booming Nixon economy, but there wasn't a massive outcry about McGovern's basic income ideas. Nixon also wanted a form of basic income in his family assistance plan! The major outcry McGovern faced was over social issues. He was anti war, he was for legalization of marijuana and abortion. I think these positions are right at home in the modern democratic party. I mean these are the kinds of things the Obama coalition came out in support of Obama for. Not marijuana so much, but ending the Iraq War and protecting the right to choose. And democrats tend to get criticized by their base when they start acting like neocons. This is why they lost in part. A wave of enthusiasm came out in response to ending Bush's policies, and one criticism of Obama and Clinton are their continuation of these policies. As such, I think not being McGovern like enough is actually a reason the democrats lose elections these days. The democrats should take some pages from McGovern's platform if they want to win in these changing times.
But wait, McGovern's failures go on beyond his positions. His campaign was an unmitigated disaster on so many levels. He picked a vice president who was undergoing electroshock therapy for depression. This was controversial and hurt his chances a lot. And another big thing that happened, and this is what's REALLY relevant to the 2016 election, is that the establishment had a fit. The democratic establishment didn't like too much democracy in the democratic party. McGovern was basically Bernie Sanders. He was a grass roots inspired peoples' candidate who won the democratic party's primary because he was popular. But this didn't sit well with the establishment class and the donors, who were marginalized at the convention. They lost their power, their clout. So Jimmy Carter, you know, the guy who won in 1976 and imploded the democratic party in his 4 years, led a "stop McGovern" movement at the convention to try to strong arm the delegates into supporting someone other than McGovern. Yes, the democratic establishment, unhappy with the electorate's decision to choose McGovern because they lost their power in the process, basically sabotaged McGovern in their party's convention that year. In the end though, McGovern came out on top.
No one wanted to serve as his vice president. He wanted Ted Kennedy, but he refused along with like a dozen other high profile people, so he ended up with Tom Eagleton, who, as I said above, was under treatment for depression, and this was controversial and hurt his campaign.
After the convention, the establishment wanted nothing to do with his campaign, and many of them started actively supporting Richard Nixon. He didn't do well against Nixon because his anti war policies were too radical for many Americans. Nixon had a more pragmatic approach to ending the war, and that ultimately won out. Combine that with the southern strategy and breaking into the Watergate complex, and McGovern never really had a chance. Not to mention in the final days of the campaign he told a reporter to "kiss his ***", which obviously didn't go over very well.
In the general election, he lost by a landslide. This was in part because Nixon winning a second term was more or less inevitable (he was popular and the party realignment away from the democrats and toward the republicans was in full swing), in part because his social policies were radical for many Americans, and in part because his own establishment turned on him and basically sabotaged him. From here the democratic party moved to the right and the neoliberal branding we see now started to be born, and they then blamed every defeat they had from there on out on the left and used them as an excuse to move further and further to the right.
Speaking of the establishment, do you wonder why the democrats have superdelegates? Well, 1972 was one of the reasons why. After getting their butt kicked for most of the 70s, the democrats decided in 1981, gee, we keep losing because we give the people too much power in choosing the party's nominee. We need to stop that, so let's implement superdelegates so the establishment has more control over the party! So, basically, the democratic establishment not only sabotaged their own party, but in response to their own defeats, blamed the voters (sound familiar?) and changed the rules to ensure the the "right" people had more power to make all the decisions and override the will of the people when necessary. And that's how we got the cluster**** that we ended up with today. And they still lost, outside of Bill Clinton and Obama.
So what can we learn from this?
Well, the democratic establishment clearly has a case of revisionist history here. And quite frankly, I think they're full of crap and need to shut up already. Yes, McGovern was too far left in some ways, but you need to understand the context of the times. The democratic party was falling apart after 1968, and there was an increased demand for right wing politics not seen since before FDR (remember when I made that comparison to Hoover earlier in the thread? and how appealing to someone who ran 44 years ago isn't relevant?). And America was very socially conservative back then. A radical anti war person who wanted people to be able to smoke pot and get abortions went over like a led balloon with the socially conservative populace. But notice how his economic policies, the part of his platform Sanders gets flak for, had little to do with his defeat. It was a different time. Both parties were debating basic income in the early 70s, and they both undermined each other on the issue and nothing got done. The real problems with McGovern's platform aren't that radical by today's party's standards. Being anti war is seen as a plus, and is arguably what propelled Obama to office. People didn't want to stay in Iraq. They wanted out. McCain was talking of being there for 100 years and we didn't want anything to do with that. If you aren't pro choice as a democrat these days you're probably not going to be very popular. And marijuana, while controversial, is supported by some democrats. I think many of us are willing to admit that the war on drugs is a failure.
The real lesson to learn is for us lefties. Never underestimate how badly the democrats can screw up and then blame their voters. I admit, in 1972 the democrats probably didn't have a chance. People liked Nixon. The democratic party was in shambles. And it was shambles long after they implemented superdelegates to ensure they control the party too. But the democratic establishment had a hissy fit because they didn't control the show, so they did everything they could to sabotage McGovern. They tried to stop his nomination at the convention, and then the high profile figures who could have added something to the ticket refused to turn out for him. The democratic party did to McGovern more or less something similar to what they did to Sanders, except in 1972, the "Sanders" figure won. Next time some establishment shill brings up McGovern, make sure you shove that in their face. That they sabotaged their own candidate and then, in the long term, blamed the voters for it. Even though that didn't work out for them either.
I mean, think about it. Did Mondale win? No. Did Dukakis win? No. Clinton won by running to the center, sure, and Hillary Clinton seemed to try to cash in on her husband's legacy here. But that seemed to be a one time thing in a long history of failures. I mean Gore and Kerry did the same thing and it didn't work out for them. The democrats didn't win again until 2008 when we finally got a charismatic candidate the people could get behind. Gee, imagine that. They won because a candidate actually appealed to their voters. And as someone who spent the first 2 years of his presidency demonizing him, let me just say how controversial he was at the time. The dude had little experience, and he came off as very far left. Many people legitimately saw Obama as a threat to the American way of life. He was, by any measure, "too far left". But he WON. TWICE. And people loved him, until they got fed up with him being a doormat to the republicans, which is where we are now.
Charisma wins elections. Having a message that resonates wins elections. It wasn't that the people had too much power, and it wasn't (too much, at least after Bill Clinton) that the party had to move to the right. This election should show the opposite, that people hate how oligarchical that the democratic party has become, and how it doesn't serve our interests. And you know what? Many of us stayed home or voted third party. But back to the past. The democratic losing streak continued for a whole decade after they implemented superdelegates, and they lost about half the elections since 1992, so even WITH the establishment in charge, the democratic party didn't fare any better.
The democrats acting this way is why we can't have nice things. The democratic establishment has to do things their way, or we get nothing at all. It's always the voters' fault, never their fault. The big message of McGovern seems to be this: the democratic establishment treats their voters with contempt. And this isn't new. This is actually a process that's been going on for decades. The democrats blamed their voters back in the 70s for giving us McGovern. As if it's our fault he lost when they outright sabotaged him, and Nixon winning a second term was inevitable anyway. And then they blamed us for 2000, when Gore lost. And now they're trying to blame us again.
This history lesson really makes me think the democrats don't want to learn. That they are corrupt. That they will sink their own party if they don't get their way. They can't have a peoples' candidate. They have complete and utter contempt for their voters. And this is one of the reasons why they lose. They try to pin it on us, but it's really on them. So no, the lessons we should be drawing from 1972 aren't the lessons aren't the lessons the democratic party framed it as. It wasn't that he was too far left on economics. If he was too far left on anything it was social issues, which are far less controversial today. When the democrats tell us we can't run a far left candidate, they're not really saying it for electability reasons. They're actually saying "we won't run a far left candidate and if you try we'll sabotage him, so sit down, shut up, and settle for what we are willing to give you, or else." They're basically using McGovern as an excuse to tell you that you can't have someone to the left of them, when in reality, they won't LET you have anyone to the left of them. Don't give in, guys. We need to reform the democratic party to be a party for the people again, or the democratic party needs to be replaced with a party that actually does care about their voters.
First of all, 1972 was 44 years ago. The political climate of the time means absolutely nothing in relation to the climate today. You know who became president 44 years before 1972? Herbert Hoover, who was elected in 1928. We didn't even have the great depression or the new deal yet. The gilded age was still in full swing. Imagine if, in the 1970s the republicans argued we couldn't move to far right because Hoover was far to the right? Does that make sense? Because it didn't stop Reagan from rising to prominence in the primary in 1976, or from winning in 1980. Political paradigms shift, and as I've been saying, I believe we are undergoing a party realignment that is, in essence, a reverse of the one that happened back in the 1970s when McGovern lost. So, what relevance does McGovern have on today's political discourse? It should be nothing. A different age, with a different electorate. The youngest people who could even vote for McGovern in 1972 were baby boomers born in the 50s. So people who are 60+ years old today are the YOUNGEST people to vote for McGovern. The country has moved on, there are people today who are grandparents (assuming they had their children young) who weren't even born when McGovern ran for office.
And beyond that, let's look at his campaign itself, starting with his controversial left wing positions. Yes, on economics the guy was basically a basic income supporter like me, but reading the synopsis on his election, I don't get the impression this is what cost him the election. His controversial positions were essentially based around the three As: "amnesty, abortion, and acid." In short, the guy wanted amnesty for draft dodgers from the Vietnam war, which was controversial at the time. He was very anti war to a fault. Yes, the war was controversial at the time, but that is like settled history today. And today, democrats actually favor anti war candidates I think. Obama ran on getting out of Iraq for crying out loud. Would Sanders really be too dovish in the 2016 democratic party today? Probably not. McGovern was for abortion, in an era before Roe v. Wade was decided. This has no relevance on 2016, when abortion is front and center for democrats these days, including Clinton, Obama, and every other democratic politician worth their salt. And "acid" actually referred to wanting to legalize marijuana...something some states are doing, and which I think we will see happen in the coming decades.
What's mysteriously missing from criticisms of McGovern? Economics. Yes, his ideas weren't popular in the face of a booming Nixon economy, but there wasn't a massive outcry about McGovern's basic income ideas. Nixon also wanted a form of basic income in his family assistance plan! The major outcry McGovern faced was over social issues. He was anti war, he was for legalization of marijuana and abortion. I think these positions are right at home in the modern democratic party. I mean these are the kinds of things the Obama coalition came out in support of Obama for. Not marijuana so much, but ending the Iraq War and protecting the right to choose. And democrats tend to get criticized by their base when they start acting like neocons. This is why they lost in part. A wave of enthusiasm came out in response to ending Bush's policies, and one criticism of Obama and Clinton are their continuation of these policies. As such, I think not being McGovern like enough is actually a reason the democrats lose elections these days. The democrats should take some pages from McGovern's platform if they want to win in these changing times.
But wait, McGovern's failures go on beyond his positions. His campaign was an unmitigated disaster on so many levels. He picked a vice president who was undergoing electroshock therapy for depression. This was controversial and hurt his chances a lot. And another big thing that happened, and this is what's REALLY relevant to the 2016 election, is that the establishment had a fit. The democratic establishment didn't like too much democracy in the democratic party. McGovern was basically Bernie Sanders. He was a grass roots inspired peoples' candidate who won the democratic party's primary because he was popular. But this didn't sit well with the establishment class and the donors, who were marginalized at the convention. They lost their power, their clout. So Jimmy Carter, you know, the guy who won in 1976 and imploded the democratic party in his 4 years, led a "stop McGovern" movement at the convention to try to strong arm the delegates into supporting someone other than McGovern. Yes, the democratic establishment, unhappy with the electorate's decision to choose McGovern because they lost their power in the process, basically sabotaged McGovern in their party's convention that year. In the end though, McGovern came out on top.
No one wanted to serve as his vice president. He wanted Ted Kennedy, but he refused along with like a dozen other high profile people, so he ended up with Tom Eagleton, who, as I said above, was under treatment for depression, and this was controversial and hurt his campaign.
After the convention, the establishment wanted nothing to do with his campaign, and many of them started actively supporting Richard Nixon. He didn't do well against Nixon because his anti war policies were too radical for many Americans. Nixon had a more pragmatic approach to ending the war, and that ultimately won out. Combine that with the southern strategy and breaking into the Watergate complex, and McGovern never really had a chance. Not to mention in the final days of the campaign he told a reporter to "kiss his ***", which obviously didn't go over very well.
In the general election, he lost by a landslide. This was in part because Nixon winning a second term was more or less inevitable (he was popular and the party realignment away from the democrats and toward the republicans was in full swing), in part because his social policies were radical for many Americans, and in part because his own establishment turned on him and basically sabotaged him. From here the democratic party moved to the right and the neoliberal branding we see now started to be born, and they then blamed every defeat they had from there on out on the left and used them as an excuse to move further and further to the right.
Speaking of the establishment, do you wonder why the democrats have superdelegates? Well, 1972 was one of the reasons why. After getting their butt kicked for most of the 70s, the democrats decided in 1981, gee, we keep losing because we give the people too much power in choosing the party's nominee. We need to stop that, so let's implement superdelegates so the establishment has more control over the party! So, basically, the democratic establishment not only sabotaged their own party, but in response to their own defeats, blamed the voters (sound familiar?) and changed the rules to ensure the the "right" people had more power to make all the decisions and override the will of the people when necessary. And that's how we got the cluster**** that we ended up with today. And they still lost, outside of Bill Clinton and Obama.
So what can we learn from this?
Well, the democratic establishment clearly has a case of revisionist history here. And quite frankly, I think they're full of crap and need to shut up already. Yes, McGovern was too far left in some ways, but you need to understand the context of the times. The democratic party was falling apart after 1968, and there was an increased demand for right wing politics not seen since before FDR (remember when I made that comparison to Hoover earlier in the thread? and how appealing to someone who ran 44 years ago isn't relevant?). And America was very socially conservative back then. A radical anti war person who wanted people to be able to smoke pot and get abortions went over like a led balloon with the socially conservative populace. But notice how his economic policies, the part of his platform Sanders gets flak for, had little to do with his defeat. It was a different time. Both parties were debating basic income in the early 70s, and they both undermined each other on the issue and nothing got done. The real problems with McGovern's platform aren't that radical by today's party's standards. Being anti war is seen as a plus, and is arguably what propelled Obama to office. People didn't want to stay in Iraq. They wanted out. McCain was talking of being there for 100 years and we didn't want anything to do with that. If you aren't pro choice as a democrat these days you're probably not going to be very popular. And marijuana, while controversial, is supported by some democrats. I think many of us are willing to admit that the war on drugs is a failure.
The real lesson to learn is for us lefties. Never underestimate how badly the democrats can screw up and then blame their voters. I admit, in 1972 the democrats probably didn't have a chance. People liked Nixon. The democratic party was in shambles. And it was shambles long after they implemented superdelegates to ensure they control the party too. But the democratic establishment had a hissy fit because they didn't control the show, so they did everything they could to sabotage McGovern. They tried to stop his nomination at the convention, and then the high profile figures who could have added something to the ticket refused to turn out for him. The democratic party did to McGovern more or less something similar to what they did to Sanders, except in 1972, the "Sanders" figure won. Next time some establishment shill brings up McGovern, make sure you shove that in their face. That they sabotaged their own candidate and then, in the long term, blamed the voters for it. Even though that didn't work out for them either.
I mean, think about it. Did Mondale win? No. Did Dukakis win? No. Clinton won by running to the center, sure, and Hillary Clinton seemed to try to cash in on her husband's legacy here. But that seemed to be a one time thing in a long history of failures. I mean Gore and Kerry did the same thing and it didn't work out for them. The democrats didn't win again until 2008 when we finally got a charismatic candidate the people could get behind. Gee, imagine that. They won because a candidate actually appealed to their voters. And as someone who spent the first 2 years of his presidency demonizing him, let me just say how controversial he was at the time. The dude had little experience, and he came off as very far left. Many people legitimately saw Obama as a threat to the American way of life. He was, by any measure, "too far left". But he WON. TWICE. And people loved him, until they got fed up with him being a doormat to the republicans, which is where we are now.
Charisma wins elections. Having a message that resonates wins elections. It wasn't that the people had too much power, and it wasn't (too much, at least after Bill Clinton) that the party had to move to the right. This election should show the opposite, that people hate how oligarchical that the democratic party has become, and how it doesn't serve our interests. And you know what? Many of us stayed home or voted third party. But back to the past. The democratic losing streak continued for a whole decade after they implemented superdelegates, and they lost about half the elections since 1992, so even WITH the establishment in charge, the democratic party didn't fare any better.
The democrats acting this way is why we can't have nice things. The democratic establishment has to do things their way, or we get nothing at all. It's always the voters' fault, never their fault. The big message of McGovern seems to be this: the democratic establishment treats their voters with contempt. And this isn't new. This is actually a process that's been going on for decades. The democrats blamed their voters back in the 70s for giving us McGovern. As if it's our fault he lost when they outright sabotaged him, and Nixon winning a second term was inevitable anyway. And then they blamed us for 2000, when Gore lost. And now they're trying to blame us again.
This history lesson really makes me think the democrats don't want to learn. That they are corrupt. That they will sink their own party if they don't get their way. They can't have a peoples' candidate. They have complete and utter contempt for their voters. And this is one of the reasons why they lose. They try to pin it on us, but it's really on them. So no, the lessons we should be drawing from 1972 aren't the lessons aren't the lessons the democratic party framed it as. It wasn't that he was too far left on economics. If he was too far left on anything it was social issues, which are far less controversial today. When the democrats tell us we can't run a far left candidate, they're not really saying it for electability reasons. They're actually saying "we won't run a far left candidate and if you try we'll sabotage him, so sit down, shut up, and settle for what we are willing to give you, or else." They're basically using McGovern as an excuse to tell you that you can't have someone to the left of them, when in reality, they won't LET you have anyone to the left of them. Don't give in, guys. We need to reform the democratic party to be a party for the people again, or the democratic party needs to be replaced with a party that actually does care about their voters.
Friday, December 2, 2016
Looking at the sun belt strategy mentioned in another article
Earlier this week, I condemned a strategy some establishment democrats were proposing which would involve abandoning the rust belt (in part) to the republican party, while attempting to secure parts of the south for the democrats. I didn't like this idea since it seemed like an establishment attempt to ignore leftist voters and continue to appeal to minorities through identity politics and white upper class people with financial interests in economically conservative policies. This time, I'm going to look at the states this strategy would involve taking, and determine whether it is viable or not.
Looking at the argument in detail, it seems to suggest that there's demographic reasons why this strategy may be viable. First, in the south, there's growing minority populations. African Americans are increasing in number in Georgia, while Latino populations are strengthening in Arizona and Texas. Meanwhile, anti immigration sentiment is growing in the rust belt, and is arguably driving why they went to Trump. As such, appealing Latinos and repelling anti immigration whites may pay off for democrats and shift demographics.
I don't think such a strategy is necessary though. While yes, the democrats should definitely look into capitalizing on minority support in the south, I have to disagree with the abandonment of the midwest and Pennsylvania. I don't think the south and southwest are ripe for the pickings of the democrats yet, as they tried to expand into this territory and Trump still carried it, but giving it, say, 20 years, I definitely think the democrats will be able to woo some parts of the southern half of the country that normally go republican to the democrats. And if Texas goes democrat, the democrats will have a solid advantage in the electoral college for years to come, assuming they keep New York and California.
However, abandoning the midwest is a mistake. I don't think anti immigration sentiment is as strong as indicated. I think this election was not part of a major trend toward the republicans, it was a failure of the democrats to capture the region with a message that would have resonated well. Immigration concerns are often caused in part by economic frustrations. The whole "dey took r jerbs" narrative. I think the big problem that the white working class is lashing out over is abandonment. Take this narrative I've heard for much of my life in Pennsylvania:
This is something I've heard quite a few times before from conservatives in Pennsylvania. They think that latinos come here to get everything for free but when they need help they get nothing. And honestly, I can't help but think that the democrats have given people this image. Take note what I said during the convention that echoed similar sentiments. About how the democrats are appealing to this group, and that group, and they're pandering to everyone, except the Bernie people. We're told to shut up and fall in line. It's the same thing. People don't vote for you when you're not offering them anything. And that's what the democrats did here to lose the rust belt. They pushed the narrative that the economy was fine when it isn't, and people are frustrated about it, and they told us to shut up and fall in line when we tried to bring this to their attention.
Now, let's be honest, if you look at the data, there's little to suggest illegals are exploiting welfare, and there's little to suggest that they're harming peoples' economic prospects on the whole. There is a real education problem in this country, but at the same time, the democrats do this to themselves. When they run on a platform that appeals strictly to identity politics, but not on economics, you can't expect large swaths of the country to support you. They'll just look at how they're pandering to minority groups, feel unwelcome, and join the other side. I'm a leftie and I felt alienated this election. I can see where the conservatives are coming from, ignorance and all.
But let's not forget this. Many of these "conservatives" concerned about illegals on welfare will vote democrat under certain circumstances. I know quite a few who voted for Obama over Romney. Why? because Obama served their economic self interests, not Romney. If you have a positive message to bring to the voters, they'll vote for you. And the rust belt and Pennsylvania has traditionally gone democratic in recent years despite this election. And these sentiments about illegals Trump capitalized on existed for a while. It's just that when you bring that to the forefront and have your alternative offer nothing, you lose elections. When you face crappy economic prospects, in absence of a vision to fix these prospects, people will start blaming immigrants, wrongly, and then vote for people who don't serve their interests. It's simple. The democrats need to fix their message. And if the democrats combine their traditional racial minority base, while winning over lots of the white working class via a strong economic message, we'll be unstoppable. We can have our cake and eat it too, and when that happens:
So yeah, please, don't abandon the white working class. I'm sure the left can become a stronger faction in American politics by uniting workers of all races under one banner. The only reason to pursue this silly strategy of abandoning the midwest to gain the south is to appeal to the financial elites. Regain the midwest, and let the south eventually come to you. When this happens, the left will be unstoppable and the right will be forced to change. We don't win the narrative by becoming more like the republicans. We win it by being freaking progressives and having a message that forces the republicans to change. This analysis is focusing too much on this election cycle. I don't think this cycle is the norm, but the exception thereof. Yes, the south may weaken for the republicans, but no, we shouldn't abandon the midwest just because Trump won it once, when the democrats didn't even try to win it over and just took it for granted.
Looking at the argument in detail, it seems to suggest that there's demographic reasons why this strategy may be viable. First, in the south, there's growing minority populations. African Americans are increasing in number in Georgia, while Latino populations are strengthening in Arizona and Texas. Meanwhile, anti immigration sentiment is growing in the rust belt, and is arguably driving why they went to Trump. As such, appealing Latinos and repelling anti immigration whites may pay off for democrats and shift demographics.
I don't think such a strategy is necessary though. While yes, the democrats should definitely look into capitalizing on minority support in the south, I have to disagree with the abandonment of the midwest and Pennsylvania. I don't think the south and southwest are ripe for the pickings of the democrats yet, as they tried to expand into this territory and Trump still carried it, but giving it, say, 20 years, I definitely think the democrats will be able to woo some parts of the southern half of the country that normally go republican to the democrats. And if Texas goes democrat, the democrats will have a solid advantage in the electoral college for years to come, assuming they keep New York and California.
However, abandoning the midwest is a mistake. I don't think anti immigration sentiment is as strong as indicated. I think this election was not part of a major trend toward the republicans, it was a failure of the democrats to capture the region with a message that would have resonated well. Immigration concerns are often caused in part by economic frustrations. The whole "dey took r jerbs" narrative. I think the big problem that the white working class is lashing out over is abandonment. Take this narrative I've heard for much of my life in Pennsylvania:
"Democrats spend all their time appealing to Latinos and immigrants and promising them tons of gimmes and letting them stay in the country illegally, while offering us nothing. Where are the democrats when I need help? I work for a living, I don't matter for them, they just give my hard earned money to all these latinos who come here to get crap for free."
This is something I've heard quite a few times before from conservatives in Pennsylvania. They think that latinos come here to get everything for free but when they need help they get nothing. And honestly, I can't help but think that the democrats have given people this image. Take note what I said during the convention that echoed similar sentiments. About how the democrats are appealing to this group, and that group, and they're pandering to everyone, except the Bernie people. We're told to shut up and fall in line. It's the same thing. People don't vote for you when you're not offering them anything. And that's what the democrats did here to lose the rust belt. They pushed the narrative that the economy was fine when it isn't, and people are frustrated about it, and they told us to shut up and fall in line when we tried to bring this to their attention.
Now, let's be honest, if you look at the data, there's little to suggest illegals are exploiting welfare, and there's little to suggest that they're harming peoples' economic prospects on the whole. There is a real education problem in this country, but at the same time, the democrats do this to themselves. When they run on a platform that appeals strictly to identity politics, but not on economics, you can't expect large swaths of the country to support you. They'll just look at how they're pandering to minority groups, feel unwelcome, and join the other side. I'm a leftie and I felt alienated this election. I can see where the conservatives are coming from, ignorance and all.
But let's not forget this. Many of these "conservatives" concerned about illegals on welfare will vote democrat under certain circumstances. I know quite a few who voted for Obama over Romney. Why? because Obama served their economic self interests, not Romney. If you have a positive message to bring to the voters, they'll vote for you. And the rust belt and Pennsylvania has traditionally gone democratic in recent years despite this election. And these sentiments about illegals Trump capitalized on existed for a while. It's just that when you bring that to the forefront and have your alternative offer nothing, you lose elections. When you face crappy economic prospects, in absence of a vision to fix these prospects, people will start blaming immigrants, wrongly, and then vote for people who don't serve their interests. It's simple. The democrats need to fix their message. And if the democrats combine their traditional racial minority base, while winning over lots of the white working class via a strong economic message, we'll be unstoppable. We can have our cake and eat it too, and when that happens:
LANDSLIDE
So yeah, please, don't abandon the white working class. I'm sure the left can become a stronger faction in American politics by uniting workers of all races under one banner. The only reason to pursue this silly strategy of abandoning the midwest to gain the south is to appeal to the financial elites. Regain the midwest, and let the south eventually come to you. When this happens, the left will be unstoppable and the right will be forced to change. We don't win the narrative by becoming more like the republicans. We win it by being freaking progressives and having a message that forces the republicans to change. This analysis is focusing too much on this election cycle. I don't think this cycle is the norm, but the exception thereof. Yes, the south may weaken for the republicans, but no, we shouldn't abandon the midwest just because Trump won it once, when the democrats didn't even try to win it over and just took it for granted.
Evaluating what the election would look like if it were held when Clinton was in a better position
So, I want to look at what would have happened if the election were held at different times. As we know, Clinton weakened significantly from where she was throughout most of the election, and as such, lost the entire thing. Here, I want to evaluate where Clinton would be assuming older polling data and applying some changes to it to compensate for how the polls were off. This is to give us a different picture of how the election would have played out.
Compensating for polling data
So let's look at the polling data I collected on November 7th and 8th, and compare it with the final election results. Here, I will compare the election data with the final results, and apply the data to previous election analyses that I gave in previous months. This will allow us to get an idea of how Clinton would have performed vs Trump in months leading up to the election and allow me to handicap previous polling data to give an idea of how things would have played out. This would be better than just slapping on, say, a Trump +3 model and calling it a day. On the downside, trends not present in the polls on election day may not have been present in previous months. Regardless, the handicaps are as follows:
Arizona: 0.1% Trump
Colorado: 0.1% Trump
Florida: 1.1% Trump
Georgia: 0.9% Trump
Iowa: 6.6% Trump
Maine: 1.8% Trump
Michigan: 3.7% Trump
Minnesota: 4.5% Trump
Nevada: 3.2% Clinton
New Hampshire: 0.2% Trump
New Mexico: 3.3% Clinton
North Carolina: 2.8% Trump
Ohio: 5.1% Trump
Pennsylvania: 3.1% Trump
South Carolina: 7.8% Trump
Virginia: 0.1% Trump
Wisconsin: 7.5% Trump
As we can see, overall the results were much more pro Trump than the polls indicated, but the margins varied widely. In some states we saw like 0.1-0.2% differences indicating the polls were more or less perfectly dead on, but in some states there was a fairly significant difference that could have turned the tide, even with Clinton being so far ahead.
If the election were held in October....
Let's say the election were held on October 7th instead of November 8th. In this election analysis, I concluded there was roughly a 90% chance Clinton would win and that the most accurate result was 322-216 in her favor. Let's apply the polling handicaps and see what happens.
Final election results: 287-251 Clinton
If the election were held a month before it was, Clinton would have won. She would have lost Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Carolina, but she would have been able to maintain many swing states with enough of a margin to win.
If the election were held in September....
September was a weird month. On 9/11, Clinton collapsed due to pneumonia in public during a memorial service, and so did her poll numbers. As such, the election update I did on 9/3 and 9/18 have much different results and both require some analysis. Normally I would focus on the one closer to around September 8th, but due to Clinton's weaker position around the 18th it's might be good to analyze what would have happened there too happened there too. on September 3rd, Clinton was in a strong position with a commanding 340 electoral votes if polls are to be believed. This lead shrunk to a much narrower 293 if the election were held after her 9/11 debacle.
September 3: 297-231 Clinton
I didn't track many rust belt states at the time because Clinton was so far ahead and I didn't count states with more than a 6 point lead in either direction at this point. As such, I assume Michigan and Pennsylvania were safe, but I'm not sure about Wisconsin. I left it blank and it probably wouldn't have mattered because Clinton would have won without it anyway.
September 18: 270-268 Trump
Clinton's pneumonia incident would have cost her the election. She would have lost North Carolina and Wisconsin compensating for inaccurate polls and this would have narrowly handed the election to Trump. Michigan and Pennsylvania would have likely held though.
If the election were held in August....
For this, I'll use the data point of August 4th, because the one on the 9th had less data as I removed a bunch of states I deemed as uncompetitive (and we all know how that worked out in Wisconsin). Here, Clinton commanded a solid 365 electoral votes, and was virtually guaranteed a win. Let's see how she would have held up given Trump's effective handicap in the polls though.
Final election results: 308-230 Clinton
If the election were held in August, Clinton would have won, but her generous electoral lead would have been significantly shrunk because many states would have gone to Trump under this model. North Carolina, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin all would have flipped, and her electoral lead would not be anywhere as certain as it appeared. And of course she never really had a chance in Kentucky either. Still, she would have been able to carry the election without much of a challenge.
If the election were held in July....
In July, my election analyses were far more rudimentary and difficult to extract data from easily, but for this, I'm going to assume the election were held on July 19th. Here Clinton was expected to win 336-202.
Final election results: 279-249 Clinton
Clinton didn't do very great here and was in danger of losing the election, but she still managed to hold on. Obviously she never had Kentucky. She lost Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio. Wisconsin is an unknown because I did not have data here. Pennsylvania is interesting. She was only ahead by 3.2% here, but the handicap was 3.1%. She BARELY held on to Pennsylvania here, and we could have literally seen a 2000 situation with it being so close there would be constant needs for recounts and stuff.
If the election were held in June....
Back in June, I asked a simple question: is Donald Trump really screwed? And at the time, I came to the conclusion that, yes, yes he was, and I did my original election analysis back then. Obviously, the actual election panned out much differently than expected, but now we get to look at how my original election analysis would have panned out for Trump. This one is particularly difficult to get numbers from since I did not record polling margins very well and did not have a scenario in which I gave all the states to who polled closer in the margins, as such, this one requires some guess work to figure out.
Interpolated results: 300-228 Clinton
This one was particularly tough to figure out, but Clinton was ahead in Arizona, Trump was ahead in Colorado, and for many of the swing states, the handicaps automatically pushed many states to Trump. Still, I'd argue Clinton would have won, and yes, Trump actually was screwed at the time.
What can we draw from this?
Well, Clinton's lead was deceptively large this whole election. All of those analyses predicting 330+ votes in Clinton's favor? Not even close. This election was far more competitive than we realized. Clinton consistently lost states like Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin to Trump. However, on the whole, Trump still didn't have enough of a chance to win for most of the election. Clinton was so far ahead even WITH the poll data being corrected to account for discrepancies that Trump STILL would have lost. Regardless, Clinton was never as invulnerable as she seemed and she never actually broke 310 electoral votes.
Still, it seems like there was a trend at the end that cost Clinton the election. In September, when she faced concerns about her health, she was put in a position of weakness polling wise and Trump would have been able to win there. Going into October, when Trump's "pussygate" scandal broke, Clinton faced a rebound that would have won her the election. However, during the last month, as undecideds made up their minds, and as she faced fatigue due to wikileaks exposing what she really thought about things, and a last minute FBI investigation, she tanked again and lost in the last hour.
I still maintain that if Sanders ran, he would have won because he would not have faced Clinton's many weaknesses as a candidate, but more establishment excuses for the lost election have some sway too. Let it be said that while Clinton was a much weaker candidate than she appeared, she still held the upper hand most of the time.
Compensating for polling data
So let's look at the polling data I collected on November 7th and 8th, and compare it with the final election results. Here, I will compare the election data with the final results, and apply the data to previous election analyses that I gave in previous months. This will allow us to get an idea of how Clinton would have performed vs Trump in months leading up to the election and allow me to handicap previous polling data to give an idea of how things would have played out. This would be better than just slapping on, say, a Trump +3 model and calling it a day. On the downside, trends not present in the polls on election day may not have been present in previous months. Regardless, the handicaps are as follows:
Arizona: 0.1% Trump
Colorado: 0.1% Trump
Florida: 1.1% Trump
Georgia: 0.9% Trump
Iowa: 6.6% Trump
Maine: 1.8% Trump
Michigan: 3.7% Trump
Minnesota: 4.5% Trump
Nevada: 3.2% Clinton
New Hampshire: 0.2% Trump
New Mexico: 3.3% Clinton
North Carolina: 2.8% Trump
Ohio: 5.1% Trump
Pennsylvania: 3.1% Trump
South Carolina: 7.8% Trump
Virginia: 0.1% Trump
Wisconsin: 7.5% Trump
As we can see, overall the results were much more pro Trump than the polls indicated, but the margins varied widely. In some states we saw like 0.1-0.2% differences indicating the polls were more or less perfectly dead on, but in some states there was a fairly significant difference that could have turned the tide, even with Clinton being so far ahead.
If the election were held in October....
Let's say the election were held on October 7th instead of November 8th. In this election analysis, I concluded there was roughly a 90% chance Clinton would win and that the most accurate result was 322-216 in her favor. Let's apply the polling handicaps and see what happens.
Final election results: 287-251 Clinton
If the election were held a month before it was, Clinton would have won. She would have lost Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Carolina, but she would have been able to maintain many swing states with enough of a margin to win.
If the election were held in September....
September was a weird month. On 9/11, Clinton collapsed due to pneumonia in public during a memorial service, and so did her poll numbers. As such, the election update I did on 9/3 and 9/18 have much different results and both require some analysis. Normally I would focus on the one closer to around September 8th, but due to Clinton's weaker position around the 18th it's might be good to analyze what would have happened there too happened there too. on September 3rd, Clinton was in a strong position with a commanding 340 electoral votes if polls are to be believed. This lead shrunk to a much narrower 293 if the election were held after her 9/11 debacle.
September 3: 297-231 Clinton
I didn't track many rust belt states at the time because Clinton was so far ahead and I didn't count states with more than a 6 point lead in either direction at this point. As such, I assume Michigan and Pennsylvania were safe, but I'm not sure about Wisconsin. I left it blank and it probably wouldn't have mattered because Clinton would have won without it anyway.
September 18: 270-268 Trump
Clinton's pneumonia incident would have cost her the election. She would have lost North Carolina and Wisconsin compensating for inaccurate polls and this would have narrowly handed the election to Trump. Michigan and Pennsylvania would have likely held though.
If the election were held in August....
For this, I'll use the data point of August 4th, because the one on the 9th had less data as I removed a bunch of states I deemed as uncompetitive (and we all know how that worked out in Wisconsin). Here, Clinton commanded a solid 365 electoral votes, and was virtually guaranteed a win. Let's see how she would have held up given Trump's effective handicap in the polls though.
Final election results: 308-230 Clinton
If the election were held in August, Clinton would have won, but her generous electoral lead would have been significantly shrunk because many states would have gone to Trump under this model. North Carolina, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin all would have flipped, and her electoral lead would not be anywhere as certain as it appeared. And of course she never really had a chance in Kentucky either. Still, she would have been able to carry the election without much of a challenge.
If the election were held in July....
In July, my election analyses were far more rudimentary and difficult to extract data from easily, but for this, I'm going to assume the election were held on July 19th. Here Clinton was expected to win 336-202.
Final election results: 279-249 Clinton
Clinton didn't do very great here and was in danger of losing the election, but she still managed to hold on. Obviously she never had Kentucky. She lost Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio. Wisconsin is an unknown because I did not have data here. Pennsylvania is interesting. She was only ahead by 3.2% here, but the handicap was 3.1%. She BARELY held on to Pennsylvania here, and we could have literally seen a 2000 situation with it being so close there would be constant needs for recounts and stuff.
If the election were held in June....
Back in June, I asked a simple question: is Donald Trump really screwed? And at the time, I came to the conclusion that, yes, yes he was, and I did my original election analysis back then. Obviously, the actual election panned out much differently than expected, but now we get to look at how my original election analysis would have panned out for Trump. This one is particularly difficult to get numbers from since I did not record polling margins very well and did not have a scenario in which I gave all the states to who polled closer in the margins, as such, this one requires some guess work to figure out.
Interpolated results: 300-228 Clinton
This one was particularly tough to figure out, but Clinton was ahead in Arizona, Trump was ahead in Colorado, and for many of the swing states, the handicaps automatically pushed many states to Trump. Still, I'd argue Clinton would have won, and yes, Trump actually was screwed at the time.
What can we draw from this?
Well, Clinton's lead was deceptively large this whole election. All of those analyses predicting 330+ votes in Clinton's favor? Not even close. This election was far more competitive than we realized. Clinton consistently lost states like Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin to Trump. However, on the whole, Trump still didn't have enough of a chance to win for most of the election. Clinton was so far ahead even WITH the poll data being corrected to account for discrepancies that Trump STILL would have lost. Regardless, Clinton was never as invulnerable as she seemed and she never actually broke 310 electoral votes.
Still, it seems like there was a trend at the end that cost Clinton the election. In September, when she faced concerns about her health, she was put in a position of weakness polling wise and Trump would have been able to win there. Going into October, when Trump's "pussygate" scandal broke, Clinton faced a rebound that would have won her the election. However, during the last month, as undecideds made up their minds, and as she faced fatigue due to wikileaks exposing what she really thought about things, and a last minute FBI investigation, she tanked again and lost in the last hour.
I still maintain that if Sanders ran, he would have won because he would not have faced Clinton's many weaknesses as a candidate, but more establishment excuses for the lost election have some sway too. Let it be said that while Clinton was a much weaker candidate than she appeared, she still held the upper hand most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)