On November 12th, just four days after she lost, Hillary made her first speech reference about the FBI’s role in her loss. In a New York Times article, she is quoted as saying, “There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”
Nope. Sorry, Hillary. If you want to talk about “damaging bad news that was leaked,” there was evidence for months, and just days before you were crowned…er…uhm…chosen as the Party’s nominee, about the DNC/HRC collusion to make sure Bernie Sanders was marginalized. However…the part you ignored wasn’t in the back-room tactics, but the raw numbers that the primary elections revealed, before coming back to haunt you on November 8th.
One thing people have to know about me is that I am kind of a “stats freak.” For decades as someone in marketing/advertising, it has been my job and my passion to not only be able to see trends in data, but to learn to follow my “gut instinct” when it comes to assumptions. And for the most part, ironically because I work in broadcast media, I rarely if ever trust the general media to give me a straight answer when something is important.
The Media (of all flavors) has their own job to do; namely, to keep people targeted and coming back for more. I’ll get into the media’s role in this election more in the next post (see? I’m planting the hook…) but, suffice it to say, that I have doubted the pollsters, the talking heads, and 24-hour news channels and their predictions of a Clinton win for months.
And as much as I know you are tired of hearing about it, many of my suspicions, hunches, and gut feelings (now there’s a string of scientific imperial methods for you) were formed on our 9,600 mile, cross country trip last summer. With the exception of Florida, we drove through the very states that “stole the election” from Hillary, and interacted with loads of people there, never shying away from asking them about their political views.
However, when it comes to the results of this election, and some of the key numeric factors that created the outcome, the answer was in the numbers, MONTHS ahead of November 8th.
And, as I teased in the last post (see? I understand the bait/promo media game), there was a twist that my recent research revealed, that really made this election outcome a foregone conclusion. But even more important, it makes an argument for revising the entire primary election process, including changes in the Electoral College and Primary Nomination process.
Fair Warning: This is a Long Post – If you suffer from attention deficit due to extended padular device and social media overuse, it may not be for you. But, these are complex problems that require more than simplistic finger pointing. So, buckle in.
Let’s start with the reality that for decades, even when there appears to be a “mandate from the people,” there is rarely more than 10%-15% separating us (with the exception of 1984, which broke all of the rules). As I wrote about in a previous post, there are very few, truly-dedicated, party-line voters in the country. As we have witnessed in this past election, most states are closer to “Purple” than red or blue. This is important if you are a Presidential Candidate, who starts taking states for granted, without taking into account their voting histories in primary elections.
Overall, there is a NEW kind of “non-voter” who sends a message to Washington and the Political Machine by not voting. Stats have revealed a new way of “making a statement,” without actually being forced to pull a lever, fill in a bubble, or punch a chad. But, is this new? Or is it a Clinton trend?
As I have boldly revealed, I was one of those voters.
But, contrary to what has been leveled at those of us who chose “neither” in some way shape or form in this past election, a vote for an independent, a write-in, or a non-vote in the Presidential election was NOT a “Vote for Trump.” In fact, it was the clearest way to say, “Sorry…but I can’t support either of these two…you need to do better.”
I slept fine, even after the results became evident.
But, as I mentioned, there is an ironic twist that I will reveal after some basics numbers analysis, which may surprise you, and perhaps shock you, that points out that this tactic has been used not only by the general electorate, but also at the highest level of government (and ironically, by Senator Clinton during both of her terms of service).
First, The Numbers.
As I mentioned, I am kind of a stats freak. But in order to come up with solid assumptions with stats, you have to trust your data sources. In my case, I blow off the pollsters. They are too easily bought, use ridiculously small sample sizes, and usually sell trends (yes, these guys are for hire) that engage people who are more interested in topical subjects than boring facts. I prefer comparing raw voter turnouts, results, and trends that can be assumed from these raw data results.
There are three HUGE factors that the Pollsters, the HRC/DNC political machine, and the Media either ignored, or didn’t see, which should have been obvious, if they were paying attention.
The first, was something that HRC’s folks seemed to take for granted; the need for a large voter turnout. As it turned out, they might have predicted the reality by looking at past “Clinton-Centric” elections.
2016 was the lowest turnout of eligible voters in 20 years. Ironically, the last two times that the percentage of eligible voters who voted fell below 60%, were both tied to the Clintons. In 1996, Bill Clinton won the election with just 26.3% of eligible voters voting for him. In 2000, Gore (in spite of his connection to Clinton scandals) won the popular vote with just 27.4% of the vote, but ultimately lost the election, when the final Electoral College vote tally gave Bush 271 votes, just one more than the required 270.
Click graphic to enlarge if needed
And this year, history repeated itself, with Hillary winning the popular vote with 26.5% of eligible voters casting votes for her, but getting creamed in Electoral College votes, due to key battleground states handing her upsets in traditionally “Blue States” (that she and her staff took for granted, until it was too late to do anything about it).
The election was handed to Trump, due to the inability of Hillary’s vaunted “ground game” to “get out the vote” in a way that came close to matching the two previous Obama elections. In both 2008 and 2013, Democrats came out in record numbers, bringing in 33.7% and 30.6% of turnouts, both exceeding 60% of registered voters.
But, that is only part of the story.
It’s not only where they stayed home, but perhaps why.
I get the sense that the people who stayed home, or didn’t vote for President (while perhaps voting for local and state elections), were also sending a message to the Clintons and the DNC, that “if you are going to ignore us in the Primary Process, we will ignore you in the general election.” And again, the numbers support this notion.
For reasons I never truly understood, the HRC/DNC machine, rushing to “crown the pre-ordained queen” were completely delusional, and assumptive about Hillary’s ability to bring the party together, after a very close, very contentious Primary Election period that lasted almost THREE TIMES AS LONG as the General election/post nomination period. That’s a very long time in which to form an opinion of someone. And Hillary was already coming to the party with loads of baggage.
Can you really just expect people to sweep aside all of the reasons that Sanders supporters came out in record numbers (much to the surprise of media wonks, and the DNC/HRC machine that did everything in their power to marginalize him) when the voting, campaigning and demonstrations of “enough is enough” were so loud and persistent for Sanders?
The primaries for the DNC came very close to a contested convention for the same reasons that actually mirrored the basics of both Trump and Sanders. Both of these candidates’ success was fueled by voters’ displeasure with the status quo in Washington, a corrupt campaign finance system that allows huge corporate factions to “buy elections,” as well as the general distrust of the same-old-same-old party insiders.
A Sanders/Trump General Election, especially with the “questions of personal moral character “scandals that came out against Trump, would certainly have produced a different outcome for the Democrats. But, setting that aside, the Primary Numbers were already a harbinger of the November 8th results.
You can say what you want about the outcome…but this election wasn’t as much won by Donald Trump, but lost by the HRC/DNC machine, through hubris and laziness.
THE WARNING SIGNS WERE THERE IN THE PRIMARY NUMBERS…
The “Loss” of this election came down to Trump “flipping” three or four key states. But, the fact is, these same states had already “flipped off” HRC in the primaries. And in the case of a couple of them, she STILL ignored them in the General Election, much to her detriment.
Hillary needed to carry at least three of four key states that had been traditional “Blue States” over the past two elections, and most importantly, one that has been Blue since the landslide Reagan election of 1984.
And, the number of votes that made the difference was razor thin…and could have spun on as small as her being able to energize just 0.176% of eligible voters who stayed home, or chose not to vote for either candidate. This election could have been won, by turning out as few as 107, 390 votes, additional votes to the 60.839.922 cast.
The overall outcome as we know was 290 Trump –vs- 228 for HRC in the Electoral College Vote Results. Hillary needed to turn just 42 EC votes to reach 270, and it was closer than you think.
Florida – She Got 48% of the voters who turned out, losing by 119,770. The 29 Electoral College votes hurt, but she could have still won, by winning three other “Blue” states, which she lost by a far smaller number of votes.
Every one of these states have been “Blue,” and giving their Electoral College Votes to the Democrat, since 1992, and Wisconsin hasn’t voted Republican since 1984 when only one state (Minnesota) voted for Mondale.
Michigan was lost by just 11,897 votes with 47% of the vote going to Clinton. 16 votes lost.
Pennsylvania was lost by 68,236 votes with 48% of the vote going to Clinton. 20 votes lost.
Wisconsin was lost by just 27,257 votes with 47% going to Clinton.10 votes lost.
Who could have predicted this?????
The fact is, this could have been predicted by anyone who was watching the outcome of Primary Elections, because the Primaries sent the HRC/DNC a very clear message, which they seem to have tacitly ignored.
Let’s start with how close the primaries really were, especially when you remove the “Super Delegate” votes from the equation. Many voters, including myself, feel that Super Delegates are unconstitutional, in that they may strip, or heavily outweigh the actual voters’ power to elect a “candidate of the people” and not a party insider, by party insiders “who know what’s best for the party.”
Pennsylvania had Clinton winning the Primary by a 55% to 43% margin. However, her final delegate count was far outside of those ratios when she was given 19 Super Delegate votes, pushing her total from 106 to 125 to Sanders 83 delegates awarded. Clinton, knowing that she had to win Pennsylvania, did her now infamous last-minute, star-studded concert/rally (where she was a supporting cast member at best) the night before the election.
But now things get sticky…and the outcome of the general election even easier to predict, if you were paying attention…which HRC clearly wasn’t..
In the Michigan primaries, Clinton lost to Sanders…by a margin of 49.7% to 48.3%…However…after Super Delegates were awarded, 13 of them to be exact, Clinton actually ended up with more delegates than Sanders, 76 to 67. And it seems that the Sanders folks have good memories. And a last minute campaign stop to Michigan on November 5th, after a long period of absence, did little to sway them.
The same held true in Wisconsin, where Hillary famously did not even bother to campaign in the final days, so sure of the “Blue State Status” Cheese-heads, that she ignored the obvious warning signs of the primary. In April, Sanders won a resounding victory over Clinton winning 56% of the vote. However…by the time the DNC was done handing out Super Delegates, Sanders ended up with just two more delegates 49 to 47, after Clinton received 9 freebies.
Make no mistake about it. These General Election Votes in these states were PROTEST VOTES against more than Hillary’s problems with servers, or the FBI. They represented loads and loads of people staying home, because they were tired of having their votes be disregarded by Party elites. If anything hurt Clinton in these (and perhaps other) states, it was likely the unending WIKI-Leaks emails from DNC insiders and Podesta, verifying the long and storied rigging of the Primary System for Clinton, while insulting, marginalizing, and disregarding Sanders and his supporters.
So NOT VOTING was an effective tool, which allowed many voters to send a message, without having to cast a vote.
AND HERE’S THE TWIST (That I have been teasing…and your reward for reading this far). Hillary, and other Members of Congress use this tactic all of the time.
In fact (and yes…this is public record), over the course of her two terms as a US Senator, she used her “Non-Vote” 43 Times. In essence, doing the very thing that Hillary supporters are blaming Non-Voters in this election of doing… sending a message without risking ridicule from friends, family and supporters.
Want to check the voting records of any Congress Person, funding or speeches?
Why would a politician do this? To protect them from being labeled as doing something contrary to the wishes of her core supporters and donors.
Don’t want to vote on a bill about Abortion Rights, for fear of upsetting either side on this contentious issue? Just don’t vote…as Hillary did/didn’t FOUR different times in two terms.
Don’t want to be seen as a hawk on government military spending, or votes for secret surveillance on allies and enemies alike? Don’t Vote…as she did/didn’t three times.
But it doesn’t stop there…she didn’t vote on:
- Gun control measures
- Student loan revision
- Bankruptcy code revisions that allowed credit cards to take a favored position over child support in discharges
- Farm subsidy acts including wind and solar bills to help farmers
- Offshore drilling in Virginia
- REAMS of no-shows on banking and investment legislation that would upset corporate donors.
The list is long…and really paints a very calculated, self-serving picture of HRC that her election propaganda fails to point out. But hey…everyone does it, right?
HERE’S THE BOTTOM LINE…
Like it or not, this election sent a message to Washington and the Party Elites…but perhaps with the wrong messenger.
Remember…Hillary only lost by not being able to sway as little as 0.176% of Non-Voters to come to her side. Knowing what we know now, the Sanders revolution may have sent the same message to Washington for the need for change, without having to deal with the psychopathic tendencies of a President Trump. I have said it before, but I will say it again. Biden would have cake-walked this election, and Bernie would have done the same, perhaps with fewer votes than Biden…but far more than Trump.
With an energized turnout (the kind of turnouts we saw in the Primary elections) Hillary could have won. But, she and the rest of her supporters refused to see that she was being rejected by a large number (sometimes the majority of the voters) and they wanted to be included and heard, not taken for granted.
This leaves us needing to fight a different kind of battle…that starts by making it clear to the DNC that we are done with “business as usual.” But, if you are going to take to the streets, you need to protest for the right reasons. “Not My President” started a long time ago, folks. Because as it turns out in several of the battleground states, people have been saying, “NOT MY CANDIDATE” for a long time…but nobody was listening.
WE THE SHEEPLE. need to stop standing on the sidelines, stop listening to the Media (which I will cover in my next post), and start doing the hard work of REAL CHANGE. Sorry…you can’t do this by ignoring the facts, trends and numbers for four years, and then joining a team, because you like their colors.
Buckle in. More answers and solutions to come.