Posted On: 11/13/2016 6:07:04 PM
Post# of 51519
The myths and miscalculations of the 2016 election
Since the two-dollar fortune teller on the mall couldn’t meet The Denver Post’s deadline, the paper is again turning to a pundit to explain an election that the pundit class has missed from the beginning. Here we go.
Some elections can be neatly tied together with a bow. But there was absolutely nothing pretty about this campaign — one that lacks precedent and defies easy summation. Instead, let’s identify a number of the myths and miscalculations along the way.
That campaigns require vast infrastructure.
Donald Trump won this election on the cheap. Hillary Clinton had all the accoutrements of a professional campaign from consultants galore to a glut of field offices to big data to bushels of TV advertising. While Trump had, basically, a plane, a booking agent for large arenas and a Twitter account. Yet in this viral age in which voters get and exchange cues from scores of non-traditional sources, less proved to be more.
That demography is destiny.
The Democratic dominance in presidential races over recent decades (a popular vote plurality in six of the last seven elections) is most often attributed to the rapid growth of blacks and Latinos as a share of the electorate. Yet for that to prevail, a la the Obama model, they must be motivated and vote in a rather monolithic manner. The one-sidedness was mostly still there (though Trump bested Mitt Romney’s share of both groups), but turnout lagged. Portions of the Democratic base stayed home. While other long-forgotten groups, starting with residents of rural and small-town America, came out in force.
Still, over the long haul, bet on demographics. The GOP may have won a holiday from that reality, but their extended prospects remain bleak if they cannot accept and get right by minority communities.
That presidential approval is a key indicator.
It has long been said that the prospects of the party currently occupying the White House rose or fell with the president’s job approval. In this instance, President Obama’s mid-50s approval rating should have been sufficient to seal the deal for Clinton. Another myth apparently busted.
This election was nothing if not a stunning rebuke to a seemingly invigorated and popular president. Obama has been a political tour de force in his own campaigns, but leaves a trail of devastation when it comes to his party’s status in the House and Senate, governor’s offices and further down the political food chain as well as now in failing to hand the reins to his designated successor. One can barely imagine that ride to the Capitol come Jan. 20 in a limousine shared by the president and a president-elect who rose to the fore by questioning the former’s very legitimacy.
That the Atlantic Ocean gave us protection from Europe’s populist contagion.
Trump’s win is not a stand-alone event but must be viewed in the context of Brexit, a coming Frexit vote and populist uprisings in Hungary, Poland and elsewhere. The theory was that Trump’s multiple character flaws would hold his support below that of a ballot issue without human traits. Wrong. Those most fearful of such populist movements can find solace in the historical fact that they have been most often short-lived.
That at the end of the day Trump was simply too unfit and implausible to win.
This was the Clinton safety net. And the pundits’ crutch. Both convinced themselves that Trump would sooner or later, inevitably implode. This was to happen shortly after his entrance into the race; then when the primary field narrowed; then when his late-summer poll numbers tanked; and certainly when voters were faced with that final choice.
Trump clearly skipped class the day Newton’s law of gravity was taught. Time after time, from day-one of the campaign to its final day, Trump defied the rules of political gravity. Gaffes, quips, missteps, taunts and insults that would have finished any other politician left him standing, sometimes stronger than before. Long before November rolled around, this predisposition was accepted by his voters, baked hard into his numbers and even celebrated as part of his rebellious appeal. As the other half of America recoiled.
This was a primal-scream election. Whenever either Clinton or Trump rose in the polls and closed on the prize, the nation let out a scream of rejection and the race again narrowed. In the end, Clinton was even more unpalatable than Trump. She was carrying two lead weights — being the consummate establishment candidate in the ultimate outsider year; and her ethical improprieties, to put it gently. She may well have overcome either one, but the combination was too heavy.
That other Republicans — almost any other — would have fared better.
I’ll plead guilty to peddling this fallacy. Though I was far from alone in believing that Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, take-your-pick would have decisively beaten Clinton while Trump was the only one (perhaps along with Ted Cruz) who could not pull that off. Of course, it is entirely possible, even probable, that any of those named or others would have won this comfortably without Tuesday night dramatics. While it can be bemoaned, it can’t be argued that Trump revitalized a moribund party, at least so at the presidential level, and out-performed polite, well-mannered establishment types like Mitt Romney and John McCain.
That the Democrats’ upstairs-downstairs coalition included what’s in between.
Politics is a dynamic process of shifting coalitions. It was not that many years ago that the nation’s wealthiest precincts were solidly Republican while the great working class was a mainstay of the Democratic Party. Remember the famous “Reagan Democrats”? Well, Reagan is nearly three decades departed from office and those Democrats are now the Republican base.
The current Democratic coalition of those at the top of the economic ladder and those at the bottom is inherently unstable. Further, it omits a vast swath of middle America in between. Recent campaigns have been dominated by the upwardly mobile middle class — those who are thriving. This election was the story of those who have been left behind.
It is telling that all eyes focused on the old Rust Belt of the Upper Midwest as election night tightened. Pennsylvania and Michigan had not voted Republican since 1988; Wisconsin since 1984. While Ohio had pivoted back and forth more recently. Here and elsewhere, a constituency of Americans struggling but not deplorable demanded to be heard and found a most unlikely champion. They had long ago grown used to being overlooked, but to be impugned and smugly looked down upon produced a tipping point.
That Colorado is transforming inexorably from purple to blue.
With only the blip of 2014 and a national Republican tide that had some trickle-down to Colorado, the decade-long narrative had been that our state was moving steadily past purple to some shade of blue. I had remarked that the transition was from periwinkle to azure. That one can be put to bed as well.
All considered, the results had a GOP flavor. Yes, Clinton carried the state by a rather scant two points. Michael Bennet bested Darryl Glenn, a veritable non-entity of an opponent, by a margin half or less what was anticipated. Mike Coffman easily beat back a challenge in what looked to be the swingiest of districts. With that win, any hope of a Democratic upset in the far tougher environs of western Colorado went by the wayside. Lastly, the split control of the state legislature remained as it had been.
As the purple-clad Colorado Rockies are ascendant, so is Colorado’s distinctly purple political hue confirmed for some time to come.
Since the two-dollar fortune teller on the mall couldn’t meet The Denver Post’s deadline, the paper is again turning to a pundit to explain an election that the pundit class has missed from the beginning. Here we go.
Some elections can be neatly tied together with a bow. But there was absolutely nothing pretty about this campaign — one that lacks precedent and defies easy summation. Instead, let’s identify a number of the myths and miscalculations along the way.
That campaigns require vast infrastructure.
Donald Trump won this election on the cheap. Hillary Clinton had all the accoutrements of a professional campaign from consultants galore to a glut of field offices to big data to bushels of TV advertising. While Trump had, basically, a plane, a booking agent for large arenas and a Twitter account. Yet in this viral age in which voters get and exchange cues from scores of non-traditional sources, less proved to be more.
That demography is destiny.
The Democratic dominance in presidential races over recent decades (a popular vote plurality in six of the last seven elections) is most often attributed to the rapid growth of blacks and Latinos as a share of the electorate. Yet for that to prevail, a la the Obama model, they must be motivated and vote in a rather monolithic manner. The one-sidedness was mostly still there (though Trump bested Mitt Romney’s share of both groups), but turnout lagged. Portions of the Democratic base stayed home. While other long-forgotten groups, starting with residents of rural and small-town America, came out in force.
Still, over the long haul, bet on demographics. The GOP may have won a holiday from that reality, but their extended prospects remain bleak if they cannot accept and get right by minority communities.
That presidential approval is a key indicator.
It has long been said that the prospects of the party currently occupying the White House rose or fell with the president’s job approval. In this instance, President Obama’s mid-50s approval rating should have been sufficient to seal the deal for Clinton. Another myth apparently busted.
This election was nothing if not a stunning rebuke to a seemingly invigorated and popular president. Obama has been a political tour de force in his own campaigns, but leaves a trail of devastation when it comes to his party’s status in the House and Senate, governor’s offices and further down the political food chain as well as now in failing to hand the reins to his designated successor. One can barely imagine that ride to the Capitol come Jan. 20 in a limousine shared by the president and a president-elect who rose to the fore by questioning the former’s very legitimacy.
That the Atlantic Ocean gave us protection from Europe’s populist contagion.
Trump’s win is not a stand-alone event but must be viewed in the context of Brexit, a coming Frexit vote and populist uprisings in Hungary, Poland and elsewhere. The theory was that Trump’s multiple character flaws would hold his support below that of a ballot issue without human traits. Wrong. Those most fearful of such populist movements can find solace in the historical fact that they have been most often short-lived.
That at the end of the day Trump was simply too unfit and implausible to win.
This was the Clinton safety net. And the pundits’ crutch. Both convinced themselves that Trump would sooner or later, inevitably implode. This was to happen shortly after his entrance into the race; then when the primary field narrowed; then when his late-summer poll numbers tanked; and certainly when voters were faced with that final choice.
Trump clearly skipped class the day Newton’s law of gravity was taught. Time after time, from day-one of the campaign to its final day, Trump defied the rules of political gravity. Gaffes, quips, missteps, taunts and insults that would have finished any other politician left him standing, sometimes stronger than before. Long before November rolled around, this predisposition was accepted by his voters, baked hard into his numbers and even celebrated as part of his rebellious appeal. As the other half of America recoiled.
This was a primal-scream election. Whenever either Clinton or Trump rose in the polls and closed on the prize, the nation let out a scream of rejection and the race again narrowed. In the end, Clinton was even more unpalatable than Trump. She was carrying two lead weights — being the consummate establishment candidate in the ultimate outsider year; and her ethical improprieties, to put it gently. She may well have overcome either one, but the combination was too heavy.
That other Republicans — almost any other — would have fared better.
I’ll plead guilty to peddling this fallacy. Though I was far from alone in believing that Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, take-your-pick would have decisively beaten Clinton while Trump was the only one (perhaps along with Ted Cruz) who could not pull that off. Of course, it is entirely possible, even probable, that any of those named or others would have won this comfortably without Tuesday night dramatics. While it can be bemoaned, it can’t be argued that Trump revitalized a moribund party, at least so at the presidential level, and out-performed polite, well-mannered establishment types like Mitt Romney and John McCain.
That the Democrats’ upstairs-downstairs coalition included what’s in between.
Politics is a dynamic process of shifting coalitions. It was not that many years ago that the nation’s wealthiest precincts were solidly Republican while the great working class was a mainstay of the Democratic Party. Remember the famous “Reagan Democrats”? Well, Reagan is nearly three decades departed from office and those Democrats are now the Republican base.
The current Democratic coalition of those at the top of the economic ladder and those at the bottom is inherently unstable. Further, it omits a vast swath of middle America in between. Recent campaigns have been dominated by the upwardly mobile middle class — those who are thriving. This election was the story of those who have been left behind.
It is telling that all eyes focused on the old Rust Belt of the Upper Midwest as election night tightened. Pennsylvania and Michigan had not voted Republican since 1988; Wisconsin since 1984. While Ohio had pivoted back and forth more recently. Here and elsewhere, a constituency of Americans struggling but not deplorable demanded to be heard and found a most unlikely champion. They had long ago grown used to being overlooked, but to be impugned and smugly looked down upon produced a tipping point.
That Colorado is transforming inexorably from purple to blue.
With only the blip of 2014 and a national Republican tide that had some trickle-down to Colorado, the decade-long narrative had been that our state was moving steadily past purple to some shade of blue. I had remarked that the transition was from periwinkle to azure. That one can be put to bed as well.
All considered, the results had a GOP flavor. Yes, Clinton carried the state by a rather scant two points. Michael Bennet bested Darryl Glenn, a veritable non-entity of an opponent, by a margin half or less what was anticipated. Mike Coffman easily beat back a challenge in what looked to be the swingiest of districts. With that win, any hope of a Democratic upset in the far tougher environs of western Colorado went by the wayside. Lastly, the split control of the state legislature remained as it had been.
As the purple-clad Colorado Rockies are ascendant, so is Colorado’s distinctly purple political hue confirmed for some time to come.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
