| Following the astounding loss of Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump for President of the U.S., primarily due to a deficit of about 80,000 votes cast in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. A multitude of explanations were propounded over the next several days to explain the loss. Even though all of the data needed for a full analysis of the election had not yet been fully collated. Even when all of the available data has been collated, examining these explanations to determine which one or set can explain the loss will clearly go beyond the ability of this data. Table 1 below presents some of the explanations that have been given for Hillary’s loss that have been grouped by four broad categories: political environment, external anomalies, Democratic Party actions, and campaign decisions. |
Table 1: Selected explanations of the effects of events and decisions on election outcomes
| Political Environment Media practice Racial resentment against African-Americans, Muslims, and Latino immigrants Voter disaffection with the candidates Voters’ desire for change Voters’ discomfort with a woman as President |
|
| External Anomalies FBI election interference Voting irregularities Russian election interference Voter suppression | Effect on Election Outcome FBI Director Comey’s ad hominem criticism of Hillary personal email server, his publication of a letter re-opening the case, after finding no ground for indictment, and exonerating her of criminal wrongdoing a second time, persuaded some voters to either not vote for Hillary or not vote at all. Machine malfunctions and ballot misreads in disproportionately Democratic areas may have led to the use of provisional ballots that were then systematically not counted, resulting in a depressed Democratic vote. Wiki leaks release of forged documents hacked by the Russians from the Democratic National Committee and voting machines possibly hacked by the Russians may have lowered turnout with the effect of precluding votes being cast by the Democratic base or shifting votes from Hillary to Trump. Democratic votes were depressed by imposing stringent identification requirements that disproportionately affected Democratic voters, removed Democratic voters from the voting rolls for dubious reasons, such as deliberately misidentifying voters, or eliminating polling places in areas serving Democratic voters, thereby increasing wait times and depressing the turnout of Democratic voters. |
| Democratic Party Actions
| Effect on Election Outcome President Obama failed to strengthen the Democratic Party infrastructure and recruit an adequate group of Party officials needed to position the party for future elections. Democratic Party support for labor unions lagged because of cultural rifts between working class whites and Democratic Party principles Because Hillary and Senator Sanders were both flawed candidates—albeit in different ways—the party was faulted for not developing electable candidates. |
| Campaign Decisions Failure to consider voter volatility Failure to develop a coherent economic message Failure to focus on Democratic Party achievements Failure to implement a strategy to address voters’ desire for change Overreliance on incorrect polling and outdated voter models | Effect on Election Outcome Did not canvas rust belt states because Obama had won them in 2008 and 2012, and thus, did not know that additional resources were needed to help ensure victory. Did not develop a narrative explaining what she intended to do to solve the economic problems of stagnant wages and manufacturing job loss that some voters acutely felt, why she intended to do it, and how her diagnosis and plan were better than Trump’s. Did not remind voters of Democratic Party dedication to the well-being of the working and middle class exemplified by the automobile industry bailout. Did not deliver a change message, for example, by selecting a Vice Presidential nominee whose choice seemed to acknowledged the need for a new approach to address the problems of wage stagnation or job displacement. Disregarded some of their campaign workers who warned that support for Hillary was softening because their polling and voter models indicated they were winning. |
The political environment refers to such effects as the practice of the mainstream media to apply false equivalence to candidates, the discomfort of some voters with having a woman President, and the racial resentment felt by some significant percentage of the voters. External anomalies refer to the various forms of interference that biased the election, like FBI Director Comey’s inappropriate announcements about Hillary. Democratic Party actions are those decisions made by the party before this election cycle that affected this election’s outcome. While the effects of these previous three types of explanations are important, and may have determined the outcome, campaign decisions take on a special significance because they are in the control of the campaign.
Statistically determining how important any single explanation or group of explanations were in explaining the vote will not be possible with only a one highly unusual election to examine. Nonetheless, it is, at least, possible to compare her campaign’s messaging decision against a credible and preexisting blueprint for good messaging.
One such blueprint was provided by Senator Chuck Schumer in a speech at the National Press Club in 2014. Senator Schumer presented the three-part messaging that all Democrats running for office should deliver. First, the message should include a diagnosis of what the issue is; second, an explanation of how to address that issue; and third, a narrative to encompass the objectives of the message.
The message that Senator Schumer crafted, consistent with this outline, is as follows:
Statistically determining how important any single explanation or group of explanations were in explaining the vote will not be possible with only a one highly unusual election to examine. Nonetheless, it is, at least, possible to compare her campaign’s messaging decision against a credible and preexisting blueprint for good messaging.
One such blueprint was provided by Senator Chuck Schumer in a speech at the National Press Club in 2014. Senator Schumer presented the three-part messaging that all Democrats running for office should deliver. First, the message should include a diagnosis of what the issue is; second, an explanation of how to address that issue; and third, a narrative to encompass the objectives of the message.
The message that Senator Schumer crafted, consistent with this outline, is as follows:
Diagnosis – Negation of the American Dream of Upward Mobility: The American Dream encompasses the idea that through hard work one can do better than they have done and have their kids do even better than they have done. Contrary to this idea, the past thirty years’ wages, have been stagnant or have declined. Yet, unlike in earlier periods, when the American dream was born, increases in productivity are not now associated with increased wages.
Explanation - Why the Dream Has Been Negated: Tsunami-like waves of change have combined to undermine the working and middle classes. These changes include technology, globalization, and policy choices made by the Republican Party. As technology advanced in the transportation industry, U.S. manufacturing jobs were displaced first to “right to work” southern states and then to low wage countries like to Mexico, China, and Vietnam. Job displacement put downward pressure on wages, reduced the effectiveness of unions, and then spiraled downward to put even more pressure on wages. Continued advances in technology has led to automation and supplanted low skill workers and led to downward wage pressure. Medium incomes, for example, decreased by 6.5 percent over the last decade. Only government is large enough to counter these changes for working people; that is why the beneficiaries of these changes have been intent on rendering government incapable of fighting them.
The big beneficiaries of these waves of change undermining the working and middle classes have been those at the top of the economy. The gains in productivity and the wage stagnation of workers has increased their gains for the owning and managing classes. To further increase their gains, those at the top give generously to the Republican Party in exchange for favorable tax benefits and regulatory mitigation. The Republican Party, the traditional home of the beneficiaries of the forces change U.S. society, has also become the major beneficiary of the massive contributions needed to convince voters that they should vote against their economic interests. The Republican Party has become the captive of billionaires and cannot work in the long-term interests of all Americans.
Proposals - To Implement Objectives of the Message: The candidate must (1) embrace government efficacy and actions to counter the changes that have adversely affected the working and middle classes; (2) take on the special interests promoting the ground swells of change for their own interests; (3) develop policy plans that are focused and easily understood, and (4) propound an overriding message that encompasses the diagnosis, explanation, and proposals.
Hillary’s campaign did not follow the outline provided by Senator Schumer: she failed to develop an economic message in which to wrap her economic proposals. Undoubtedly, the campaign thought their best course was to drive down Trump’s approval ratings by focusing on his lies, sexual predations, and bigotry to counter Republican attacks her. Nonetheless, Hillary’s campaign could have used Senator Schumer’s blueprint for messaging in addition to highlighting Trump’s flaws.
Even if other explanations for her loss, such as voting irregularities, are considered critical to her loss, an economic message could have increased her number of votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and either prevented her loss or, at least, required more exorbitant actions to effectuate her loss, than the actions Republican sympathizers took.
Even if other explanations for her loss, such as voting irregularities, are considered critical to her loss, an economic message could have increased her number of votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and either prevented her loss or, at least, required more exorbitant actions to effectuate her loss, than the actions Republican sympathizers took.