Democrat Postmortem

Just a week before the election, The New Yorker had an article asking why Trump was wasting his time in Michigan and Wisconsin where Hillary led by a wide margin?  Reading it today, it is humorous that the writer suggests he should be in states where he can make a difference, namely Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Nevada.  With the exception of Nevada, he won those suggested states by more than 100,000 votes each, Ohio by nearly half a million.  However, he won Michigan by 10,704 and Wisconsin by 22,748.  Sounds like campaigning in these two states just prior to the election was vital.

Was Trump a better candidate?  Meh.  Was he a better campaigner?  Absolutely!  Trump lost Wisconsin to Cruz during the primary.  After getting the nomination, he had multiple rallies in the state to attract those voters and bump up Republican turnout.  By contrast, Hillary lost Wisconsin to Bernie.  After she secured the nomination, she never campaigned in the state.  This is a state she lost to Bernie and the best she does is to send her daughter and Tim Kaine to campaign in her stead.  In the 2012 campaign, there was an exit poll asking whether Obama or Romney cared more about voters.  Obama won something like 80% to 20%.  I don't know if that question was asked this time around but Wisconsin voters had to see that Hillary was taking their votes for granted while Trump was in the state trying to make the sale.  Complacency cost the Democrats the state.  What about Michigan?  Trump won the state in the primary with a plurality of the votes.  Even so, he had multiple rallies to boost turnout and make the sale.  He was personally on the ground.  Again, Hillary lost this state to Bernie and then did nothing to secure the Bernie voters after the convention.  She was largely absent from the state though Michigan saw higher ranking surrogates, including Bill Clinton and President Obama.  In the last couple of weeks, Hillary did make some campaign stops in the state.  Complacency cost another state.

 

Hillary's frequent and extended absences from campaigning fed into rumors of her bad health.  Once that took hold, however unfair it may have been, she needed to address it by being visible.  That her actions only seemed to confirm it must surely have hurt her numbers.

 

Those who say Bernie would have been a more formidable candidate may be right.  He was far more energetic on the campaign trail, he provided more enthusiasm, and he wasn't an insider candidate.  As we know from the DNC email leaks, the primaries were rigged against him and Hillary had media insiders feeding her debate questions and providing positive press.  Though he would have lacked many of Hillary's weaknesses, he would have brought self-identified "socialist" with him.

 

In much the same way Republicans started winning the state and local elections after Obama won in 2008, the same is almost certain to happen this time around.  The Republicans are at their high water mark and will start sinking next year with governorships and in 2018 in the House.  Unless the national situation is really bad in 2018, the electoral map may see further losses in the Senate for Democrats.  That the Democrats have retained the leadership that has led them here is probably not a good sign for their future prospects.