While I suggested finger pointing inside the Democratic Party would be a bad move, finger pointing from the outside is another matter. David French of National Review points to an interesting statistic:
Here’s the thing that I got really and truly wrong, the thing that I missed completely. I had no idea that the Democratic party was so thoroughly alienating it’s own voters. Hillary is will likely end up with almost 10 million fewer votes than Obama in 2008. She’ll end up with almost six million fewer votes than Obama in 2012. Those voters didn’t move to the GOP. People just stayed home. Given our growing population and the enormous media interest in this campaign, those numbers are simply astounding. The Democrats alienated roughly 14 percent of their 2008 voting base.
Yes, I know those numbers will change ever-so-slightly as the remaining one percent of outstanding votes trickles in, but while I knew that the Democratic party had internal problems, I had no idea of the extent of those problems. While I knew that Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate, I had no idea how bad. It turns out that the GOP is more functional and united than the Democrats. I clearly had my problems with the degree of GOP unity (I was aghast at the lockstep support for a man I believed to be morally, temperamentally, and ideologically unfit), that unity was a fact, and it gave Trump enough of a base to win.
It seems obvious enough, given the numbers, so David probably has this right. What were the factors behind this alienation?
It’s hard to count the number of people of a general liberal leaning within my circle of friends and acquaintances who, nevertheless, showed little enthusiasm for Hillary. It’s not entirely clear to me the source of this distaste. Despite GOP rhetoric, she has served very honorably, in my view, as the Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. Mistakes? Sure – but, outside of the subject of a following point, honest. Mistakes are inevitable, and if made in small quantities, are tolerable. Working in government can be difficult at the rarified levels she performed in.
But she’s also been the target of GOP attacks for a very long time now, and I have to wonder how many folks have succumbed to the “where there’s smoke there’s fire” syndrome – although in my view she’s probably one of the best vetted and cleanest candidates to come along.
But the one source of mud that clung may have been this year’s primary, with DNC Chair and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz reportedly favoring Clinton in the primary, as discussed a while ago. Was there collusion or merely a vile indiscretion by Schultz? I know it made me very uneasy, and it really ticked off some Bernie supporters, despite Bernie’s best efforts on behalf of Clinton. I have to wonder how many Bernie supporters stayed home, dismayed by the appearance – true or not – of corruption in the leadership of the Democratic Party.
And then the nearly incomprehensible email controversy … and so we’re left with a President-elect who may lose interest part way through and resign, a free world aghast at our decision, and a national legislature that remains in GOP hands. To argue that this was a change election seems wrong, given the number of incumbents who continued in their seats, and the fact that the Senate remains GOP. What was it really? Just an anti-Clinton rally? Would Bernie Sanders have done better? What-ifs, the source of heart-burn…
It did occur to me that there’s a very apropos name for the Trump voters, though: Marks. Remember The Sting? They are all marks for the consummate con man, Donald J. Trump. Will he serve the nation, or only himself? Given how much he verifiably LIED during the campaign, his future behavior is unpredictable, and that is a disaster for companies, allies, and citizens.
The only ones who’ll benefit? Enemies.
And Donald J. Trump.
