Left: Debbie Dingell - Right: Zephyr Teachout
The purpose of this post for me is not to put out some blame, but rather to sift through evidence that something was up in this election that was missed and that we need to fix going forward. Evidence. Not seat of the pants opinionizing.
What I want to first say is — wow! Hillary Clinton ran a pretty damn good campaign! She is on the way to a popular vote win with a margin possibly over 1 Million by the time all is said and done, and then to the second highest vote total in history after Obama’s historic 70+ million in 2008.
That said, we are an electoral college system (more on that below) and clearly those votes in what were supposed to be “blue wall” states of WI, MI, PA speak to a problem. In fact the problem is there in Hillary’s home state of NY. My goal is to shore things up so that those deciding late break dem (and we are not vulnerable to the attacks of a James Comey or Julian Assange).
Second, why Debbie Dingell and Zephyr Teachout? Rep. Dingell was reelected, but she was trying to tell the Clinton campaign that something was up in Michigan. She pointed this out in the primary that Hillary was supposed to win according to polls but that went to Bernie in an upset. Bernie was on the ground in MI — a lot! — and Hillary did not do that. She went around her very diverse district, which includes the “elites” at the U of Michigan, a large muslim-american population, and lots of automobile industry factory workers. She got that there was anger, that these folks got left behind by society and that these folks felt left behind by a resurgent economy:
The ordinary working man or woman in this country isn’t asking for a lot. They want to make a decent living. They want to be able to provide for their family, buy a home in a safe neighborhood, put food on the table, go the doctor when they need to, afford their medicines and educate their children. What many don’t understand is how these things are in danger of becoming unattainable for too many Americans.
Zephyr Teachout ran and lost in a district that Obama won in 08 and 12 in NY State. She got the anger of white voters in the Hudson valley left behind, but she also got something else-dark money:
By November, both candidates had benefitted from their parties’ traditional PACs, which had raised more than two million dollars each. But the largest share of the money spent in the election, $6.7 million, came from four super PACs backing Faso, which bankrolled an onslaught of advertisements against Teachout. In August, Teachout called out two billionaires—the Wall Street financier Paul Singer and the hedge-fund manager Robert Mercer, who together contributed more than a million dollars to one pro-Faso super PAC—for skewing the election.
Also, Teachout was buoyed by polls that were incorrect, and like Clinton, she got hit with falsehoods that she could not shake off:
One local official told me that she had seen placards for Teachout and Trump planted in the same lawn. In the months leading up to Election Day, the polls indicated that she and Faso were virtually tied.
But, as this entire election has shown, opinion polls failed to accurately reflect the views of the constituency. Faso won the district by nine per cent. To understand why, I joined a man named Kevin Rhoades on his small front porch in Kingston on Tuesday evening. He had voted for Faso and Trump. “Originally I supported Bernie,” he said, puffing on a cigar. “I liked a lot of his ideas. He seemed more real than Hillary, more”—he paused, considering the cigar’s embers—“grounded?” He hadn’t decided that he would vote for Trump until that morning at the polls. “Trump offered a change,” he said. Then Rhoades had split his ticket and voted for Senator Chuck Schumer. “Schumer’s done a lot of good things while in office,” he said. “He’s not a normal Democrat.” I asked whether he had considered voting for Teachout, especially since she had received Sanders’s endorsement. “I wouldn’t vote for her,” he said immediately. “The professor, right?” He smirked slightly. “I saw some TV ads about her. She wants to raise property taxes.” (Teachout had disputed that claim as false—her platform clearly stated that she wanted to lower property taxes—but the ad had its intended effect.)
Third, while these narratives point to voter discontent some of which is around the economy, there are other forces at play brilliantly highlighted by Theda Skocpol in a message sent to Talking Points Memo — the Trump campaign took advantage of built in real world networks in these more rural regions that have years of depth and strength — through the NRA, religious affiliations, and militia groups.
...these nonmetro areas had organized networks – NRA, Christian Right, some RNC and Koch network/AFP presence – that amplified the right media attacks on HRC nonstop and persuaded many non-college women and some college women in those areas to go for Trump because of the Supreme Court. You say Trump had no organization. True enough for his own campaign. HRC had the typical well-funded presidential-moment machine, an excellent one. We on the center left seem to treat these presidential machines as organization, and they are, but they are not as effective as longstanding natural organized networks. To get some of those working for him, Trump made deals to get the NRA , Christian right and GOP federated operations on his side. They have real, extensive reach into nonmetro areas…..
HRC’s narrow loss was grounded in this absent non-metro infrastructure – and Dem Party losses in elections overall even more so. Obama overcame that deficit. But he is a once in half century figure. How can anyone blame the HRC campaign for failing to equal Obama’s margins among minorities? No Democrat would have done so. For sure, Bernie would not have done so.
This is another angle on white discontent. The NRA, Christian right, etc, have at least provided a common ground for these discontented white voters missing for the Dems since the unions have gone on their slow fade, and on every single christian group, Hillary lost to Trump. What does Prof. Skocpol think we can do?
Failed HRC messaging about trade, etc. was not the reason Trump won. There are few such voters in non-metro America and none would hear trade pact focused messages plausible in the actual lives. In much of non-metro America, families and marriages are fragile, drug deaths are rampant, churches are the only community institutions, men try to piece together service and construction jobs, low paid, while women do the same and try to raise kids. Democrats and their messages hardly penetrate at all, and they seem directed at worlds these people do not live in. Indeed, Dem messages seem directed at blacks and browns – there is a lot of racial anxiety at work.
...The key for Democrats is to build outward and look for issues that touch the lives of both urban and non-metro families. HRC made headway. More opportunities will soon arrive, for example if Trump/Ryan really do try to privatize Medicare and remove the huge ObamaCare subsidies that help so many in both urban and non-metro areas.
So fourth, whatever the origin of the democratic failure to reach out in these non-metro communities, I agree with Prof. Skocpol — we have to reach out in those communities. We need to reinvigorate the 50 state strategy, and couple that to redistricting reform that Obama and Holder will lead the charge on . The evidence was there, is there from the election results, that more attention to these voters could have paid dividends. Not paying enough attention meant that while the Clinton strategy was enough to deliver a national popular vote victory, it failed to deliver state-by-state victories necessary to win the presidency.
Let’s flip some of those red districts blue!
Fifth, a reality check on the electoral college and on fears about the GOP ramming constitutional amendments down our throats. There has been a viral post going around the ‘nets today that the GOP is one statehouse away from this possibility. Flat out wrong. In Jan. 2017 they will hold 31 statehouses. To pass a constitutional amendment requires first a call. That needs either 2/3 of statehouses (35, four more than they have) or two thirds of congress (they are far from that). A call simply sets the process in motion. Then ¾ of states (38) have to vote for the amendment (I believe that can be via the statehouse or a referendum) before it passes. The founders made it very difficult to change the constitution hastily, and that is a good thing as we face a Trump presidency. (Here is a good reference.)
As a corollary to this, to change the electoral vote to a popular vote requires that constitutional amendment. That just is not gonna happen. The small states enjoy their outsized clout in the legislature and electoral college. So while I love the idealism of doing this, I think it is more important to focus my energies on things that can actually work rather than tilt at electoral college windmills.
Read More
