The question of the hour is, "why do people vote the way they do?"
There is evidence in this election of things people do not consider when voting. There is also evidence of what does motivate them.
They do not consider the qualifications of the candidate: by a large margin voters considered Trump unqualified and Clinton qualified. A majority of Trump voters felt he was unqualified.
They do not vote on policy. Trump's campaign had a tiny number of "issues," but lacked any policy specifics. How can he "stop the war on coal," for example, when the economics of natural gas make coal a dying industry? Clinton, on the other hand, was all about policy.
They do not vote on character. Evangelicals overwhelming voted for Trump despite the bottomless pit of his flaws.
The do not vote on self-interest. See Kansas for an obvious case in point, but again the differences in the Trump and Clinton campaigns make this evident. Trump had no economic policy to improve the well-being of anyone but millionaires. Clinton had detailed, specific policies that spoke to the economic interests of the middle class.
Given a choice, people do not vote for uplifting candidates. We are pre-wired to react more profoundly to fear than to heart. From the dog-whistles of prior years to the foghorn of this year, fear trumps love. It's in our genes. Even here, fear of Trump was and is an over-arching theme.
In short, people don't vote for the things we appear to care about in this reality-based community. Indeed, it's possible to cite evidence here, though less glaring, that some of the conclusions below apply to us as well.
So, what does make people vote the way they do?
Consider another bit of evidence. Remember in 2000 when Rove said George Bush was someone you'd like to have a beer with? The Republicans idolize Reagan as the "great communicator," even though he would almost certainly loathe what they have become. We adore Obama, but is it for his policies or for his inimitable style and oratorical skills? Based on constant criticisms here of Obama's "failures" with respect to policy and issues, it's clear that it's his charisma and oratory that brings us together. The first lesson is that that people vote based on an emotional connection with the candidate. Trump, vile as he was, had that in spades. Clinton did not, much as I personally liked her.
The next lesson is that we don't win elections because of our policies. We win elections to carry out our policies. There's a big difference, one that the right has understood for decades. We're arguing about what's "right" or "what the data show." They are in what looks like la-la-land to us, arguing about something entirely different. And they win doing it.
So what is this land that the Right lives in? It's a land of tribes. To pick one example, evangelicals are a tribe. If you identify as an evangelical, it's because of your family, your social circle, and the broader community you live in. Part of being an evangelical today is being in the Republican tribe. (I know there are evangelicals here, but Trump won 90%+ of evangelicals. The exception proves the rule in this case.) Once he got the GOP nomination, it was a foregone conclusion he'd have their support. Being evangelical means you suspect evolution and hence science, so you’re also in the anti-science tribe and disbelieve in global warming. Bingo again.
Let's pick another tribe: scientists. That would be people who are driven by "what the data say." People who "believe in science" or "data" are part of the "scientist tribe." You don't have to be a scientist to be in this tribe, and most members of the science tribe are not scientists. There are a lot of us here on Kos. We pride ourselves on being policy wonks. One problem is that our tribe is tiny compared to the evangelicals.
Another tribe is the "small government" tribe. Never mind that they mostly love big government--Defense, Social Security, Medicare, to name a few. They love thinking of themselves as supporting "small government." They support policies that are framed as "small government" whether they are or not. “Small government” is a symbol of this tribe.
What Right has mastered, whether you call it "spin," or "sound bites," or "wedge issues," is to find symbols that resonate with the emotional and social fundamentals of their different tribes and stitch them together under a charismatic leader. That leader can be an incompetent fool as long as the superstructure of the campaign--the twitterstorms, if you will--resonate with the the GOP mega-tribe. Their overall narrative is distrust of government, trust of privileged religions and races, value "tradition," and most especially fear of change and fear of the other. Republicans constantly see themselves as victims, even when they are not. This sense of vicitimhood and the fear it entails is part of what makes their tribe strong. Fear trumps love.
We Democrats have tribes, too. I'm a scientist and I'm gay, so I'm two of our tribes. With Obama we had a charismatic leader who could articulate a vision for our polyglot of tribes: "Change you can believe in." He identified with us on a personal level, and spoke convincingly of this vision. Even when we disagreed with him on particulars (Rick Warren at the inauguration--remember that?), we still followed him. He managed to this without playing the fear card. That's the Republican's card, and they got rewarded handsomely for it.
It's interesting to conjecture how the 2012 election might have turned out if someone like Trump had run instead of Romney. Romney, after all, tried to be uplifting like Obama, but using the GOP symbols. He just wasn't very good at it. If he had chosen the fear route, what would have happened? But that's moot, since in the future we will face nothing but Trumps, so it's essential we develop strategies to succeed in the new world where we find ourselves.
There are many challenges before us. We abandoned the 50-state strategy eight years ago, and as a consequence our bench is woefully weak. But there are many high-visibility people in entertainment and other industries who might serve as charismatic spokespeople. We need to nurture them and grow them. We need to do the same with our elected officials. I had hoped that Xavier Becerra would be the VP pick for exactly that reason. There are more out there like him. We need to bring them to the forefront.
I wish I had concrete strategies to propose. But if we are to be a reality-based community, we must acknowledge what just happened. It wasn't our failure that brought us here. It was their success. We must learn from it and move forward. The next DNC chair must have a sociological and psychological strategy to empower, grow, and most especially inspire the Democratic tribe. We must find the right symbols ("Change you can believe in") that unifies our constituent tribes. We must remember that we don't get elected because of our policies. We get elected to carry out our policies.