I’d like to offer some thoughts on how Bernie might have fared better. They might be worth looking at even if we do manage to eke out a victory (which is my most fervent wish). This is offered with complete good-will.
- This was an anti-establishment cycle. Bernie was an anti-establishment candidate. No matter which way you cut it, Hillary was not.
- Tonight, every pundit suddenly tuned in to the size of crowds at Trump’s rallies and what this should have told them about the enthusiasm of his voters. Guess who had even larger rallies and was the star attraction at them? Perhaps enthusiasm does matter for turnout.
- Voters do not seem to believe that politicians connected to lobbyists have their best interests at heart. Bernie was largely immune to that critique.
- Many people are still hurting from or never recovered from the great recession. They felt that monied and political interests got away with it. For some large fraction of these voters, Clinton personified the folks who “got away with it”. In retrospect, I missed this and I wonder now whether Trump understood that this is what those “lock her up” chants were about. HRC became a foil for all the disgust voters have for the folks they believe wrecked the economy.
- To his advantage, Bernie had a systematic critique for people who felt they had been hurt by the system.
- Trump seems to have turned out large numbers of rural voters in Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Bernie might has stood a better chance against them. Ironically, most Democrats considered it a handicap that he was from a rural state.
- It would have been tougher to paint Bernie as someone who would shift positions for political expediency, for example on TPP.
- Bernie was not susceptible to criticisms on the Iraq war vote, or other mis-adventures.
- Bernie did not offer a big target in the form of enormous wealth acquired almost entirely as a result of a successful political career.
- Bernie did not seem as culturally remote to low/middle-income, non-college educated people who aren’t in professional jobs, i.e. the working class.
- Bernie had a coherent message to restore prosperity and reduce economic uncertainty from people’s lives. You can quibble with whether it would have worked or would have passed. But it was an easily understandable package of measures delivered without waffling or caveats. Yes, it could have been blasted as “socialism”, but this country voted for FDR thrice and he was called a Commie by all and sundry.
I’m hoping we learn from this. If what we fear happens with the presidency, we will have four years in the wilderness to try to understand why. But even if by some minor miracle HRC wins the presidency (and I fervently hope that happens), we will still have to contend with a very poor showing in Congressional and State races.
I’m sure there are many more lessons, and I’m sure there will be many saying this moment isn’t the right moment to discuss them. That we need to grieve, or whatever. Fine, go ahead,
I would urge everyone to resist trying to blame Jill Stein. Primarily because it makes you look numerically illiterate. Jill Stein’s numbers would not have made a difference in either Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (glance right). So we can’t lean on the “Blame Nader” crutch in this cycle to avoid introspection.
Lastly, I would say it does us no good to blame voters, or call them names. Undoubtedly some of Trump’s supporters are deplorable. Others would always have voted for the Republican in the race. But some fraction are neither. They’ve voted for Democratic candidates, they’ve even voted for a black presidential candidate. Yet they saw it fit not to vote for Hillary Clinton this year. Some of this likely had to do with the candidate. But part of it was also down to the environment. This was an anti-establishment cycle, and Clinton was an establishment candidate. More people should have figured that out.