Boston Globe writer Michael Cohen just offered up his own analysis of what happened in the more contentious states this election. I’ve storified it for easy perusal.
For me, the fact that Clinton won the popular vote and the complexities of the state by state races puts to bed the idea that Bernie would have done better. That’s merely a canard at this point. That line of reasoning does nothing but let progressives eat their own. All the relitigation of the primary serves to do is pit the social progressives against the economic progressives against the environmental progressives, when what we really need to is embrace an intersectional progressive movement. I saw that in Hillary Clinton. No, I didn’t think she was perfect, but I was willing to work with her, flaws and all, because she spoke to both economic and existential anxieties among all people, especially people of color. I refuse to be part of any movement that denies that white liberalism is still part of a racist structure.
That said, I highly disagree with Michael Cohen in his assessment that voter suppression had little effect on North Carolina.
In fact, the very nature of Trump’s win seemed to have been “Shave a little here, shave a little there” until it’s only by dint of geographic quirks that he managed to win the electoral votes while losing the popular vote.
As has been his Modus Operandi for his entire career, Trump gamed the system and took advantage of the loopholes to turn an actual loss into his personal gain. And like the investors in his casinos and real estate developments, we’re the ones left footing the bill.