OK, I’ve been seeing the increasingly vicious back-and-forth going on, the relitigation of the primaries, and so on and so forth. I’m hoping, in this diary, to be as dispassionate as possible in analyzing precisely why Clinton lost the election.
I am not going to excessively relitigate the primaries — what’s done is done, and neither Sanders nor Clinton is likely to be interested in a 2020 run.
I am not going to be (deliberately) incendiary — I’m trying to encourage discourse and dispassion, not division and bitterness.
And I’m not going to (deliberately) handwave components of the election.
Please — I would esteem it a favour if those who choose to participate in this particular discussion could do likewise. With this in mind, I will probably focus more on areas where Kossacks are in disagreement, while still acknowledging factors in which we are in agreement. With all of that said, let’s start this.
Factors which I have identified as contributing to Clinton’s loss:
1. A bitter, tainted primary election.
Clinton won the primary election — as I said, I’m not going to relitigate this. However, one key result of the primaries was that a large segment of the Democratic base — the people on whose support the eventual nominee must be able to rely — was dispirited and angry. Why?
First, of course, there was the sense that Clinton’s time had passed. Her style came across to many observers as a 90s politician in a 2010s world, and her recent conversion to several progressive ideas appeared at first glance to be one of convenience.
Second, equally obviously, was the palpable sense that Clinton entered the primaries with several undue advantages (as well as all the ones she had rightfully earned) — specifically, the near-unanimity among “Establishment” Democratic politicians in both endorsing her and….creatively interpreting the DNC’s role to her advantage.
Examples of the latter part include (but are not limited to):
- The decision of the DNC Chair (DWS) to schedule all public events (most particularly debates, which are an outsider’s best chance to introduce themselves in a strong fashion on a national stage) at times apparently designed to minimize exposure (which advantaged Clinton, as the candidate with universal name recognition);
- DWS’ decision to hamstring the Sanders Campaign’s ability to access its own data right before the primaries started;
- The DNC’s decision to share staffing and facilities with the Clinton campaign well before the primaries were concluded;
- The role of the State-level establishments in taking part in elaborate money-shuffling operations designed to circumvent donations limits and funnel more money into Clinton’s campaign while the primaries were still ongoing, and many others.
Would Clinton have won the primaries without these advantages? Most likely — she had many legitimately-earned advantages going in. But we’ll never know now. And that cloud around the processes of the primaries inhibited the other candidates supporters’ ability to put the primaries behind them and unify the party. They felt, not unreasonably, that they had been robbed of a fair election — one in which all candidates were able to make their case on equal terms.
This, in turn, led to anger at the very party which ideally is guarding and promoting their interests as part of the Democratic coalition, anger which was fanned when the DNC/Podesta emails were dropped and confirmed that the DNC had, indeed, had at least a thumb on the scale for Clinton. This undoubtedly had a part in lowering the turnout in November.
If you’re having trouble accepting this point, consider: Would you consider an election held under those terms, in a Latin American/African country, to be “free and fair”?
2. A partisan, biased media.
Undoubtedly, this is a large part of Trump’s ability to win — he personally acknowledged as much when he stated that a large part of his strategy in the general would be to rely upon free publicity. The mainstream media routinely, uncritically repeated and amplified his lies. And they deserve to be blamed for that, and for their acknowledged double-standards to which they held the candidates.
3. Foreign/FBI interference.
This is also a portion of it — it is beyond certain that Russian hackers were involved in getting various leaks to Julian Assange’s inbox — but I don’t think it was quite as large as some others claim. Had Clinton truly commanded the lead that the polls showed her with — and if so much of her support had not been so soft — Comey’s interference would only have taken the edge off her victory. Instead, Comey delivered the coup de grace to her campaign.
4. Racism and sexism.
Racism was also a factor — but, I think, less of one than many people are prepared to consider. Bear in mind that many of Trump’s breakthroughs — PA, MI, WI, various counties which were traditionally “blue” — came from voters who had voted for Barack Obama’s candidacy, not once but twice, against Republican opponents far more mainstream than Trump.
Certainly, sexism was a factor as well — again, less than I suspect others believe. Consider Michigan: It has voted for a liberal Democratic woman to represent it in the Senate (Debbie Stabenow) for the last three terms, twice with large margins. It has voted for a moderate Democratic Governor to lead its State government twice (Jennifer Granholm), once in a Republican year (2002). Why would people who voted for Stabenow and Granholm suddenly vote against Clinton due to sexism? They voted against Clinton, but I don’t think sexism was the answer.
5. A flawed candidate.
This was most definitely a factor. All candidates are flawed — to expect perfection in a candidate for nationwide office is silly. But Clinton’s particular flaws played precisely to Trump’s strengths, while his own flaws were largely immune from her attacks. Consider:
- Criminal activity: The fact that Clinton was under active investigation for criminal activities (she was correctly determined to be innocent) made it difficult for her to capitalize upon Trump’s long history of cutting legal corners;
- Establishment: Donald Trump may be an anti-establishmentarian, but he’s of the establishment. Born into wealth and power, his political ties are long-running and as deep as you get. This is the person who brags about his connections all the time! But, of course, Clinton couldn’t tap into that gulf between his personal history and his message, because she — having been in or near the halls of power for the past generation or more — is very much Establishment herself, however progressive her ideals are.
- Corruption: Donald Trump is corrupt. There: it’s said. He is undeniably corrupt, he is openly, publicly corrupt, he brags about being corrupt. Yet this could not be used against him. Why? Because any such arguments quickly devolved into “he says, she says” ones, and there’s enough smoke for observers to pretend that it comes from both sides equally.
- Messaging: Clinton did not have a single, clear message. Trump did. It was bullshit, but he had it. And that message, “Make America Great Again”, was nothing short of genius. In four short words, he played on the resentment of people who’ve been left behind for the past generation, promised a better future for them and promoted himself. Clinton’s message, “I’m with Her”, did nothing comparable. It was about Clinton, not about America. It was about being with someone, not what she’d do for them. It was passive, while Trump’s message was active.
- Populism vs. “business as usual”: Clinton is not, and has never been, a particularly left-wing politician. The only time she’s pretended to be that was in primary elections.
On top of this, the Clinton campaign was unable to come up with a single, coherent response to a very simple question: Why do you want to be President? What did Clinton hope to accomplish as President? What was the single, underlying theme of her run at the White House? What main ideal, above all others, did she champion? And, most importantly of all, why should people support her, other than for the sake of opposing Trump?
She couldn’t provide a clear, concise and coherent answer to any of those questions. And that played a large part in her losing a broad swath of the Obama coalition.
6. A smug, complacent, sneering party establishment.
This is most perfectly epitomized in Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment — it was her 47% moment. You can’t sneer at a huge chunk of the electorate — a chunk you need at least some support from — and hope to win. But there were many other examples. Democratic officials and pundits routinely derided and generalized Trump’s supporters as being motivated by racism and sexism, when many were not — and were therefore reachable...until they heard that they’d been sneered at.
This attitude was also exemplified in the Clinton campaign’s attitude toward Sanders’ supporters after the primaries, which can be characterized in seven words:
Go on then — we don’t need you!
This attitude was evident in many ways, from Clinton’s choice of a centrist (if capable), technocratic Senator from a swing-state to be her VP, to her walking-back of several progressive positions taken during the primaries, and, of course, too many of her proxies’, surrogates’ and supporters’ dismissive, sneering attitude. It was clear that Clinton felt little, if any, need to embrace the Sanders supporters beyond the bare minimum.
Even without this specific circumstance, to any politician trying to build an election-winning coalition, those are the seven worst possible words for them, their campaign, their affiliates or even their supporters to say. General implications aside, after a primary election whose fairness was in dispute, all too many supporters of the losing candidate would be entirely receptive to such a message.
Complacency is also easily established — after the primaries were done, how much effort did the Clinton campaign put into Wisconsin? Michigan? Pennsylvania? Very little indeed — they were taken for granted. I recall much sneering, here and elsewhere, at “crazy Donald” who was spending time in PA. PA, MI, WI — these are States which hadn’t been won by a Republican candidate since 1988. These were part of the “blue firewall”. Yet they were lost.
Perhaps Trump wasn’t quite so crazy after all, in going after Pennsylvania. Speaking of Trump, why was he the Republican candidate? Several reasons, but one of these was the DNC’s effort to ensure he won the GOP nomination.
Seriously. This guy is, if not a Fascist, then a proto-Fascist at the very least. Helping him get the GOP nod was playing with fire, all in an effort to ensure the weakest possible Republican candidate. It reeked of a smug certainty that he would be utterly unacceptable to most of America. And it was wrong.
So, there it is, folks: My current take on how America got to this point, with an orange Mussolini on the verge of taking the highest office in the land. Opinions and discussion are more than welcomed — to quote our own Trump, I am not “the suppository of all wisdom”.