At National Journal Charlie Cook suggests that the reason that Hillary Clinton lost the election was less because of bigotry, James Comey, or Russian hacking than because she believed her data analysts:
The reÂliÂance, or perÂhaps overÂreÂliÂance on anaÂlytÂics, may be one of the factors conÂtribÂutÂing to ClinÂton’s surÂprise deÂfeat. The ClinÂton team was so conÂfidÂent in its anaÂlytÂicÂal modÂels that it opÂted not to conÂduct trackÂing polls in a numÂber of states durÂing the last month of the camÂpaign. As a conÂsequence, deÂteriÂorÂatÂing supÂport in states such as Michigan and WisÂconÂsin fell beÂlow the radar screen, slipÂpage that that traÂdiÂtionÂal trackÂing polls would have cerÂtainly caught.
AcÂcordÂing to Kantar MeÂdia/CMAG data, the ClinÂton camÂpaign did not go on the air with teleÂviÂsion ads in WisÂconÂsin unÂtil the weeks of Oct. 25 and Nov. 1, spendÂing in the end just $2.6 milÂlion. SuÂper PACs backÂing ClinÂton didn’t air ads in WisÂconÂsin unÂtil the last week of the camÂpaign. In Michigan, aside from a tiny $16,000 buy by the camÂpaign and a party comÂmitÂtee the week of Oct. 25, the ClinÂton camÂpaign and its alÂlied groups didn’t conÂduct a conÂcerÂted adÂvertÂising efÂfort unÂtil a week beÂfore the elecÂtion.
In fact, the ClinÂton camÂpaign spent more money on teleÂviÂsion adÂvertÂising in AriÂzona, GeorÂgia, and the Omaha, NebÂraska marÂkets than in Michigan and WisÂconÂsin comÂbined. It was Michigan and WisÂconÂsin, along with Pennsylvania (the ClinÂton camÂpaign and alÂlied groups did spend $42 milÂlion on teleÂviÂsion in the KeyÂstone State), that efÂfectÂively cost DemoÂcrats the presÂidÂency.
That, along with the observations Mr. Cook makes in the article about the irrelevance of polling, provides at least a little support for the point I’ve been making around here for some time. Election consultants really don’t have as much to offer as they used to. If they ever did.
Election consultants are people who’d have been selling patent medicine or shares in pyramid schemes in days of yore. The title is a backstage pass to the cable news networks where these nobodies prattle on 24/7, their accuracy never checked, their bona fides never questioned.
Election consultants may have trouble calculating votes from those who don’t want to reveal their preferences. Suppression of voter inclinations resulted from abuses rained on them by leftist Trump haters. Just look how it has continued post election, especially during the processing of electoral votes! I don’t remember such brutal harassment of people, in attempts to subvert their votes.
Where to start?
1) What Jan said. 2) The pollsters proved to be set piece players. 3) the Obamacare premiums announced just prior to the election. 4) Arrogance and self-unawareness on the part of the candidate, staff and supporters.
Talk about self-unaware. Obama went out and told people “my agenda and record are on the ballot” in the form of Hillary Clinton. Oops. Now he preens around telling people he could have won.
Actually, I think the president is probably correct when he says he could have won. I think there are lots of Democrats who could have won. Trump wasn’t a great candidate but he was good enough to beat a patently lousy candidate which was all that was required.
I also think that Joe Biden, Jim Webb, and many other Democrats could have won. The self-examination that should be going on right now among Democrats is why did we nominate Hillary Clinton? But it isn’t.
At very least Obama would have won the vote as Hillary did by 3 million. But he’s a much better politician, currently sitting on high approval ratings after a successful 8 years, so of course he’d have won the popular vote by an even larger spread, more than enough to take the EV. He’d have won in a walk.
Probably Obama would have garnered a higher popular vote than the unlikable, corrupt HRC, but it would have been derived from the deep blue, densely populated coastal areas that already provided HRC with her own padded vote.
People are tired of the failed social progressive agenda driven full speed by Obama. His main legacy will be his racial identity – being the first African American president. I even think his approval numbers are due to his race, and the suble hesitation people have about voicing any personal negativity towards this man for fear of being called a racist.
Furthermore, note that most places Obama heavily campaigned for HRC – PA, FL, OH – she lost. In these states Obama was linking his policies with her election and people turned him/her down.
Jan, Obama’s approval number is 16 points positive. Man-baby’s approval is underwater, the lowest approval rating for an incoming president-elect ever. Obama would be re-elected in a walk.
You rely far too much on polling numbers, Michael. Such a mind set doomed HRC’s logic during the election, as well as how and where she implemented the vast resources that were at her finger tips. What it should remind people of is that money and poll-driven data doesn’t always provide the outcomes desired.
Also, it’s will be Trump’s performance that will provide the ultimate trajectory of his popularity and approval numbers. Now, though, it’s the election’s divisiveness, Trump’s abrasiveness and media alienation that is still front and center to what people think of his looming POTUS role.
To the posts point — I will push back — political consultants are useful, if they are unusually skilled, and the candidate listens to them. Reading the post mortems, Bill Clinton had his finger on those voters that flipped the election, but Hillary refused his advice (what would he know, Bill only won 2 elections) and instead listened to other advisors. And anyone who’s read interviews of Jared Kushner realizes he has a first rate political mind – there’s a reason why Trump wants Kushner and Ivanka in D.C, not his other kids. Its not highlighted much, especially by political analysts because Kushner doesn’t have the traditional background for an advisor.
Even then advisors can only do so much, Kushner only got Trump a reasonable chance at winning, fortune / luck probably had more.
To the comments about Obama winning. Its a fantasy! Yes Obama would have won if all else was the same, but its like the popular vote fantasy — Obama running would have changed everything. For example, Rubio would have a much better chance of getting the nomination, Obama’s record over the past 4 years would be even heavily scrutinized, etc. Why even reimagine just this election, would Obama even be President if Bill Clinton was President from 2001-2005?
Its not a law of God that Obama cannot run for a 3rd term. Its the 22nd amendment, and it can be repealed like the 18th, other countries have repealed term limits. If Obama was serious about his broad appeal, why doesn’t he go and campaign for such a thing?
Those were worthwhile comments, Curious….
Yes, Kushner has a good mind which has quietly been behind much of Trump’s success, especially dealing with the advancement of technology applied to the campaign, and the use of targeted social media for messaging.
And, yes Obama’s popularity is not the only metric that can be applied as evidence that he would have won. Just look at the overall Dem losses throughout the country, over the 8 years of his presidency – the state houses, governorships, and now both branches of Congress. This did not happen because people liked what Obama brought to the table. And, eventually, even one’s favorable color, their cool demeanor, and oratory skills doesn’t compensate for their incompetency or biased management of a country’s problems.
Remind me. Is Trump temperamentally incapable of taking advice from anybody else or a creature of canny political advisors? I’m beginning to lose track.
Dave, it’s not hard to understand, really. In order to profit from good advice he would need to not be an idiot. Sadly, he is an idiot. So what he does is make snap decisions based on whoever offered him the most appealing slogan. For any psychopath the essential thing is to appear to be in control, and for a near illiterate who has been covering for untreated ‘learning differences’ his whole life, control has to be maintained without actually bothering to learn anything.
Pooh pooh all you like, but I called his dyslexia months before anyone else, and now it’s common knowledge. Ditto his psychopathy. Ditto the fact that he would therefore not mature or change once elected. Ditto his insecurity and neediness which compels him to do stupid things like pick a Twitter feud with Alec Baldwin. And ditto, of course, his astounding dishonesty.
Do you think his Tweet about lighting up a nuclear arm’s race was a plan? Let me use my psychic powers and offer you a scenario: We are in fact updating our nukes, Trump heard that from one of his pet generals, decided to add extra testosterone to prove his manhood, and said something moronic. In a flash we went from ‘modernize’ to ‘greatly expand.’
He does not think like you, Dave, he is not rational in a way that either of us would recognize. He is all instinct and need and insecurity. A man-baby trying to pass himself off as a grown-up.
Basically, I don’t give a damn how he thinks. I do care about his predisposition to shoot his mouth off but there ain’t much I can do about that now. I didn’t vote for the guy. I do find it amusing in a gallows humor sort of way that he’s simultaneously an idiot and a genius. I think idiot is closer to the fact but that means that an idiot beat the smartest kids in the room. Apparently, their smarts were oversold.
I find a lot of the discussion on the Democratic side of the fence is aimed at protecting the Democratic leadership. I think this whole thing is their fault, they have to go, and other Democrats should stop protecting them.
For everything else we’ve got to rely on Congress to control Trump’s worst instincts. Like it or not our system is one that by design has a strong Congress and a weak presidency. Congress has become a group of studied weaklings because that suits lifetime tenure. They’ll need to pull up their big boy pants.
When Trump finally assumes the mantle of POTUS, I think condemnation of his intellect, policies, temperament, predisposition to take advice from people etc. would be fairer and more understandable.
This is a suitable companion piece to how “odds, “predictions,” and even partisan assumptions often turn out.
I don’t think Trump would have won w/o his advisors. It was only after they talked him into stopping the stupid midnight tweets, and stupid comments in general, that he had a surge.
Steve
Dave Schuler: I think idiot is closer to the fact but that means that an idiot beat the smartest kids in the room. Apparently, their smarts were oversold.
A supporter once called out, “Governor Stevenson, all thinking people are for you!” And Adlai Stevenson answered, “That’s not enough. I need a majority.”
He’s never been a genius to me, I pegged him from the get-go as a stupid psychopath. And I don’t care in the least about protecting Hillary or anyone in the Democratic leadership, nor do I know anyone outside of a few hacks much inclined that way, that is a mis-read on your part.
What we care about is the minorities he targets, the women he abuses, the damage he may do to the constitution, the international embarrassment he represents, the hand-jobs for Putin and Netanyahu and Duterte and every other authoritarian thug, the embrace of Nazis and the domestic terrorists of the KKK, the blatant corruption that may permanently degrade the office he holds by virtue of a glitch in our electoral system’s design. And even despite ourselves, a little for the stupid hillbillies who voted for him and are likely to lose their health insurance and Medicaid and perhaps their Medicare as well while their president lines his pockets.
And you should care about how he thinks. You won’t get anywhere looking at his ‘official positions,’ those are cancellable at any moment. This isn’t just politics now, it’s abnormal psychology. Your preferred skill set will not apply.
“What we care about is the minorities he targets, the women he abuses, the damage he may do to the constitution, the international embarrassment he represents, the hand-jobs for Putin and Netanyahu and Duterte and every other authoritarian thug, the embrace of Nazis and the domestic terrorists of the KKK, the blatant corruption that may permanently degrade the office he holds by virtue of a glitch in our electoral system’s design. And even despite ourselves, a little for the stupid hillbillies who voted for him and are likely to lose their health insurance and Medicaid and perhaps their Medicare as well while their president lines his pockets.”
Those comments are about as incendiary, obnoxious and over the top as the ones Trump has been accused of and mightily criticized for making.
Ironically, I recollect McConnell being harangued for saying Obama was going to be limited to one term. That comment has been recited over and over again exemplifying some kind of verbal infamy. However, it was made in 2010, 2 years after Obama’s election, and the catastrophic midterms that saw the dems lose the House. It was also following Obama’s refusal to work with the R’s on healthcare, except in a superficial, patronizing (“I won”) way. And, eventually the PPACA was passed in the Senate, unilaterally, having no R participation on Christmas Eve, no less.
If, however, such a major, landmark bill is ever pushed through by the R’s, in the same ruthless, unorthodox manner, the dems will go ballistic, with descriptions of Fascism etc. being thickly laid on the brand of the R’s. It’s amazing to me, though, how all the “isms” only apply and are heaped onto one side of the aisle, while much more egregious insults and moves on the other side of the aisle are greeted as being totally legitimate.
As for so-called “thugs,” look in the mirror of the democrat party. There are plenty ugly acts and actions reflected there, causing chaos, unruly, unlawful social conduct mostly at the behest of the party on the left. This has been illustrated by recent mall riots, electorate harassment and death threats, increasing homicide rates all over the country (the so-called “Ferguson Effect”), and campus quelling of free speech unless it’s approved by PC majorities.
Even the news media is not able to parse or dismiss how divisive and incorrigible the country has become of late. And, you can’t blame this on someone who hasn’t even raised his hand yet to take the oath of office. This is all on Obama…..
To tie together a bunch of these comments.
A unusually skilled advisor should be honest about their limitations. The biggest limitation is that they can be profoundly insightful for a time, but the nation changes and they aren’t any good. David Plouffe looked a genius from 2008 to 2014, 2016 made him look like an idiot. Karl Rove was brilliant in 2000, 2004, but his decline started when he mentioned “Permanent majority” and he frankly embarrassed himself in 2008, 2012 and 2016.
Trump may not have needed the thinking men to win, but the nation sure needs the thinking men to stop working on parallel Earth theories and help in Earth Prime. We need the thinking men to come up with new ideas to address the myriad of social ills in this countries and in the world as documented by the author in this blog. I sure don’t think Donald Trump has presented a set of proposals that by themselves could fix it.
And the best advice that anyone has mentioned since the election came *grasp* from Mitch McConnell.
“I don’t think we should act as if we are going to be in the majority forever, We’ve been given a temporary lease on power, if you will”.
That’s better than anything 10000 consultants can say. McConnell would serve Donald Trump, Republicans and the nation well if he repeats that line to Donald Trump every time they meet, and every day he speaks in the senate.
Curious, I think McConnell has already indicated that he is not going to be Donald’s “yes” man. In fact the entire administration is going to be under a harsh microscope comprised of NeverTrump Republicans, a disgruntled opposition party, and a press that will not be fawning over the president, asking soft ball questions, as they did with president Obama. Trump is going to be presented with no honeymoon, but rather a gauntlet of never ending criticism and doubt.
” It was also following Obama’s refusal to work with the R’s on healthcare,”
Nope. Republicans had plenty of opportunity, but they were worried about losing their own primaries. Remember that Bennett lost his just for having his name on a bill with Wyden. Republicans withdrew parts of the ACA they had asked to be included for fear that it might cost them an election (primary).
“Curious, I think McConnell has already indicated that he is not going to be Donald’s “yes†man.”
McConnell’s wife is in Trump’s cabinet. Let’s all guess why. Probably just a coincidence.
Steve
I find myself in the position of liking and hating everything Michael says about Trump. Not that I agree or disagree with it as much as like it and hate it.
This tells me Trump is chaos. That and a generally Russophile perspective leads to world power multipolarity.
I’m guessing this is what Michael fears and loathes most.
Enough with this “indispensable nation” myth.