Subscribe to the IHARE Blog

Demographic Deluge or Democratic Disaster? The 2016 Elections

Clinton-Trump Probably Won’t Be The Next ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’

by Harry Enten, October 16, 2016 (Getty Images)

When the 2016 election year began, the Democrats were singing “Happy days are here again.” The old FDR song seemed very appropriate for the coming year. The Democrats expected to win the presidential election. The Democrats expected a “third term” for both the incumbent and the previous Democratic president. The Democrats expected to win back the Senate. The Democrats expected to make significant gains in the House. As we all know, those dreams were not fulfilled and the vision of a robust return to power were dashed by the great disrupter. Actually there is more to the story than one individual, something the Democrats need to keep in mind if they are serious about reversing the results the next time around.

Starting at the top, the Democrats didn’t do as well as they had in the 2012 presidential elections. Last time, the Democratic candidate won just over 51% of the popular vote. This time around the result was just over 48%, a drop of approximately 3%. That decrease is a significant number, roughly triple the 1% drop in the Republican percentage from just over 47% to just over 46%. In part both declines may be attributed to the disgust by voters over the two main choices. Still the large decline in the Democratic vote should give pause to those who focus on the plurality vote total and ignore the percentage trend.

One obvious area of concern is the women’s vote. As we enter the period of suffrage centennials, the white women vote did not go as hoped for by the Democrats. Despite all the egregious comments and actions by the Republican candidate who loves women only when he grabs them and they meet his age, race, and physical standards, white women voted 53% for him. That was not the expected result in the presidential election with the first female candidate of a major party.

In this regard, it is time for the Democrats to put Madeline Albright out to pasture. Her admonition about there being a special place in hell for women who don’t help women is part of what was fundamentally wrong with the Democratic candidate.  It is a racist comment that discounts black women who supported Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary; her implication is that “women” means “white women” the way “actor” means “white person.” It is a sexist comment that denies women the right to choose be it a Mitt Romney, Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump without being a traitor to their gender. That attitude of moral superiority and zealousness for the cause did not go over well with white women in the Day 1 march who did not share agreement on every item on the approved list of “women’s issues.” At some point, the Democrats might want to consider why they are alienating white women even with a world class pig in White House.

Besides touting the popular vote win, Democrats also like to point out the narrowness of the electoral win. While it certainly is true that the winner did not win in a landslide except in Trumpietown, his narrow victory still raises warning signs for the Democrats. Consider state of Wisconsin. Trump’s margin of victory was under 1% numbering in the thousands of votes, a seemingly small amount. By contrast, Obama won the state by close to 7% and over 200,000 votes. Those numbers are too big a shift to attribute to Russian intervention or the FBI. Wake up and smell the coffee.

One wonders why the state never appeared on the Democratic radar. One wonders why the Democratic candidate never appeared in a state that shifted over 7% in the vote in one election cycle. I recall reading just before the election a smug condescending out-of-touch-with-the-real-world blogger who confidently predicted a Democratic victory in 2016 comparable to the one in 2012 (332 votes). Maybe it would be even better with over 350 electoral college votes if some of the Republican states flipped Democratic.  I suspect this attitude may have been too prevalent among the Democratic elitists for them to see what was happening in the real world.

Wisconsin should not have been that big a surprise. The state has a Republican governor, Scott Walker. After he was first elected he won a hard-fought recall election. In 2014, Walker won for a third time with a  6.7% margin. There are Republican majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. Ron Johnson, the Republican incumbent candidate for Senate in 2016 won by about 3% and 100,000 votes. His seat was one the Democrats were counting on to win. The losing Democratic presidential and senate candidates won approximately the same number of votes. The Republican victory margin differs from 3% to under 1% in the two races because a third party candidate in the presidential race siphoned off votes that went for the Republican senate candidate.

These numbers mean that if the Republicans had nominated an adult for president instead of the loser of the Wisconsin Republican presidential primary, the margin of victory would have been closer to the 3% margin of victory in the Senate race. In other words, while the Democrats salivated over the prospect of Arizona flipping as New Mexico, Colorado, and Virginia have, they lost track of what was happening in the blue wall, their “own backyard.”

In approximately 80% of the states, Democrats did worse in 2016 than in 2012. This reduction occurred even when they won a state both times. This is Huge! Ohio was not even a battleground. The state the Democrats won by 2% in 2012, they lost by over 8.5% this time around. That’s no due to the Russians either. The Ohio senate race which was supposed to be hard-fought with a big-name Democratic candidate turned into a 21% drubbing. Hundreds of counties nationwide which had voted Democratic in 2012 voted Republican in 2016. Maps showing the trends from the last election to this one show Republican gains almost everywhere.

What is the explanation for these results? One answer by the losing Democratic candidate was that the voters for her opponent were deplorables. Well, maybe not all of them, just 47%. No data to support that conclusion were provided. As it turns out, the deplorables were just as capable of adopting the slur from the enemy as nasty women have been on the reverse side. As with Albright’s admonition and the smug take-it-for granted attitude of elitist bloggers, deplorables is a concept best relegated to dustbin if Democrats are serious about reversing the trends which have occurred following the 2008 elections.

Then, of course, there is the demographic wave of the future. Even if the Democrats do nothing, in time the demographic changes sweeping the country guarantee Democratic victories despite the temporary setbacks. For years now the Democrats have been waiting for Godot, for the magic moment when the new America of immigrants of color would sweep the country and turn the electoral map Democrat.

This demographic deluge has produced results in California and perhaps Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. So far the eagerly anticipated browning of America has not occurred. The vote totals in the last election by Latin American immigrants and their offspring were comparable to those in 2008 and 2012, in the 27-28% range. George Bush’s 40% vote represents a high point for Republicans but one that would do damaging results to Democratic aspirations if repeated.

What have the Democrats accomplished with their over-the-top rhetoric incessantly repeated that a demographic deluge is coming, that the old America is dying and that a new progressive one is being born? A great politician once said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  So far the biggest impact of the rhetoric by the self-righteous zealots prophesizing the end is near has been to scare white people that the fate of their country is at risk due to alien invaders. How has that worked out for the Democrats?

It gets worse for the Democrats. What happens to the Democratic vision of identity politics if immigrants from Latin America (and Asia) intermarry with immigrants from Europe? What happens to the Democratic vision of identity politics if the Republicans catch on that Latin Americans Pope Francis, Fidel Castro, Marco Rubio, and Giselle Bündchen are not people of color? What happens to the Democratic vision of identity politics if Republicans catch on that immigrants from Latin America like immigrants from Europe know not only their continent of origin but their country, village, town, city, and ethnicity too? What happens to the Democratic vision of identity politics if Republicans catch on that immigrants from Latin American like immigrants from Europe want to live the American Dream? What happens to the Democratic vision of identity politics if Republicans catch on that immigrants from Latin America like immigrants from Europe are proud to be Americans and to be part of We the People?  Contrary to the Democratic wishes, Latin American immigrants are not middle-passage blacks where Democratic unanimity can be taken for granted. Should the Democrats take for granted that the party of malice will remain stupid forever? Alternative facts aren’t limited to just one party.

If the Democrats don’t like the election results they have no one to blame but themselves. Joe Biden for President and Elizabeth Warren for Vice President and none of this would be happening.

2020 Presidential Election: The Battle Is Engaged

Electoral Map from 270towin.com

The 2016 presidential election was distinctively different from all previous ones. It continues to reverberate throughout the land. It was the subject of two posts here. First on the historical role of New York State governors in presidential elections from Martin Van Buren who became president to the Cuomos who have not so far. The previous New Yorker presidential election in 1944 featured two people, Roosevelt and Dewey, with state governor backgrounds. The most recent election offered two people with no political executive experience. The second post focused on the 22nd amendment. Without it the husband incumbent would have kept running for additional terms beyond the two-term limit and the wife never would have been considered as a candidate…except in the way dictators for life might seek to circumvent the rules by relinquishing their position in favor of their wife.

Since the election, the new and unique haven’t ceased. This transition period is the first time when a president-elect began conducting himself as if he already was the president. While he had no legal power, the electoral-college winner acted as if he was the president. His tweets and pronouncements may have been devoid of statutory power at the time, but they previewed what was going to happen once he took the oath of office. It was as if we had two presidents simultaneously, not a president and a co-president of vote for one you get two, but more like Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis having overlapping jurisdictions.

A second change during the transition period was the identification of an opposition candidate for the next election in 2020. Andy Cuomo, the New York State Governor, has all but officially announced his intention to run in 2020 even before his own re-re-election campaign for 2018. He will not be a Hamlet-of-the-Hudson” as his father was: “To be a candidate or not to be a candidate that is question.” There is no doubt in his mind. He is positioning himself upfront as the leader around whom Democrats should rally. As a governor he has ability to actually do things that talk-talk Senators can only talk about. On the other hand, Senators more easily have a national platform than governors…but not necessarily as much as media celebrities! Will George Clooney run in real life as he did in reel life? In any event, the race has started. The battle is engaged.

A third change manifested itself the day after the inauguration. It was the day when the Nasty Women said they were as mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore. The Nasty Women with their pussy hats sought to negate the insult of Donald Trump by embracing it as their own label. This action reminds me of when a group of Protestants in England back in the 1720s developed a new way of worship and reading the Bible. They were mocked by fellow classmates at Oxford for their unusual “methods.” The targets of this derogatory slur then adopted the term for their own name and became Methodists. The Nasty Woman may join the Tea Party as new names in the political arena that render the staid party names obsolete or less meaningful. The battle is engaged.

A fourth development may be a repeat of something we have not experienced since 1956. That presidential election was a replay of the 1952 election with the same Republican and Democratic candidates. In both instances, Dwight D. Eisenhower handily defeated Adlai E. Stevenson in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. While it seems likely the Republican candidate will run again in 2020, will the Democratic candidate run again again? The answer is conditional. It depends on whether or not she is alive. It’s not rocket science. As to what she will do in the interim, that is another question. Will the Democratic Party hand her the nomination as it worked to do this time? Probably not. Since she is not a fighter except to claim that to which she is entitled, how will she handle her first political contest when she is not the heir apparent and/or presumptive favorite? Is she still entitled? Is it still her turn? This battle is not yet engaged while she remains on hiatus.

The election itself produced a number of surprising results with implications for 2020. According to our new president, Mitt Romney ran the worst presidential campaign ever. As a longtime student of American history who is well-versed in the previous elections, our new president is the most qualified person in the country to render such a judgement. After all Romney only received 47.2% of the popular vote while Donald Trump received 46.1%. Clearly 47.2% is worse in alternative math and a horrendous total befitting a loser which our current president is not.

But elections are not won based on the popular vote but through the Electoral College. Here our new president with 306 votes minus 2 electors who declined to vote for him claims a landslide even with 46.1% of the popular vote. So let’s look at the presidential elections of the last century without compensating for Hawaii and Alaska becoming states.

Republicans with over 400 Electoral Votes

1984 Ronald Reagan 525
1972 Richard Nixon 520
1980 Ronald Reagan 489
1956 Dwight Eisenhower 457
1928 Herbert Hoover 444
1952 Dwight Eisenhower 432
1988 George Bush 426
1920 Warren Harding 404

Democrats with over 400 Electoral Votes

1936 Franklin Roosevelt 523
1964 Lyndon Johnson 486
1932 Franklin Roosevelt 472
1940 Franklin Roosevelt 449
1944 Franklin Roosevelt 432

Under the old math, the above elections were landslide; thanks to alternative math, 304 = 404. Pity the teachers who have students who embrace alternative math. Pity the people who buy products designed by people who embrace alternative math. Pity the passengers on a plane where the pilots embrace alternative math.

But there are other presidents who also won in landslides based on the Trump landslide.

1996 William Clinton 379
1992 William Clinton 370
2008 Barack Obama 365
2012 Barack Obama 332

Who knew that Donald Trump considered these Democrats to be landslide winners as well, even bigger winners than he was?

There are some results more comparable to the Electoral Votes totals for 2016.

1948 Harry Truman 303
1960 John Kennedy 303
1968 Richard Nixon 301
1976 Jimmy Carter 297
2004 George Bush 286
2000 George Bush 271

Perhaps when our new president referred to his election as a landslide he was only referring to these other winners who all were losers compared to his 304 votes. We will never know because he will never explain what he meant. Pity the English teachers who have students who embrace alternative vocabulary. On the other hand, George Orwell’s 1984 now will make perfect sense:

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
304 is 404.

Finally there is the issue of the 3-5 million illegal voters. The number goes far beyond the graveyard votes in Chicago or the walking-around-money to generate votes in Philadelphia. Does he mean that roughly half the adults here illegally who tend to operate under the radar all were instructed to venture forth into the public into government facilities to pose as American citizens who could vote? Were they all in California which has about 13.7 million voters meaning 1 in 4 was illegal? Perhaps he is not aware that zombies are permitted to vote in California where voting rights have been extended to the living dead since they are human beings. Vampires can vote there too. Have you seen some of the actors in Hollywood? Don’t they look like death warmed over? Vulcans and Klingons, however, are not human and do not qualify. And since California routinely votes Democratic anyway, why perpetrate a massive fraud where none is necessary to claim the electoral votes in the first place?

A fraud of this magnitude dwarfs by fivefold the effort to launch the D=Day invasion. That effort took at least a year of planning and was commanded by someone who later became president in two landslide elections. Clearly the mastermind of this electoral fraud deserves accolades for the scope of the achievement. Just think of the number of election precincts involved. And these people didn’t just vote for the president at the top of the ticket. What about all the Congressional and state contests effected? When all is said and done, the conspiracy to deny Donald Trump his rightful popular election vote will go down as the single greatest fraud in the history of humanity save for the faked lunar landings. All Americans owe Donald Trump a debt of thanks for exposing the millions of aliens who are hidden in Area 51 who only come out on Election Day.

Undoubtedly we will learn more about the fraudulent votes when the federal investigation is completed. My understanding is the White House plans to hire the same detectives OJ used to track down the real killer and that Trump himself used to uncover the truth in Hawaii about Obama’s birth. According to our president the results of that investigation were so startlingly, you “can not believe what they are finding.” So far he has not released the findings of those detectives pending the completion of the audit on his taxes but perhaps he can be encouraged to do so.

In the meantime, let the tweet go forward to friend and foe alike. If you were registered in two states, we will hunt you down. We fill find you wherever you hide. You will be caught. You will be waterboarded. You will tell the truth about the conspiracy no matter how high it reaches. You will be hanged. You will be drawn and quartered. You will be boiled in oil. Sad.

Does his existence in Trumpietown, his counterpart to Hillaryland, mean that Democrats should be complacent about regaining the White House in 2020? Should the Democrats exult because the foe in 2020 is an immature child? No way, no how. But explaining the Democratic tunnel-vision silliness requires another post. None-the-less, the battle is engaged.