Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Home RSS

Analysis on Hillary loss

May 17, 2017
Lehigh Acres Citizen

To the editor:

Why Mrs. Clinton lost is a puzzle in itself and party officials from both parties are rather puzzled about the outcome. Every one's puzzled except Trump. He seemed to have known where he stood all along. A group of top Democratic Party strategists have been going over new data about 2016 presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Convincing the rest of the party that is protesting in the streets and need reality checks is a fruitless task. Some of the less intelligent members of the party seem to think Mr. Trump's triumph is not real and they continue to stick their heads in the sand. They may come up later for air when they realize their living in La La Land if they think he lost. Popular vote was 3 million plus, but that was from New York City and Los Angeles mostly.

Some Democrats have a theory explanation for Clinton's defeat: Her base didn't turn out, Donald Trump's did and the difference was too much for her campaign to handle last minute, but it's far more troubling than that. Global Strategy Group discovered a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later. All the negativity/obstructionist actions and pairing off against the other party finally bit us in the butt.

Those Obama-Trump voters effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group's analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton's failure to reach Obama's vote total in 2012 was because her message didn't resonate among the voters. Her message was way off the mark.

Canter and other members of Global Strategy Group have delivered a detailed report of their findings.

Global Strategy Group data is usually reliable and shows group reports that show who voted in every state, and matching them to existing data about the voters, including demographic information and voting history. The groups determined how people voted. The findings are significant for the Democratic Party, at a historic low point, that's trying to figure out how it can win back the electorate. Data shows turning out the base is not enough. The idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters is doomed to failure. Voters are simply not taking the ultra liberal bait. Those radical policies are not working and never have.

It is estimated that Mrs. Clinton could have won if African-American turnout in Michigan and Florida matched 2012s, but there were desertions from the Democrats, which no one wants to admit. (ostrich syndrome)

Global Strategy Group has said in recent months that Democrats can both reach out to white working-class voters and their base with a strong message tied with an economic flavor.

Still, the data say turnout was less of a problem for Clinton than the obvious defections were. Global Strategy Group review of Ohio, with Catalyst, found that Clinton won a majority of new voters in that state.

Believing that turnout was the main reason Clinton lost is a huge mistake but remains as a prominent theory among Democrats.

It's my personal recommendation that the Independents should be our party's target since that would put any future election over the top in our favor. Keep in mind that some of them left the Republicans because they were frustrated in their performance also. Sen. Bernie Sanders worked very hard during the push for the nomination and brought many new and younger voters into the Democratic Party. If we overlook this effort, then we will fail in any future efforts.

Matt Smith

Lehigh Acres



I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web