What Went Wrong? Why Clinton „Lost“ Christian Welzel (cwelzel@gmail.com), Nov. 17, 2016

One of the Most Acclaimed Forecasting Sites (Nate Silver, „Five Thirty Eight“) Sourcee: www.fivethirtyeight.com

The Truth Popular Vote 47.9% (61,993,000) 47.1% (60,949,000) [as of Nov. 17, 2016] 47.1% (60,949,000) Discrepancy The Truth 232 290 critical threshold: 270 (of 538) Source: CNN Projection Clinton: 248 with Michigan?

The Gigantic Republican Area Advantage

The Republican area advantage, adjusted for population density - A divided country: (1) vast thinly populated rural areas = Republicans (2) scattered densely populated urban centers = Democrats

Spotlight: Clinton looses by 100,000 votes in 62% 59% Spotlight: Clinton looses by 100,000 votes in Pennsylvenia (20 electorals), although – like Obama – she won 80% of the votes in Philadelphia. Problem: among those 80%, there are 30,000 fewer votes than under Obama (the FBI-effect: de-mobilizing the Democratic base).

Clinton and Trump Supporters: Typical Clinton supporters are in only a few states the clear majority! 40.6% of the electorate 22.2% of the electorate Source: CNN Exit Poll (N = 24,537)

The group that decided the election: „Angry White Men“ (and their spouses)

Source: CNN Exit Poll (N = 24,537)

Trump‘s Conquest of the Battleground

Core areas of staff and financial deployment in recent presidential elections: Florida and the Great Lakes („Rust Belt“) – the Battleground!

The Crumbling of the Blue Wall Source: New York Times

75 electorals for Trump 10 electorals for Clinton In particularly tight races, Trump won many more electorals than Clinton. Under the „winner takes it all“ logic, this allows you to achieve a great win in the electoral college despite loosing the popular vote: a fundamental violation of the „one man, one vote“ principle because this means that rural votes matter much more than urban ones. 75 electorals for Trump 10 electorals for Clinton Source: CNN

Postindustrial Western Democracies EMANCIPATION (e.g. same-sex marriage) The Conflict Space in Postindustrial Western Democracies Democrats „Language“ barrier „Political Correctness“ Republicans „Locker Room“ EDU CATION WELFARE STATE (e.g. Obamacare) MARKET LIBERTY (e.g. tax cuts) IN COME White Working Class (WWC) TRADITION (e.g. Mexican border wall) Source: My own depiciton

Education is a stronger cleavage on LIFESTYLE issues than is income on the BREAD & BUTTER issues. Bread and Butter Lifestyle For democratic strategists: the leftist course of the Clinton campaign in lifestyle matters deterred more WWC voters than her leftist course in job matters attracted them. One reason: these voters feel more appeal by the „emotiveness“ of the SLOGAN than by the „reason“ of the ARGUEMENT. Source: World Values Survey VI, US 2012 (N = 1,171)

What Went Wrong? A Tale of Misperceptions of the WWC (white working class): (1) Misperception A: Trump‘s sexism disgusts all women, including those belonging to the WWC. (2) Misperception B: Trump‘s billionaire status builds an identification blockade to the WWC. (3) Misperception C: The lack of substance in Trump‘s policy proposals discloses him visibly fore everyone as a demagogue who lacks both credibility and expertise. (4) Because of these misperceptions, it has generally been underestimated how strongly many WWC-members identified with the sexism and racism of Trump‘s language. (5) Similarly, it has generally been underestimated how strongly the impulse to teach the „establishment“ a lesson overpowers rational voting motives among „angry“ population segments. (6) One correct expectation: the racism in Trump‘s language did estrange all non-Whites, which are the winning majority in too few states (still) to decide the election.

Finally Analysts underestimated the desire for „change“ that brought Obama to power but remained largely dissatisfied throughout his presidency and has, hence, grown even stronger ever since. In the eyes of this desire, Clinton‘s embeddedness in the establishment appeared like a continuation of the status quo, whereas the „wild card“ Trump appeared like a more credible promise for „change“ – no matter what kind of change that might be.

In a nutshell: The Clinton campaign (like most pundits) operated under serious misperceptions concerning the feelings of the WWC. Hence, she did much better in terms of race than in terms of gender!