Home / Spotlight / 7 Reasons Donald Trump Won The Presidential Election

7 Reasons Donald Trump Won The Presidential Election

Donald Trump supporters hearten on Tuesday night during a New York Hilton Midtown.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Donald Trump supporters hearten on Tuesday night during a New York Hilton Midtown.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The dirt is starting to settle in Washington and around a nation after an choosing that dumbfounded domestic watchers and pollsters.

Here are 7 things we’ve schooled about Donald Trump’s route to feat Tuesday night:

1. Hillary Clinton now has a wider renouned opinion lead than Al Gore in 2000, yet a Electoral College picks presidents.

As opinion continues to be counted, Hillary Clinton has now surpassed Al Gore’s 2000 renouned opinion margin. Clinton’s popular-vote lead is 668,171 over President-elect Donald Trump, according to a latest totals gathered by a U.S. Election Atlas. Gore got 547,398 some-more votes than George W. Bush in 2000.

Clinton’s lead will usually approaching grow as votes continue to be finalized. Democrats have now won a renouned opinion in 6 of a final 7 presidential elections, yet mislaid a Electoral College in dual of them. This takes place as Democrats continue to quit to cities and a coasts and where their race is now some-more concentrated.

The structure mandates a Electoral College picks presidents. The founders combined that complement in partial to equivocate a largest states picking “favorite sons” and carrying outsize influence.

2. Overall audience will be about a same as 2012.

Turnout competence even transcend 2012 when all a opinion is counted. These sum paint usually about half of all authorised citizens in a U.S. But, as explained below, Clinton warranted a reduce share than Obama and some-more citizens chose third-party candidates.

Total audience in 2012 vs. 2016.

3. A poignant cube of citizens were discontented with their choice of candidates.

The series of people electing not to opinion for a Republican or Democratic hopeful went adult by 4.5 million votes, scarcely tripling from 2012.

Votes for third celebration or possibilities outward a vital parties in 2012 vs. 2016.

Domenico Montanaro/NPR

hide caption

toggle caption

Domenico Montanaro/NPR

It’s formidable to contend precisely that of a dual major-party possibilities these citizens would have leaned towards. Libertarian Gary Johnson got some-more than 4 million votes (or 3 percent), adult from 1.3 million in 2012. Green Party claimant Jill Stein got 1.3 million votes in this election, usually about 1 percent overall.

But some-more immature citizens went third celebration this year:

2012: 3 percent
2016: 8 percent

4. Clinton did not glow adult a Obama Coalition.

Clinton got scarcely 5 million fewer votes altogether than Obama:

Total votes for Barack Obama in 2012 vs. Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Trump, meanwhile, got roughly a same series of citizens as Mitt Romney 4 years ago:

Total votes for Mitt Romney in 2012 vs. Donald Trump in 2016.

Young citizens were a same share of a citizens (19 percent), yet went in smaller margins for Clinton than Obama and they jumped in third-party support from 3 percent to 8 percent:

2012: 60-37 Obama, 3 percent third party
2016: 55-37 Clinton, 8 percent third party

By their perfect size, Latinos went adult as a share of a citizens from 10 percent to 11 percent, yet a thought that they would spin out for Clinton in bigger numbers than for Obama given of Trump incited out only not be loyal altogether — and a poignant share, generally among Latinos, went third-party:

2012: 71-27 Obama
2016: 65-29 Clinton; 6 percent third party

Latinos positively had an impact in a Southwest, assisting Clinton win Nevada and Colorado and even done Arizona and Texas closer than past years. Texas was within 10 points for a initial time in 20 years, and Latinos were a entertain of a citizens (24 percent).

It competence be apropos transparent that about 3 in 10 Latinos are simply partial of a regressive base.

Black citizens were down as a share of a citizens somewhat and went for Clinton in a smaller domain — some-more like 2004 numbers for John Kerry:

2012: 13% of electorate, 93-6 Obama
2016: 12% of electorate, 88-8 Clinton

In places like Wayne County, Mich., home to Detroit, and Milwaukee, Wis., Clinton was significantly off from Obama’s opinion sum in 2012. In fact, had she met Obama’s opinion total, it would have done been some-more than adequate to make adult a statewide differences in both states:

Obama sum votes 2012: 332,000
Clinton sum votes 2016: 289,000 (-43,000)

Obama sum votes 2012: 595,000
Clinton sum votes 2016: 517,000 (-78,000)

A identical settlement wouldn’t have helped Clinton win Pennsylvania. She incited out about 25,000 fewer citizens in Philadelphia than Obama, yet that inequality would not have done adult for a exploding in farming areas and even some counties Obama won. Luzerne (Wilkes-Barre), for example, shifted outrageous to Trump — by 25 points. Erie shifted 18 points.

In North Carolina, notwithstanding Clinton doing improved in a Research Triangle area than Obama, black voters, who traditionally spin out during high rates in North Carolina, forsaken significantly:

2012: 23% of electorate, 96-4 for Obama
2016: 20% of electorate, 90-8 for Clinton

Could they have done adult a difference? Quite possibly. Trump won a state by 177,000 votes out of about 4.7 million votes. If black citizens were a same share of a citizens as 2012, and Clinton won 90 percent, she would have picked adult some 126,000 votes. Now, if they voted in a 96-percent, same domain as they did for Obama and incited out during a same share of a electorate, Clinton would have picked adult 191,000 votes.

Now roughly no one expected, including a Clinton campaign, to get a same margins and share of a citizens with black citizens as Obama, so these calculations substantially aren’t fair. What’s more, Trump increasing audience among Republicans, so a black share would have to dump even if a same tender series incited out as 2016.

Sure, mathematically, no slippage with black voters, no third-party drain among immature citizens in sold and juicing a Latino opinion would have meant Clinton could have won notwithstanding a white, working-class cratering (more on that below). But that’s not realistic, deliberation a choosing didn’t take place in a vacuum. The declines are interrelated.

Post-graduates went by a somewhat wider domain for Clinton than Obama:

2012: 18% of electorate, 55-42 Obama
2016: 18% of electorate, 58-37 Clinton

This furthers a graphic preparation opening in this election, generally among whites.

5. Whites yet college degrees have fled to a GOP.

They were a organisation Democrats used to contest with. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won them by a point. But they have fled to a GOP in a years given –- and now a opening between whites with college degrees and yet appears to be a widest ever. A whopping 35 points.

NPR’s Danielle Kurtzleben charted it here.

2016: R+39
2012: R+26
2008: R+18
2004: R+23
2000: R+17
1996: D+1
1992: D+1

6. And that leads to what competence be a biggest story of a choosing — Democrats’ cratering with blue-collar white voters.

Ohio and Iowa went by outrageous margins for Trump –- roughly 10 points in Iowa and 9 in Ohio. Trump won Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (by reduction than a point), leads in Michigan (by an even smaller margin), and mislaid by reduction than 2 points in Minnesota.

Those final 3 states went for Democrats in 6 true presidential elections. They were essential to a Democratic Blue Wall, and Trump took a sledgehammer to it.

We listened a voices of Obama-Trump white, operative category citizens in a stories online and on a air, yet they never purebred in large adequate numbers — in open or private, non-partisan, Republican or Democratic polling before a choosing to uncover that a Trump win was apparent. Take a demeanour during a opinion shifts among a white, operative category in some pivotal states:

GOP gains among non-college prepared citizens in pivotal states.


2012: 53% of electorate, 52-46 Obama
2016: 44% of electorate, 55-38 Trump (net gain: R+23)

2012: 58% of electorate, 51-47 Obama
2016: 55% of electorate, 56-40 Trump (net gain: R+20)

2012: 57% of electorate, 52-46 Obama
2016: 57% of electorate, 54-40 Trump (net gain: R+20)

2012: 54% of electorate, 56-43 Obama
2016: 58% of electorate, 49-45 Trump (net gain: R+17)

2012: 60% of electorate, 53-46 Obama
2016: 56% of electorate, 51-45 Trump (net gain: R+13)

2012: 52% of electorate, 57-42 Obama
2016: 52% of electorate, 52-45 Trump (net gain: R+12)

7. Clinton forgot how she campaigned in 2000.

Overall, a reason Trump won was given he flipped large margins with white, operative category citizens in a Midwest and Pennsylvania — something that was always a possibility.

Trump spoke to these citizens — either it was on process with how he blew adult a Republican summary on trade and Clinton’s ties to a investiture and pro-globalist agenda; or his fueling white resentments and secular bias; and there was approaching some grade of sexism that played a role. That’s something that’s formidable to measure, yet there will approaching be dissertations combined about it.

But Clinton done her mistakes with this organisation — job half of Trump supporters “deplorables” approaching dismissed adult these accurate kinds of voters, for example.

The late-in-the-campaign minute from FBI Director James Comey about Clinton’s emails approaching also played a role, reinforcing a account about her as strange generally with citizens who were disposed to trust a misfortune about her.

In a end, though, Clinton authorised a mimic combined of her to spin cemented. It’s indeed startling deliberation how she campaigned for her 2000 Senate seat. Back then, she took on a caricatures of her as a carpetbagger who didn’t merit it by assembly and articulate with citizens in upstate New York. Some questioned that plan given New York City and a suburbs have such large populations and generally establish a outcome of statewide races. (Sound familiar?)

Clinton, though, worked tough and won many of them over — and simply won a Senate seat.

She never did that this time. It was something she betrothed she would do during a opening of this campaign, yet it was never attempted during a ubiquitous choosing when she was opposite Trump. Instead, she was mostly absent from a debate route for many of August, staying out of a news, as Trump was steeped in controversy. That incited out to be a mistake.

She never combined an certain summary about her candidacy. “Stronger Together” was reactive to Trump. And she took for postulated what used to be a vicious square of a Democratic coalition. It’s mocking that instead of courting these citizens to indurate a Blue Wall, she spent a lot of time courting Republicans. But a Republicans who would be open to her summary would be civil globalists, and it’s a really form of summary that appeals to them that would spin off populist, blue-collar Democrats.

A farming Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin debate competence not have topsy-turvy this 36-year trend divided from Democrats, yet given how unusually tighten all 3 states incited out to be, Clinton approaching would have reduced a margins adequate to win.

Of course, that’s not what happened.

Article source: http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election