The real story from 2016: Not a Trump surge, but the disappearance of 10 million Obama supporters
Sometimes, it's easy to miss the forest through the trees, and it's easy to miss the big picture through the data analysis. The story of the 2016 Presidential election is a simple one -- Democrats somehow lost 10 million voters between 2008 and 2016.
Contrary to the popular narrative du jour, there was not a sudden surge of Republican voters, or a hidden Trump vote. With some local variations, the same roughly 60 million people who voted for Trump also voted for Mitt Romney and John McCain. In fact, it appears both those Republicans got slightly more votes than Trump did on Tuesday (and, of course, they lost).
The real story is that across the country, about one in seven people who voted for Barack Obama during his first campaign didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. And that is how you lose an election.
I'm not quite sure why this story isn't getting more play. As an added secret but in plain site fact, the 2016 presidential election is shaping up to be one of the -- if not THE -- lowest voter turnout in presidential election history. (I'm quite serious -- look here.) That could change as late votes are counted, but it appears certain to be the lowest turnout since Bill Clinton's nearly uncontested re-election in 1996.
Here's some numbers to chew on. They are in millions.
Dem Rep 2016 59.9 59.7 2012 65.6 60.9 2008 69.5 59.9 (Data from FEC.gov, except 2016 from NYT)
Trump essentially held the Republican presidential vote totals together. Clinton did not. You'll notice that she fell more than 5 million short of Obama's 2012 totals, too. I'll let others examine why. But here's a longer-term look at these national numbers. The further back you go, the less comparable the numbers are due to population growth. But it appears Clinton sank right back to John Kerry numbers, giving back all those new Obama supporters.
National absolute vote totals get little attention in our elections for good reason. We all know now that the Electoral College matters, not the popular vote total. And generally percentages are a more accurate way to talk about vote totals anyway, as they account for population shifts and such. Let me explain why I think these missing 10 million Obama voters matter, and then tip my cap to the data details that I'm sure many of your are screaming about right now.
When I covered the stock market every day, I HATED business journalists' tendency to anthropomorphize the market, and at the same time, to switch narratives based on the tiniest shift in numbers. For example: If the Dow were hovering in slightly positive territory all day, but ended the day a few points negative, you'd hear headlines like this:
"Market worried about tensions in Mideast."
"Dow down as Fed rate hike looms."
"Flight to safety over election uncertainty."
These would usually be accompanied by a picture of a man in a sweaty white shift with his tie undone and his face in his hands.
There might have been a billion trades or more than day, but readers get the sense that THE MARKET had this one feeling. Couldn't be more wrong. But that's not what made me mad. What frustrated me most was the knowledge that headlines around the country were being deleted as the market turned from (slightly) black to (slightly) red. Ten minutes earlier, the headlines would have been:
"Traders approve of progress in nuke deal talks," or "Dow up on hopes that Fed will leave rates unchanged."
This was all silly, of course. Mind you, it's very hard to write headlines for the stock market day after day.
This is the way we tend to talk about American events, however. It happens a lot in sports. One wide receiver makes the craziest football-attached-to-helmet catch in the history of the sport (thanks, David Tyree!) and suddenly, Tom Brady can't beat the Giants. If a blade of grass moved that football a centimeter, Tom Brady would have "had the Giants number." And so on.
Back to the election. Analysts can't help but talk about a massive Trump revolution, but that's just not what happened. Obama voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania abandoned Clinton, and she lost. As Nate Silver wrote yesterday, another 1 percent or so here or there, and Clinton wins, and all the stories change.
I'm not alone in making this point. The conservative National Review set out to show that Trump did enjoy a surge in certain key places, and that's why he won, writing a piece yesterday claiming that Trump 2016 would have beaten Obama 2012 in the electoral college (while getting murdered in popular vote). But that story has now been corrected, as it was wrong. Had Hillary held on to Obama's 2012 Ohio and Pennsylvania voters (let alone his 2008 votes) she would be president-elect right now.
Anyone who really cares about elections -- on either side of the aisle -- needs to be asking themselves one question today: Where did those 10 million voters go?
Here is a small, but important, part of the answer. Trump *did* get a surge of votes in some key states that point is not to be dismissed. He did pick up 100,000 votes or so in Ohio, and nearly 250,000 more in Michigan and Pennsylvania than his Republican predecessors. His campaign clearly spoke to people in those places, and they need to be listened to. On the other hand, his totals in Wisconsin are essentially flat with past Republican candidates. So the Trump surge should not be over-exaggerated.
Most important, however, is the Obama voter disappearing act should not be missed. Here's how things fared in these key battleground states:
Ohio Dem Rep 2016 2.3 2.77 2012 2.82 2.66 2008 2.94 2.67
Sure, Trump picked up some votes. But a half-million Obama voters are missing from four years ago.
Mich Dem Rep 2016 2.26 2.27 2012 2.56 2.11 2008 2.87 2.04
Same story here. Trump's surge is real, but not as large as the disappearing act.
Florida Dem Rep 2016 4.49 4.60 2012 4.28 4.16 2008 4.28 4.04
The story appears different here, as Clinton did better than Obama in popular vote, while Trump increased the GOP take by a nearly cool half-million. But remember that Florida is gaining about 300,000 residents annually, which more than accounts for the increased totals.
Penn Dem Rep 2016 2.84 2.91 2012 2.99 2.68 2008 3.28 2.66
Give Trump credit in Pennsylvania. Hi picked up more votes on Romney here than Clinton lost from the Obama ranks. Still, Obama 2012 beats Trump 2016.
Wisc Dem Rep 2016 1.38 1.40 2012 1.62 1.40 2008 1.68 1.26
The point I'm making is most clear in Wisconsin, where the Republican candidate ran in place, while Democrats lost about 15 percent of their voters. That's how you lose a state you thought you'd win easily.
All the 2016 numbers are pending final counts, of course...such as late-mailed absentee ballots and such. Trump's totals will rise a bit, and I'll probably have to re-run these numbers. But they won't change much. Certainly, 10 million 2008 Obama voters won't suddenly show up. Where did they go? Some voted for third-party candidates (not many - perhaps 4 percent nationally as a group. Gary Johnson got 173,000 votes in Michigan, for example.) Some voted for Trump, but as this story shows, not many. A lot stayed home. And that's your headline for 2016.
Where are the disappearing Obama voters? Both Republicans and Democrats have four years to figure that out, because that group will probably decide the next presidential election.
If you've read this far, perhaps you'd like to support what I do. That's easy. Sign up for my free email list, or click on an advertisement, or just share the story.