Nearly Ten Million Fewer Democrats Voted in 2016 Than 2008. Why?
November 14, 2016

 
Share

Almost exactly 10 Million fewer people voted in 2016 than did in 2008. Hillary received 9.8 million fewer votes in 2016 than Obama did in 2008. Nearly the entire decline was on the Democratic side. There are a number of possible reasons that could explain why this happened: 1) Disillusioned/Demoralized Democrats just weren’t motivated to the polls, 2) Voter disenfranchisement laws kept Democrats from voting, 3) Outright election theft by hackers, or 4) Any combination of those three. Of those three possibilities, #1 obviously was the nail in the coffin of the Clinton campaign. Personally, I blame the DNC and all those “Super Delegates” who put their thumb on the scale to give Clinton “frontrunner” status before a single vote had been cast. This is the consequence of your actions. They were all SO certain they knew who the best candidate to beat the GOP nominee was (despite all polling to the contrary), and in the end, gave Americans a choice between two Conservatives. And as I’ve said for years, if voters are given a choice between a Democrat that acts like a Conservatives and an actual Conservatives, the “actual” Conservatives will win every time.

96.6% of the decline in voter turnout vs 2008 was on the Democratic side. (In 2012, 100% of the decline of 3.6 million was on the Democratic side thanks to rampant Voter Suppression laws while GOP participation actually increased by 1-million) And while Republican participation fell by less than 340,000 votes vs 2008, Democratic participation declined by over 9.8 Million votes. A lopsided decline like that is very disconcerting. Voter participation fell on both sides this election, but Democrats cast fewer votes by a ratio of 28-to-1. If the decline were not so lopsided, I’d probably dismiss #3 entirely, but with recent (confirmed) reports of hacking into DNC & Clinton campaign computers in just the last few months, one can’t entirely discount the possibility some foreign government broke into election-night computers and shifted a few thousand votes here & there… not by much but just enough to swing a few key states and ensure a Trump electoral college win. In all honesty though, I doubt this scenario. It wouldn’t matter though. Even if an FBI investigation revealed the race was totally stolen, it wouldn’t change the result for fear of admitting our elections can be hacked/stolen. Our government would rather allow the consequences of that crime go unreversed rather than risk the chaos of millions of Americans suddenly discovering their election may have been manipulated by a foreign government, losing faith in the system itself, and certainly calling this an act of war… to be carried out by whom, now that the true “winner” would now be in doubt? No, that’s not happening.

But something we DO very much need to worry about is the rapid decline in Democratic participation in our elections. And like I stated in the opening paragraph, that begins with giving voters a clearer choice between the two Parties. Congresswoman Nina Turner… one of the first members of Congress to endorse Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, probably put it best during her appearance on ABC’s “ThisWeek” yesterday:
 

“This was a populist protest vote by The Forgotten. You’d better believe the outcome would’ve been different if Sanders had been the nominee.” – Congresswoman Nina Turner, 11/13/2016

 

I too bought into the polling hype that a Clinton victory was all but certain. I actually gave her a “99.9% chance of winning”… that lone 1/10th of 1% being the unlikely possibility of Trump sweeping the swing states… which in the end was exactly what he did. But it was only possible because Democratic turnout was so low. Donald Trump actually received FEWER votes than either McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012 (I’ve already run into several Trump supporters on Facebook/Twitter claiming late reports that Trump has now won the Popular Vote too. He didn’t. I investigated. I found one Right-Wing blog claiming Trump received over 62million votes and beat Clinton by 600K votes. No, both candidates received close to 60million, with Clinton coming out ahead by 600K votes.)

Reports of voters being turned away at polling stations due to lack of proper ID were down this year vs 2012 because many courts ruled such voter disenfranchisement laws unconstitutional with a clear intent of discriminating against typically Democratic demographics. However, we did see numerous incidents of unacceptably long lines across the country… during Early Voting as well as on Election Day. And long lines affect low-income voters most who can’t afford to take that much time off from work to vote. It also reduces the total number of votes cast as people arrive, see the long lines, then leave. And for some reason, long lines & faulty equipment always seem to strike Democratic leaning precincts most.

I hate even suggesting any kind of “Election Tampering” because I despise Conspiracy Theories/Theorists (and the Trump campaign is lousy with them… starting with the man himself.) But like it says in the novel “Catch-22”, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.” So I can’t dismiss fraud/theft entirely for the huge discrepancy in Democratic vs Republican turnout from year-to-year.

No, as I pointed out above, the leading cause for Clinton’s loss was Clinton herself:
 

Hillary's loss is Hillary's fault

 

And fairly or unfairly, the Clinton campaign is correct that FBI Director James Comey’s 11th hour suggestion they may be reopening the investigation into her emails, only served to “confirm” the misgivings so many Democratic voters already had of her. It is difficult to become enthusiastic about a candidate that has come to typify the label “politician” in a year (century?) where voters are tired of “Washington politics”. And as I’ve pointed out several times before, when Chris Christie focused during the GOP Primaries on taking down Marco Rubio with a plethora of negative attacks, it didn’t help Christie one bit, taking out Rubio, but resulting in Christie doing even worse.

And so it was for Clinton. She focused 75% of her campaign ads & speeches explaining why Trump was so bad, concentrating not nearly enough on how she’d make people’s lives better. “What would she do differently?” She certainly wasn’t the champion of the Middle Class the way Sanders was (or Trump made himself out to be), she was too connected to Wall Street (and never did release those transcripts.) The “first woman president” factor alone wasn’t enough to put her over the top. Voters wanted substance, and there just wasn’t enough there to get excited about to convince 1 in 6 Democratic voters to stand in line for an hour to cast their vote for her. (I get quite angry when I hear tearful Hillary supporters… who assured us that Hillary would easily defeat Trump… that they are “pretty sure” that “Bernie would have lost too if he had been the nominee.” Seriously? You STILL think you have superior judgment on this issue? You STILL think you know how the election would have faired if Bernie had been the nominee? Have you not learned ANYTHING? This was a change election and voters wanted a clear choice between the two candidates. The message of Bernie & Warren sparked a political movement that had BOTH sides of this campaign talking about “income inequality” as a campaign issue (a position Clinton came to too late), and you STILL think you have your finger on the pulse of the nation? The arrogance!

A lot of Democratic voters already believed Congress… even a GOP controlled one… would keep a “President Trump” in check such that his worst policy positions will never see the light of day. Rarely did I hear anyone make the case to Democrats that they had better show up to vote in a Democratic Congress “just in case” the worst was to happen (or all the good a President Hillary could achieve with a Democratically controlled Congress.) “Achieve what?” Voters could not point to a single clear policy agenda of Hillary Clinton.

According to “Mother Jones” Magazine:
 

Trump received [just] four [newspaper] endorsements in the primary season, from a small California paper, the New York Post, the conspiracy-peddling National Enquirer, and the New York Observer, which is owned by Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top campaign adviser, Jared Kushner.

 

Trump also received the endorsement of fellow “deplorable” David Duke and the KKK. But again, everyone just assumes “rational heads will prevail” and “the other guy” will make sure Donald Trump doesn’t become president. Unfortunately, that voter apathy hit critical mass as millions of unenthusiastic voters decided to just stay home.

Late in the primaries, someone I once respected… Liberal blogger Brad Bannon who did some great work reporting/exposing GOP attempts at election fraud/theft… started making regular appearances on a particular Progressive radio show. A huge Clinton supporter, Bannon attacked Sanders and openly stated on the air that “even if Sanders won the most pledged delegates, the Super Delegates (all friends of Clinton) would make sure he is denied the nomination” [and that that was a good thing he supported]. So much for exposing election theft/fraud. Bannon was all for it so long as HIS preferred candidate won the nomination. Well, he got what he wanted… two Conservatives with more baggage than an Sampsonite convention.

The Reverend Al Sharpton asked an interesting question yesterday: “What happens the first time President Trump doesn’t get his way?” He clearly doesn’t understand how government works. Republicans have been (falsely) accusing President Obama of unilaterally “passing laws” without the consent of Congress. They have basically suggested that it is possible for the president to act like a king. They HATED when they thought Obama did it, now the Trump campaign is relying on that same imaginary power to push through things even a GOP-controlled Congress might not approve of.

But that’s not going to be a problem now since “Hillary Apathy” convinced enough Democrats to stay home on election day. Supporters of Johnson, Stein or Sanders are not to blame for this loss. THEY showed up. It’s the ten million who stayed home that cost her the presidency and Democrats control of the Senate (at the very least). I lay the blame for this historic defeat squarely at the feet of The Super Delegates and the DNC. YOU played games with our electoral system and ensured a deeply flawed candidate would be our party’s nominee. Let’s just all pray these Hillbots learned a lesson about substituting their judgement for that of millions of Americans.

Despite it all, I pray for Trump’s well-being or else… President Mike Pence (Shudder.)
 

Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

November 14, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · One Comment - Add
Posted in: Election, mystery, Rants, Scandals, Seems Obvious to Me

One Response

  1. John A. Cancienne - November 14, 2016

    Mugsy, it’s pure speculation that Sanders would have won against Trump, although I would have truly loved to see it play out. I blame voter apathy too…. That and the Electoral College, combined with Republican shenanigans with voter redistricting and gerrymandering. There are too many “possibilities” on why she lost, considering that with the lead she had in popular votes, and Trump still gaining electoral superiority leads me to think that the Electoral College has passed it’s expiration date. If this happened, it would all depend on the popular vote, regardless of how many others were in the running. In Louisiana alone, there were 13 running for POTUS, and only 4 political parties that I recognized. Perhaps it’s time you did the research and blogged on it.

Leave a Reply