Contributor Post Created with Sketch. No, It Wasn’t the Russians. Democrats Have Been Losing for Years.

 

Spoiler: Trump won the 2016 elections and it had nothing to do with the Russians.

President Trump won the election fair and square. In truth, the big reveal in all of this is that Democrats have been losing since President Obama took office.

Russians have been trying to influence our elections for decades. We’ve tried to influence their elections and many other elections around the world. This is nothing new.

The accusation from the Left is that Russians changed the results of the election with their subverted influence to install Donald Trump over Clinton. There is zero evidence that any of that is true.

On the other hand, we have loads of evidence that Democrats have been losing elections for years.

That’s right, before Russian agents convinced Donna Brazille to leak debate questions to the Clinton campaign; before Kremlin spies posed as underage hotties to take down Anthony Weiner; before foreign agents convince John Podesta to use an absurdly easy password to hack and months before Vladimir Putin personally disguised himself as a plumber to fix Hillary’s email server and hack into the DNC… Republicans have been winning elections and turning the country red.

Here’s the proof.

Obama’s Terrible Coattails

During his tenure as head of the Democrats, President Obama’s coattails lead to the loss of 1,036 elected seats on the Federal and state level. Presidents always lose seats but this is a record:

Republicans Gain Traction

Comparison of the number of counties with a positive or negative vote count by comparing successive Presidential elections broken down by party.

As you can see from the table above, if you compare successive Presidential elections by county and by party we find:

  • In 2012, President Obama garnered fewer votes than he did in 2008 in 2779 counties. 333 counties showed up for Obama with higher vote tallies.
  • By comparison, the GOP between 2012 and 2008 (Romney compared to McCain) locked down higher vote totals in 1832 counties to their camp. It wasn’t enough. (Full disclosure: I headed up part of the digital team for the Romney campaign.)
  • 2016 vs. 2012 (Clinton vs. Trump compared to Obama vs. Romney) Dems set another losing record with fewer votes turned out in 2710 US counties across all states. The GOP by comparison (again… just against their turnout in 2012) garnered 2534 counties with more vote totals.
  • If you look at 2016 vs. 2008 it gets really scary for Democrats losing votes in 2920 counties and Republicans racking up more votes for President in 2366 counties.

Democrats Losing Battleground States and Blue Strongholds

2008 was a banner year in Presidential election history but looking at the data on battleground states across the three elections demonstrates something more going on than fake Facebook posts about the Pope endorsing Trump turning the election.

Looking at the three states which primarily impacted the 2016 election the county + or — votes make it clear the Democrats are just not getting it:

Comparison of the 80+ counties in Michigan across Presidential elections. Chart shows each party and whether or not they receive more or fewer votes than the previous election.
Comparison of the 60+ counties in Pennsylvania across Presidential elections. Chart shows each party and whether or not they receive more or fewer votes than the previous election.
Comparison of the 70+ counties in Wisconsin across Presidential elections. Chart shows each party and whether or not they receive more or fewer votes than the previous election.

If you compare the number of counties with more or fewer votes across all of the major Battleground states the results are the same:

Includes counties from MI, PA, WI, FL, OH, IA, NV, CO and NC

In 2008, Obama handed us Republicans our hats — and we dutifully took to self-reflection, eating that hat, humble pie and anything else that would help us win in the future. We formed Tea Party movements, focused on our own elected officials and drove engagement against Obama and in favor of lower taxes, smaller government and core societal values that drive economic growth and national security.

Bottom line: Trends across elections matter. Democrats must stop this losing trend to stop losing elections. But I encourage them to chase the Russian rabbit and the hidden Nazis among us. That’ll work.

Hillary Was A Lousy Candidate

Hillary lost.

In Pennsylvania, for example, Trump received 2,970,733 and Hillary received 2,926,441 votes. The margin was 44,292 votes. However, looking at the trajectory of elections. Trump received 290,299 more votes than Governor Romney. Hillary received 63,000 fewer votes than President Obama.

2016 votes key states and comparisons to 2012 votes for Romney v. Obama

If you combine the three key states which put Trump over the top, PA, WI, and MI, Donald Trump brought in 455,307 more votes than Romney. Hillary Clinton on the other hand (wait for it) received nearly 600,000 fewer votes than Obama in 2012.

That’s a lot of people that Russian agents must have bribed via Facebook shares to change the election outcome.

Losing in 2016 Even Before the Hacks Happened

On November 4th I declared that Trump was going to win the election based on Gallup’s voter registration polls and one other key data set: Pennsylvania party registrations.

You see, Pennsylvania is one of the few states that tracks not only party registrations but also how many people moved from one party to another.

The PA Secretary of State shows over 88,000 Democrats switched their affiliation to Republican in 2016. Only 33,000 Republicans moved in the opposite direction. All together, 103,000 voters switched from the two core parties to third parties or unaffiliated status.

75% of all of those registrations happened, wait for it … before the primary elections in April.

Influencing the Elections?

All of those fake stories planted by the Russians must have influenced the election right?

As one study by an NYU professor put it: “for fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads.”

NPR investigated the Fake News angle and found that one of the biggest purveyors of this propaganda lives in L.A. and is a registered Democrat.

In the end, there was no Russian infiltration of our elections rather there were Democrats ignoring the plight of Americans, ramping up regulations against them and driving Democrat voters to Donald Trump in droves.

The End.

There are 12 comments.

  1. cdor Member

    Let the trend continue in 2018!

    • #1
    • October 21, 2018, at 2:46 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  2. GrannyDude Member

    Justin Hart: Democrats ignoring the plight of Americans, ramping up regulations against them

    Don’t forget insulting them. 

     

    • #2
    • October 21, 2018, at 2:50 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  3. Eridemus Coolidge

    A new thing may help. The crazy ”caravan” has only grown according to some news. Now, you know that 4,000 or more people don’t just spontaneously assemble without hearing they can join on the radio, or by printed fliers or word of mouth. The truth has to come out from somewhere on who hatched and organized this thing. I think if they thought they could make Trump seem ”heartless,” it just might backfire on them. I’ve glanced at discussions where average people are just infuriated by it.

    And I heard a few minutes of talk show host Buck Sexton (who is on later in the evening than Hannity), and he poined out a basic concept that has crossed my own mind and has to have crossed others. When the democrats are so misty-eyed about the poor 4,000 and make it all about how they are treated (in so many words) …besides not admitting the huge loss or life and property Americans have suffered, they never state WHAT unmanageable mass arrival would exceed their own private limits? 8,000? 16,000? When would they squeeze down?

    And whenever the press focuses on a traveller with little kid in hand asking for ”God to soften Trump’s heart,” well….you known they aren’t coming this way with much to offer. They’re coming because of visions of free housing, food, medical care, and school. Do democrats think everyone in the WORLD who wants those things has to be let into the US? It is an obvious distraction from the ligitimacy of attending to our own security first, and people can see through it.

    • #3
    • October 21, 2018, at 3:26 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  4. Jon1979 Lincoln

    Eridemus (View Comment):

    A new thing may help. The crazy ”caravan” has only grown according to some news. Now, you know that 4,000 or more people don’t just spontaneously assemble without hearing they can join on the radio, or by printed fliers or word of mouth. The truth has to come out from somewhere on who hatched and organized this thing. I think if they thought they could make Trump seem ”heartless,” it just might backfire on them. I’ve glanced at discussions where average people are just infuriated by it.

    And I heard a few minutes of talk show host Buck Sexton (who is on later in the evening than Hannity), and he poined out a basic concept that has crossed my own mind and has to have crossed others. When the democrats are so misty-eyed about the poor 4,000 and make it all about how they are treated (in so many words) …besides not admitting the huge loss or life and property Americans have suffered, they never state WHAT unmanageable mass arrival would exceed their own private limits? 8,000? 16,000? When would they squeeze down?

    And whenever the press focuses on a traveller with little kid in hand asking for ”God to soften Trump’s heart,” well….you known they aren’t coming this way with much to offer. They’re coming because of visions of free housing, food, medical care, and school. Do democrats think everyone in the WORLD who wants those things has to be let into the US? It is an obvious distraction from the ligitimacy of attending to our own security first, and people can see through it.

    What made the border incidents in the spring effective for the Democrats to some extent was that the refugees were already on the border. The current effort, following them all the way from Central America to the border, comes across as far more pre-planned and is likely to get less voter sympathy and more thinking why are they coming if they’ve been told they’ll be denied entry.

    • #4
    • October 21, 2018, at 4:15 PM PST
    • Like
  5. Jon1979 Lincoln

    We’ll see what happens in two weeks, but one of the main contrasts between 2010, 2014 and 2018 is what the Democrats focused on in the run-up to both midterms versus what was the Republicans’ big effort going into 2018.

    For both 2010 and 2014 it was health care — the passage of Obamacare in late 2009-early 2010, and then the implementation of it in 2013. In the former case, even voters in Massachusetts electing Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat couldn’t deter the Democrats from pushing through something voters there and in other states didn’t want (at least at the all-encompassing level of the ACA) and the party paid the price at the midterms. In 2013, it was the rollout of Obamacare turning into a train full of dumpsters on fire wrecking, when healthcare.gov couldn’t even register people for their new insurance (remember, for the first 30-40 days of Obamacare, the Dems were so convinced Ted Cruz’s efforts to shut down the government to block it’s implementation were going to backfire they were actually thinking they could regain their massive 2009-10 Congressional majorities. Reality didn’t hit them until just prior to Thanksgiving, when the backlash against the new system was obvious to even the most partisan Democrats).

    For this cycle, the GOP’s biggest legislative action was the tax cuts — the action may have been forgotten since the current news cycle runs at Warp Factor 11. But the economic results are there for voters to see, and combined with the anger Republican voters felt over the Kavanaugh hearings that figures to boost their turnout, the Democrats may not see the same number of swing voters coming over to their side on Nov. 6 that the GOP saw four and eight years ago, and if that happens, the Dems’ current hopes of taking over the House and at least holding their own in the Senate might now show up, either.

    • #5
    • October 21, 2018, at 4:27 PM PST
    • Like
  6. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    I wish people would stop saying that Hillary was a lousy canidate. She was not. She has been running for the job all her life. She had crafted a sense on inevitability that she was destined to be the first female POTUS that was built over a lifetime. She had serious backing from the political, donor, celebrity and media realms. She had considerable financial backing that far out paced her opponent. She had built her resume to show experience in many political fields to silence experience critics. She commanded the largest “minority grievance class” of womyn, specifically white womyn. She commanded the Democrat voting machine which has a history of being less than honest. She is a bit of a pundit, policy wonk and as such she had command of a version of the facts. She is a major celebrity in the public eye for many years and as such had name recognition and was very much a known quantity. In almost every way she out classed her opponent except in the areas of communication / entertaining / marketing.

    I know people like to dismiss Hillary and diminish Trump but by doing so they are neglecting the truth of what happened and the truly unique achievement of Trump’s victory. It is doing a disservice to both.

    • #6
    • October 22, 2018, at 12:53 AM PST
    • Like
  7. MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chri… Coolidge

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    I wish people would stop saying that Hillary was a lousy canidate. She was not. She has been running for the job all her life. She had crafted a sense on inevitability that she was destined to be the first female POTUS that was built over a lifetime. She had serious backing from the political, donor, celebrity and media realms. She had considerable financial backing that far out paced her opponent. She had built her resume to show experience in many political fields to silence experience critics. She commanded the largest “minority grievance class” of womyn, specifically white womyn. She commanded the Democrat voting machine which has a history of being less than honest. She is a bit of a pundit, policy wonk and as such she had command of a version of the facts. She is a major celebrity in the public eye for many years and as such had name recognition and was very much a known quantity. In almost every way she out classed her opponent except in the areas of communication / entertaining / marketing.

    I know people like to dismiss Hillary and diminish Trump but by doing so they are neglecting the truth of what happened and the truly unique achievement of Trump’s victory. It is doing a disservice to both.

    You’re citing her resume’. The person, the candidate, was a lousy candidate. Why? Would a great candidate not go to those places she barely lost and stump like a maniac? Would even a good candidate have the common touch, and not be so plasticized in every public interaction? She felt about as authentic as Windex.

    • #7
    • October 22, 2018, at 3:29 AM PST
    • 1 like
  8. I Walton Member

    Thanks for pulling this information together for us. Is there any breakdown on the data distribution by large urban areas and everything else? A systematic look at certain urban areas within the same gross data might give us insight into levels of fraud and where to deploy some anti fraud policies.

    • #8
    • October 22, 2018, at 4:10 AM PST
    • Like
  9. Jon1979 Lincoln

    Chris Campion (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    I wish people would stop saying that Hillary was a lousy canidate. She was not. She has been running for the job all her life. She had crafted a sense on inevitability that she was destined to be the first female POTUS that was built over a lifetime. She had serious backing from the political, donor, celebrity and media realms. She had considerable financial backing that far out paced her opponent. She had built her resume to show experience in many political fields to silence experience critics. She commanded the largest “minority grievance class” of womyn, specifically white womyn. She commanded the Democrat voting machine which has a history of being less than honest. She is a bit of a pundit, policy wonk and as such she had command of a version of the facts. She is a major celebrity in the public eye for many years and as such had name recognition and was very much a known quantity. In almost every way she out classed her opponent except in the areas of communication / entertaining / marketing.

    I know people like to dismiss Hillary and diminish Trump but by doing so they are neglecting the truth of what happened and the truly unique achievement of Trump’s victory. It is doing a disservice to both.

    You’re citing her resume’. The person, the candidate, was a lousy candidate. Why? Would a great candidate not go to those places she barely lost and stump like a maniac? Would even a good candidate have the common touch, and not be so plasticized in every public interaction? She felt about as authentic as Windex.

    She and her team really seemed to want to not just beat Trump big, but also beat Bill’s election results, when he won twice without ever getting over 50 percent of the vote, and therefore ignored Bill’s advice to pay attention to the small things, and went for the landslide/mandate by trying to turn 2012 Red states Blue.

    • #9
    • October 22, 2018, at 5:26 AM PST
    • Like
  10. Phil Turmel Coolidge

    Encouraging analysis. But don’t get cocky! Talk politics with family, friends, acquaintances, and colleagues. Or donate to/volunteer for a political campaign and let all know about it.

    • #10
    • October 22, 2018, at 6:00 AM PST
    • Like
  11. EDISONPARKS Member

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    I wish people would stop saying that Hillary was a lousy canidate. She was not. She has been running for the job all her life. She had crafted a sense on inevitability that she was destined to be the first female POTUS that was built over a lifetime. She had serious backing from the political, donor, celebrity and media realms. She had considerable financial backing that far out paced her opponent. She had built her resume to show experience in many political fields to silence experience critics. She commanded the largest “minority grievance class” of womyn, specifically white womyn. She commanded the Democrat voting machine which has a history of being less than honest. She is a bit of a pundit, policy wonk and as such she had command of a version of the facts. She is a major celebrity in the public eye for many years and as such had name recognition and was very much a known quantity. In almost every way she out classed her opponent except in the areas of communication / entertaining / marketing.

    I know people like to dismiss Hillary and diminish Trump but by doing so they are neglecting the truth of what happened and the truly unique achievement of Trump’s victory. It is doing a disservice to both.

    HRC has all the charm and personality of 40 grit sandpaper (ie: she is unlikeable)

    • #11
    • October 22, 2018, at 6:31 AM PST
    • 1 like
  12. Hartmann von Aue Member

    Chris Campion (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    I wish people would stop saying that Hillary was a lousy canidate. She was not. 

    I know people like to dismiss Hillary and diminish Trump but by doing so they are neglecting the truth of what happened and the truly unique achievement of Trump’s victory. It is doing a disservice to both.

    You’re citing her resume’. The person, the candidate, was a lousy candidate. 

    Exactly. She was a lousy candidate and one of the reasons Trump won was not letting himself be intimidated out of taking advantage of her lack of charisma (which rivals that of the piranha and the snot fish), her criminal actions (the “lock her up” chant was a great idea, I must admit) and appealing to exactly the Democrat voting block she refused to campaign to- sane working people. She was told by her own people to intensify and improve her campaigning in Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin and she ignored them. 

     

    • #12
    • October 22, 2018, at 11:09 AM PST
    • 1 like