Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Registered Voters Who Stayed Home Probably Cost Clinton The Election [View all]
Registered Voters Who Stayed Home Probably Cost Clinton The ElectionHarry Enten
FiveThirtyEight
Registered voters who didnt vote on Election Day in November were more Democratic-leaning than the registered voters who turned out, according to a post-election poll from SurveyMonkey, shared with FiveThirtyEight. In fact, Donald Trump probably would have lost to Hillary Clinton had Republican- and Democratic-leaning registered voters cast ballots at equal rates.
Given how closely party identification tracks with vote choice, the disparity in turnout probably cost Clinton the election. SurveyMonkey did not ask non-voters whom they would have voted for, but we do know that more than 90 percent of self-identified Democrats who cast a ballot voted for Clinton and more than 90 percent of Republicans voted for Trump. Moreover, voters who didnt identify with or lean towards either party were slightly more likely to prefer Clinton to Trump. That means that had the non-voters cast a ballot in accordance with their party identification, Clintons advantage over Trump nationally would have expanded by about 2 to 3 percentage points. That almost certainly would have been enough to flip enough states for her to win the Electoral College.
The biggest reason given by non-voters for staying home was that they didnt like the candidates. Clinton and Trump both had favorable ratings in the low 30s among registered voters who didnt cast a ballot both had ratings in the low 40s among those who did vote. Thats a pretty sizable difference. So why was Clinton hurt more by non-voters? Trump was able to win, in large part, because voters who disliked both candidates favored him in big numbers, according to the exit polls. Clinton, apparently, couldnt get those who disliked both candidates and who may have been more favorably disposed to her candidacy to turn out and vote.
More harmful for Clinton was which young voters stayed home: minorities. Among white voters, voters 18-29 years old made up 30 percent of voters who did not participate in the November election. Among young Hispanic voters, that climbs to 43 percent. Among young black voters, it was an even higher 46 percent. That generally matches the findings of the voter data released in some Southern states showing that young black voters were especially likely to stay home in this election. Younger black voters were far more likely to support Bernie Sanders in the primary, suggesting that there simply was not the enthusiasm for Clintons candidacy as there was for Obamas in 2012. Clintons favorable rating, for instance, was about 10 percentage points lower among the youngest black voters compared to the oldest black voters in the SurveyMonkey poll.
Given how closely party identification tracks with vote choice, the disparity in turnout probably cost Clinton the election. SurveyMonkey did not ask non-voters whom they would have voted for, but we do know that more than 90 percent of self-identified Democrats who cast a ballot voted for Clinton and more than 90 percent of Republicans voted for Trump. Moreover, voters who didnt identify with or lean towards either party were slightly more likely to prefer Clinton to Trump. That means that had the non-voters cast a ballot in accordance with their party identification, Clintons advantage over Trump nationally would have expanded by about 2 to 3 percentage points. That almost certainly would have been enough to flip enough states for her to win the Electoral College.
The biggest reason given by non-voters for staying home was that they didnt like the candidates. Clinton and Trump both had favorable ratings in the low 30s among registered voters who didnt cast a ballot both had ratings in the low 40s among those who did vote. Thats a pretty sizable difference. So why was Clinton hurt more by non-voters? Trump was able to win, in large part, because voters who disliked both candidates favored him in big numbers, according to the exit polls. Clinton, apparently, couldnt get those who disliked both candidates and who may have been more favorably disposed to her candidacy to turn out and vote.
More harmful for Clinton was which young voters stayed home: minorities. Among white voters, voters 18-29 years old made up 30 percent of voters who did not participate in the November election. Among young Hispanic voters, that climbs to 43 percent. Among young black voters, it was an even higher 46 percent. That generally matches the findings of the voter data released in some Southern states showing that young black voters were especially likely to stay home in this election. Younger black voters were far more likely to support Bernie Sanders in the primary, suggesting that there simply was not the enthusiasm for Clintons candidacy as there was for Obamas in 2012. Clintons favorable rating, for instance, was about 10 percentage points lower among the youngest black voters compared to the oldest black voters in the SurveyMonkey poll.
78 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Registered Voters Who Stayed Home Probably Cost Clinton The Election [View all]
portlander23
Jan 2017
OP
They're all family... all very young adults... probably not even registered to vote.
lamp_shade
Jan 2017
#22
Ok. So why do those of us who are angry at Bernie for attacking her get shit for that?
kcr
Jan 2017
#8
Nothing in this says that they would have been motivated to vote for HRC had there been no primary
karynnj
Jan 2017
#19
who the fuck has to be inspired to vote . keeping trump out of the white house wasnt inspiring
Ohioblue22
Jan 2017
#15
Only a narcissist has to be "inspired to vote" - especially with Trump as the alternative.
yardwork
Jan 2017
#50
Clinton and the DNC did not help themselves, but they still should have been able to beat Trump, and
JCanete
Jan 2017
#17
The young voters that BS "inspired" couldn't be bothered to come out and vote for BS
SFnomad
Jan 2017
#34
And that isn't why she lost. If that's all it took, BS would have won the primary
SFnomad
Jan 2017
#38
I guess you need to tell that to the people who didn't vote or are we still blaming the voters?
jalan48
Jan 2017
#60
Because we had a spoiler drumming up division. Not really that hard to pinpoint. nt
JTFrog
Jan 2017
#61
Fake news and hacking from Russia. Division from the spoiler. Comey and his fake announcement.
JTFrog
Jan 2017
#69
Yes, because ignoring all of the things that actually happened is a winning strategy.
JTFrog
Jan 2017
#75
"The biggest reason given by non-voters for staying home was that they didnt like the candidates."
andym
Jan 2017
#32
Clear support for candidates was low so why didn't DNC get a candidate who could garner more?
snowy owl
Jan 2017
#37
The voters of the Democratic Party picked Clinton, and by a wide margin at that.
StevieM
Jan 2017
#52
Does this include voters who wanted/tried to vote but were prevented from doing so by suppression
EffieBlack
Jan 2017
#41
So whether you hate Sanders or love Sanders, its agreed he would have won.
LiberalLovinLug
Jan 2017
#78