Hillary Clinton's 2016 failure: A look at 15 states

[Jigsaw]

This is something that I finished writing on Facebook earlier, but given the time it took to write, and the potential interest people here might have toward the topic, I thought it might be worth sharing.

I haven't looked at these numbers this closely before, and even I was surprised by how terribly Clinton did in 2016. So here, in totality, is the note I wrote on fb, for anyone here to look through if interested. And I know this is moderately dry writing, but I personally find it pretty interesting.


A year ago, I wrote this status, verbatim:

“ Donald Trump won Wisconsin, and is the president elect.

As a progressive, I warned the Democratic Party what would happen if they nominated Clinton. They went ahead with it anyway.

You want to point the fingers at someone to blame, leave my brothers and sisters who voted third party out of it - blame the idiotic and corrupt Democratic Party. Period.

Enjoy Trump, Democrats.

You deserve it.”


What a bittersweet memory from a year ago.

Bittersweet due to the fact I was glad Clinton got embarrassed as she did (as well as her party), and I'm still glad today, but bitter due to the fact so many people are suffering under Trump, and the Democrats refused to take him seriously at all.

Let us look through the election in regards to 15 important and/or interesting states, and see how Clinton held up:

(Note: This analysis does not go into the reasons that Clinton lost these states or failed to galvanize voters - it simply looks at and compares the numbers. As such, all percentages are bolded, which hopefully assists with clarity).


1) Missouri

In 2012, Obama got 44.4% of the vote, losing against Romney's 53.8% - a nine-point loss, which certainly isn't great. At the very least, Clinton should have gotten around 42% - 45%, or somewhere in that range.

Instead, she got 38.14% of the vote in 2016, with Trump receiving 56.77%. The Republican's voter increase was about 3% - the Democrats' decrease was almost 7%.

(Fun aside: In 2008, Obama just barely lost to McCain, getting 49.2% to McCain's 49.4%).

Clinton just barely defeated Sanders (by cheating, but that's another story) in the Democratic primary (by about 1,000 votes or so), so I’m not saying that Bernie would have won Missouri had he been the nominee as opposed to Clinton, though I do think he’d have at least matched Obama’s 2012 result.

Clinton’s result (38.14%), by the way, was the worst a Democrat has done in Missouri since George McGovern, who, in 1972, got 37.71%. As such, Clinton’s result was absolutely terrible.

Libertarian Gary Johnson got 97,359 votes (3.7%) and Jill Stein got 25,419 votes (.96%).


2) New Hampshire

Clinton won NH with 46.98% to Trump’s 46.61% (a difference of 2,736 votes).

To put this in perspective, Obama won 2012 with 52% to Romney’s 46.4%. In 2008, Obama won with 54.4% to McCain’s 44.7%. Kerry (who did not end up becoming president) defeated George W. Bush in 2004 with 50.24% to Bush’s 48.87%. Bush won the state in 2000 against Gore by 2%.

New Hampshire has never been a blow-out for the Democrats (insofar as presidential politics go, anyways), but generally speaking, a well-rounded Democrat can defeat a Republican by about 3.75% (taking the average from 2000-2012 results).

Clinton won by .37%.

In the Democratic Primary, Sanders decimated Clinton in New Hampshire, with 60.14% to Clinton’s 37.68%. Due to proximity, and the general fact people like Bernie more than Hillary across the board, it’s fair to say that Sanders would have also won New Hampshire against Trump. Difference being, his margin would be more akin to Obama’s 2012 victory, if not his 2008.

A competent Democrat would not have squeaked by a victory in New Hampshire like this. Kerry lost the presidency, but still did better than Clinton. One of the many ways Clinton’s campaign was an embarrassment.

Gary Johnson got 4.12% (30,694 votes), and Jill Stein got .87% (6,465 votes).


3) Rhode Island


Clinton handily won Rhode Island with 54.41% to Trump’s 38.90%.

On the surface, that might look good, but truthfully, it’s a pathetic showing for Clinton.

Democrats have won Rhode Island since 1988 onward (in 1984, Reagan won the state during his re-election with 51.7% against Mondale’s 48%)

From 1988 onward, only once had a Democratic candidate gotten less than 54.41% of the vote, that being in 1992, when Bill Clinton won the state with 47% (Republican George H.W. Bush received 29% and Independent Ross Perot got 23.2%).

Dukakis (who lost nationwide in 1988) got 55.6%. Bill Clinton, in 1996, got 59.7%. Gore got 60.99%, and that’s with a 6.12% showing from Ralph Nader. John Kerry, in 2004, got 59.42%. And Obama got 62.9% and 62.7%, respectively.

Clinton won Rhode Island, no doubt. 54% isn’t a bad showing, and Trump’s 38.9% is terrible. But Clinton got the lowest percentage of a victor (of the state) since 1992, showing how terrible she was at pulling out the voters. Bernie, who won the Democratic primary, undoubtedly would have done better.


4) Virginia

A bit of a swing state, Clinton won Virginia with 49.73% to Trump’s 44.41%. Obama won both in 2012 (51.16% to Romney’s 47.28%) and 2008 (52.63% to McCain’s 46.33%), while Bush won in both 2004 and 2000.

The point here to make is a small one, but nonetheless important.

Clinton’s vice presidential pick, Tim Kaine, is a senator from Virginia (along with being Virginia’s former governor). And yet, even with that, Clinton still managed to get less than Obama did without a Virginia-VP pick.

It’s a small thing, but still pathetic.

On a side-note, Virginia is one of the few states that Clinton won that I don’t think Sanders would have won, so to any Clinton defenders, there’s a bone for you.


5) Ohio

Obama barely won Ohio in 2012 (he got 50.67% to Romney’s 47.69%), and he didn’t do that much better his first time around (receiving 51.38% to McCain’s 46.80%). George W. Bush barely won (read: the voting machines were rigged) in 2004, getting 50.81% to Kerry’s 48.71%. So Ohio is a pretty balanced state - it was in 2000, it was in 1996 (though less so), it was in 1992.

The last time there was a real blow-out was in 1988, when Republican George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis 55.00% to 44.15%.

That is, until 2016, when Clinton lost to Trump, getting 43.56% to Trump’s 51.69%.

Look at the recent political history of Ohio. Look at it. A Democrat might lose, but if they do, it shouldn’t be by more than four, maybe five percent. Clinton lost by 8.13%.

Would Bernie have done better? Yes. Bernie lost the primary, true, but keep in mind Bernie won Indiana (which we’ll get to later), and economic conditions of Ohio and Indiana are not too far removed.

Let’s say Bernie would have lost Ohio - would he have lost by 8.13%? Lord, no. This is one of the more extreme examples of Clinton’s failure to mobilize any worth-while support (and keep in mind, most people expected Clinton to either win, or for it to be a close race overall - no one expected a Democratic loss by over 8%).

Gary Johnson received 3.17%, and Stein received .84%.


6) Maine

Here’s a small, yet relevant, point to make about Maine.

In 2012, Obama won Maine with 56.27% to Romney’s 40.98%. Obama won Maine in 2008 with 57.71% to McCain’s 40.38%. Kerry won with 53.57% (Bush received 44.58%) in 2004. Back in 2000, Al Gore won Maine, getting 49.09%, Bush receiving 43.87%, and Ralph Nader getting a solid 5.70%.

Clinton won Maine in 2016. 47.83% to Trump’s 44.87%.

Trump has gotten the highest percent a Republican’s gotten in Maine since George H.W. Bush in the 1988 election, when Bush won Maine with 55.3% to Dukakis’ 43.9%.

On the flipside, Clinton got the lowest percentage a Democrat’s gotten since 1992, when Bill Clinton won Maine with 38.8% (Ross Perot, an independent, came in second, with 30.4%, and George H.W. Bush received 30.4%, with 316 less votes).

So while Trump didn’t flip Maine (he did win Maine’s 2nd congressional district, the first time a Republican’s done so presidentially since 1988), he came pretty damn close. And in a state where Obama, on average, got 16.31% more than the Republican, Clinton’s 2.96% is looking pretty paltry, now isn’t it?

Libertarian Gary Johnson received a strong 5.09% (38,105 votes), and Green Party’s Jill Stein, 1.91% (14,251 votes).


7) Wisconsin

In 2012, Obama won Wisconsin with 52.83% to Romney’s 45.89%. In 2008, Obama won with 56.22% to McCain’s 42.31%. In 2004, John Kerry won with 49.70% to George Bush’s 49.32% (a difference of 11,384 votes). In 2000, Al Gore won with 47.83% to George Bush’s 47.61% (a difference of 5,708 votes). In 1996, Bill Clinton won with 48.81% to both Bob Dole’s 38.48% and Ross Perot’s 10.35%.

In 2016, Clinton lost the state of Wisconsin, which has not been lost by a Democrat since 1984, Donald Trump receiving 47.22% to Clinton’s 46.4%.

In recent times, there are some states that are easy pickings for either party. A Democrat is not going to lose California, for instance. Or New York. Or Minnesota. Or Wisconsin.

But Clinton did lose Wisconsin, and she almost lost Minnesota (more on that later). Losing Wisconsin as a Democrat would make sense if it were the 1950’s or 1960’s, but in modern times, any Democratic candidate worth their salt would have no problem securing a win in this state.

Clinton lost.

To Trump.

A Goddamn embarrassment.

Gary Johnson, Libertarian, received 3.58%. Jill Stein, Green Party, received 1.04%.


8) Kentucky

Let’s play a game: When was the last time a Democrat got just as bad a result or worse than Hillary Clinton’s 32.7% in Kentucky?

"John Kerry, maybe?" Nope - he got 39.69% in 2004.

“Well, maybe Bill Clinton - I mean he had to deal with Ross Perot taking votes from him both 1992 and 1996, so he must have gotten around that result.” Nope. In 1996, Clinton won the state with 45.8%, and also won in 1992 with 44.6%.

“Well, Dukakis was a pretty bad candidate. Maybe then?” Nope. In 1988, Dukakis lost the state, as most Democrats do in modern political history, but he still received 43.9%.

“Mondale was probably just as bad as Dukakis, so maybe 1984?” Nope. Walter Mondale received 39.4% in 1984.

“Okay, fine, George McGovern. He only won a single state in 1972, losing in a landslide to Richard Nixon. That has to be it.” Nope. George McGovern, who indeed only won a single state (Massachusetts), at least got 34.8%.

*Thinking really hard* “Well, Hubert Humphrey -” Nope. In 1968, Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey got 37.65%.

“Al Smith, Democratic nominee in 1928?” Nope. Smith got 40.48%.

*Getting angry - proceeds to throw out random Democratic nominees* “George McClellan, in 1864!” Nope. Remember, back in the 1800’s, by-and-large Kentucky was a Democratic state. McClellan lost to Abraham Lincoln nationally, but in Kentucky, McClellan got a solid 69.83% in 1864.

To answer this question, we need to go back to the election of 1860, a monumentally important election, in which Abraham Lincoln won, and thus the Civil War began.

There were four candidates of note running in the 1860 election - Abraham Lincoln, of the newly-founded Republican Party. John C. Breckinridge, of the Southern Democratic Party. John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party (a party who, I kid you not, did not want to take a strong position on slavery one way or the other because they saw it as divisive.) Lastly, Stephen Douglas, of the Northern Democratic Party.

In Kentucky, John Bell received 45.18%, winning the state. Second place came to the Southern Democrats, when John Breckinridge received 36.35% of the vote. Third place goes to Stephen Douglas, who got 17.54% of the vote. Lastly, Abraham Lincoln got .93% of the vote.

So if you want to count Southern Democrat as a modern-day Republican, and count the Northern Democrats as the modern-day Democrats, then in Stephen Douglas, you have found a candidate who got a lower percentage in Kentucky than Clinton did in 2016.

1840 was close, also - Democratic candidate Martin Van Buren lost Kentucky to Whig William H. Harrison. Van Buren got 35.80%, which is still 3.1% better than what Clinton got against Trump. In 1824, Democratic-Republican candidate Andrew Jackson got 27.23% in Kentucky, but since the other candidate was also of the Democratic-Republican Party (Henry Clay), and got 72.77%, I don’t feel that counts (though you could argue that since the Democratic-Republican faction behind Jackson eventually formed the Democratic Party, that might be valid).

No time since Kentucky’s first presidential election in 1796 has a Democratic candidate gotten lower than or equal to Clinton’s 32.7% (unless you want to count 1828’s Andrew Jackson).

The point is this - Bernie would not have won Kentucky. No way in hell. But at the very least, there’s a good chance he’d have hit 40% (keep in mind, Bernie “lost” the Kentucky Democratic Primary by less than two thousand votes). Obama managed 41.15% in 2008, and a lesser 37.80% in 2012.


9) Pennsylvania

Presidentially speaking, Pennsylvania has been a pretty balanced state for some time now. The last actual landslide, as far as I see it, that happened in Pennsylvania would be Richard Nixon’s victory over George McGovern in 1972, when Nixon got 59.1% of the vote, whereas McGovern ended up with 39.1%.

A Democrat won Pennsylvania in 1976 (Carter - 50.40%), 1992 (Clinton - 45.2%). 1996 (Clinton - 49.17%), 2000 (Gore - 50.60%), 2004 (Kerry - 50.92%), 2008 (Obama - 54.47%), and 2012 (Obama - 51.97%).

A Republican won Pennsylvania in 1980 (Reagan - 49.59%), 1984 (Reagan - 53.3%), and 1988 (H.W. Bush - 50.70%).

Democrats haven’t lost Pennsylvania presidentially since 1988. Here comes Hillary, who manages to break that record, and while Trump wins with 48.18%, Clinton gets just 47.46%.

This is a swing state still - Democrats have won for a while, but never by a whole lot. Still, squeaking by with a win is generally expected of a Democrat worth their salt.

Clinton is obviously worth no salt.

Gary Johnson received 2.38%, and Jill Stein received .81%.


10) West Virginia

West Virginia is not a friendly state toward Democrats.

In 2012, Obama got 35.54% to Romney’s 62.30%. In 2008, Obama got 42.5% to McCain’s 55.6%. In 2004, Kerry got 43.2% to Bush’s 56.1%. In 2000, Al Gore got 45.6% to Bush’s 51.9%. In 1996, Bill Clinton actually won, getting 51.51% to Bob Dole’s 36.76% and Perot’s 11.26%.

George McGovern, who got butchered nationally in 1972 by Richard Nixon, managed a 36.4% in West Virginia.

What did Clinton get in 2016?

26.4%.

Let me repeat myself: 26.4%.

Bernie Sanders, who defeated Clinton in the Democratic primary (51.41% to 35.84%), would have done better in this state for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say he wouldn’t have gotten anything as pathetically low as a 26.4%.

Trump won with 68.5%, and Gary Johnson received 3.22%, Jill Stein getting 1.13%.


11) Michigan

Much like Wisconsin and Minnesota, losing Michigan is not something that a Democrat should be doing.

In 2012, Obama won with 54.21% to Romney’s 44.71%. 2008 was much the same vein, when Obama won with 57.33% to McCain’s 40.89%. It was closer in 2004, but Kerry still won with 51.23% to Bush’s 47.81%. Al Gore won in 2000 with 51.28% to Bush’s 46.15%. Bill Clinton won Michigan both times, in 1996 with 51.7% and in 1992 with 43.8% (Ross Perot almost hit 20% in Michigan, explaining why Clinton won the state with such a low percentage).

1988 was the last time a Republican won Michigan, when George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis 53.6% to 45.7% (before than, Michigan went Republican every time since 1972).

Yet, Donald Trump won Michigan with 47.50% to Clinton’s 47.27%.

Remember, Bernie surprisingly won Michigan during the Democratic primary, and it’s not hard to see that he’d be able to get at least 50% (like Kerry or Gore), if not reach Obama levels with something in the 53%-59% range.

But Clinton couldn’t pull out the voters, and lost a state that’s been blue since 1992.

Again - pathetic.

Gary Johnson got 3.59% and Jill Stein got 1.07%.


12) Kansas

Donald Trump defeated Clinton in Kansas, receiving 56.6% to Clinton’s 36.0%. The other 7.4% mostly went to Gary Johnson (5%) and Jill Stein (2%).

Obama didn’t do that much better in 2012, when he got 38.05% to Romney’s 59.66%. In 2008, Obama did better, 41.55% to McCain’s 56.48%. Kerry did terribly in 2004, yet still better than Hillary Clinton, getting 36.6% to Bush’s 62.0% (partially, it should be stated, because Bush was the incumbent).

I could keep going - Al Gore did better, and Bill Clinton did better in 1996.

In 1992, Bill Clinton only got 33.7%, George H.W. Bush getting 38.9%, and Ross Perot getting a strong third with 27.0%.

Without a strong third alternative choice, though, you have to go back to 1984 (Reagan vs. Mondale) to find a Democrat getting a worse percentage than Clinton did in 2016, when Walter Mondale got a lowly 32.6% to Reagan’s 66.3%.

Bernie Sanders won the state caucus during the primary against Clinton, 67.90% to 32.10%.

Sanders would not have won Kansas. But I dare say he would have done better than Clinton, and likely better than Obama (in both 2012 and 2008).


13) Minnesota

Minnesota’s probably one of the best cases to show a state that Clinton won, but just barely.

Getting 46.44% of the vote to Trump’s 44.92% is a 1.52% victory. In Minnesota, that is an utterly pathetic and atrocious result.

I know this can get boring, but let’s look back a bit.

In 2012, Obama won with 52.7% to Romney’s 45.0%. 2008, Obama received 54.1% to McCain’s 43.8%. John Kerry, in 2004, got 51.09% to Bush’s 47.61% (that’s right - George W. Bush did better in Minnesota than Hillary Clinton). Al Gore got 47.91%, George Bush got 45.50%, and Ralph Nader got 5.20% in 2000. In 1996, Bill Clinton got 51.1%, Republican Bob Dole got 35%, and Ross Perot got 11.8%.

In 1992, Bill Clinton finally got a lower percentage than Hillary, when he got only 43.5% (still winning the state), to George H.W. Bush’s 31.9% and Perot’s 24.0%. In 1980, Democrat Jimmy Carter received 46.5% (again, winning the state, but going on to lose the election as a whole) against Reagan’s 42.6% and independent John B. Anderson’s 8.5%.

When was the last time a Democrat did as badly as Clinton without the “interference” of a strong alternative candidate’s presence? In 1972, when George McGovern received 46.1% - .34% lower than Clinton’s 2016 result. (Before that, you have to go back to 1956 to get an equivalent result, with Democrat Adlai Stevenson losing the state with 46.1% to incumbent Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 53.7%).

Here’s the thing, though - both George McGovern and Adlai Stevenson lost Minnesota going against an incumbent Republican president.
Clinton barely won Minnesota going against Trump.

That’s all I really need to say, but I’ll throw in more. In the Democratic caucus, Bernie Sanders won with 61.6% to Clinton’s 38.4%. Bernie, like Hillary, would have won Minnesota. But I bet your ass, and all of your earthly belongings, that he wouldn’t have won against Trump by a 1.52% margin or less.

I cannot overstate how pathetic Clinton’s results are. And yet, there are more states to look at.

Gary Johnson got 3.84% (112,972 votes) and Jill Stein got 1.26% (36,985 votes). Stein actually got fifth place, as Evan McMullin, an independent, came in fourth, getting 1.80% (53,076 votes).


14) Iowa

Donald Trump won the state of Iowa with 51.15% to Clinton’s 41.74%.

Keep in mind, Obama won Iowa both in 2008 (53.93% to McCain’s 44.39%) and 2012 (51.99% to Romney’s 46.18%).

Bush barely won Iowa in 2004 (a .67% difference), and Gore barely won Iowa in 2000 (a .32% difference). Bill Clinton won both times in 1992 and 1996. Hell, Dukakis even won in 1988, 54.7% to George H.W. Bush’s 44.5%.

Reagan, Ford, and Nixon collectively held Iowa for the Republican Party 1968 through 1984.

So as you can see, Iowa has a history of flip-flopping between parties. Still, Obama winning twice in recent times leads one to think a Obama-like Democrat can manage to win the state.

Clinton did terribly - no question about it. The real question is, would Bernie have won?

That’s hard to say. I will say this, though - he would not have lost by as much as Clinton did, and it’s not out of the question he could have pulled out a win, as Obama did in 2008 and 2012.

Also worth noting, Clinton got the lowest result a Democrat’s gotten in Iowa since Jimmy Carter in 1980, when he received 38.6%.


15) Indiana

Indiana is of particular interest to me, being that I’ve lived here most of my life. We know that Indiana is a solid red state (despite Obama’s surprise win in 2008 with 49.85% to McCain’s 48.82%), and has been for some time (the last time, Obama aside, a Democrat won Indiana was in 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater 55.9% to 43.6%).

How bad to Democrats generally do?

In 2012, Obama got 43.93%. In 2004, John Kerry got 39.26%. In 2000, Al Gore got 41%. Bill Clinton got 41.6% in 1996, and 36.8% in 1992. Dukakis, in 1988, got 39.7%.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton got 37.91%, which is higher than what her husband got in 1992, but given that Ross Perot was in that race also, it doesn’t seem right to count that. Walter Mondale, who was the Democratic nominee in 1984, got less than Clinton, receiving 37.7%.

So Indiana is a red state, and has been for a long time. That said, Clinton still did pretty damn bad compared to other Democratic nominees of the past.
In the 2016 Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders won Indiana with 52.46% of the vote to Clinton’s 47.54%.

I’ve been having a huge internal debate with myself as to whether or not Bernie could have defeated Trump in the general election in Indiana. Part of me says yes, part of me says no. The part that says no still believes that Bernie would have gotten at least 44% of the vote, if not a bit higher.

Even for a Democrat, it’s clear that Clinton did not do well here.


From my recollection, Hillary Clinton improved on Obama’s 2012 results in 11 or so states, many of them already solidly Democratic (such as California).

The reasons behind Clinton’s utter failure to captivate and galvanize voters in 2016 are many-fold. I’ve written and spoken about them before, and I will certainly do it in the future. But even if my specific reasons and opinions are not to your taste, these numbers and results are inarguable.

Clinton was a particularly bad Democratic nominee. Period. She lost to, of all people, Donald Trump. You might still be shocked at that, as many seem to be even a year into Trump’s term, but look at these numbers, and you can see that something with Clinton went dreadfully wrong.

[Jmac Attack]

Yup, fuck her and Fuck Trump. Apologies to the two guys on here that love Trump. Y'all are sensitive and snowflakey about him.

[Tiggnutz]

The country will hopefully never have such a choice of shitty shit to make again.

[Foo]

Just being real here, black people turned out massively and massively supported a black candidate in 2008 and 2012. They had little interest in Clinton as she lost a huge edge in that group. The hope was she would get a higher percent of women. She did not. They miscalculated in playing the gender card so strong. The whole "Pussy grabbing" and "Nasty woman" focus rather than on policy killed her.

[Tiggnutz]

Just being real here, black people turned out massively and massively supported a black candidate in 2008 and 2012. They had little interest in Clinton as she lost a huge edge in that group. The hope was she would get a higher percent of women. She did not. They miscalculated in playing the gender card so strong. The whole "Pussy grabbing" and "Nasty woman" focus rather than on policy killed her.

And over confidence was a killer too