THOSE THREE STATES
If Clinton had matched even Obama’s 2012 margin, those added votes would have been more than enough to carry Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan and swing the Electoral College to her. Strategists in Hillary Clinton’s campaign should have had the states’ 2008–2014 figures, as seen below, posted prominently in their cubicles. They well knew that the three states it depicts were crucial battlegrounds. Their twelve numbers carried ominous messages.
Most visible was the inconstancy of Democratic voters in those states. Here are some warnings from four elections prior to 2016.
• In 2008, all three states went strongly for Obama, visibly ahead of the nation as a whole. Yet four years later, his margin was 939,895 lower, while Republicans were improving their edge. This isn’t inevitable in reelection bids. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did better their second time around. The short story was that Democrats were losing traction, less by defections to Republicans than that earlier supporters were staying at home.
• Despite Democratic majorities in 2008 and 2012, in the subsequent midterms, Republicans easily carried the three states. They managed this not by drawing from the other side, but by getting their own troops out. Only 54 percent of 2008 Democrats showed up in 2010, whereas a solid 82 percent of Republicans did. Turnouts were lower in 2014, but Republicans were sixteen points ahead.
| WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA: 2008–2016 | ||
| Democrats | 2008 | Republicans |
| 7,816,158 (56%) | President | 5,967,117 (43%) |
| Democrats Ahead: 1,909,041 | ||
| Democrats | 2010 | Republicans |
| 4,236,094 (46%) | Midterm | 4,871,613 (52%) |
| Republicans Ahead: 635,519 | ||
| Democrats | 2012 | Republicans |
| 7,175,802 (53%) | President | 6,206,656 (46%) |
| Democrats Ahead: 969,146 | ||
| Democrats | 2014 | Republicans |
| 4,089,205 (47%) | Midterm | 4,533,290 (52%) |
| Republicans Ahead: 444,085 | ||
• In 2016, the states were not just in play, but were seriously at risk. The chief problem was somnolent Democrats. The party’s tacticians must have known they had a less-than-popular candidate, necessitating a need to rouse latent loyalties. Yet even in a high-profile presidential year, they drew out only 78 percent of their 2008 pool. The parallel Republican rate was 97 percent. And it netted them their historic 77,744 margin.