Top 10 Facts Pundits Overlooked During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
In hindsight, everything seems so clear, but in 2016, many people thought that Hillary Clinton would have an easy victory and that Donald Trump had little chance. Even some of his own supporters were saying the election was rigged in her favor. Polls, which had accurately predicted most elections up to that point, were consistently putting her in the lead. She also had far fewer battleground states to win, and Trump's controversial comments were seen as potentially debilitating for his campaign.People have a tendency to want to confirm what they already believe, and many times, when we're confronted with things we don't want to hear, we automatically reject them. Many people lived in a bubble of information that validated their views, and the many advantages Trump had were overlooked.
Here's what we all missed.
In nearly every election, the more charismatic person wins, or at least the less charismatic person loses. Reagan was more charismatic than Carter and Mondale. Obama was more charismatic than Romney and McCain. The Bushes were not especially charming, but Dukakis and Kerry both lacked energy.
In this election, Trump was by far more charismatic. Remember that charismatic does not mean nice, and it does not mean likable. Charisma means being able to energize voters, and Trump did this. Clinton failed to make an emotional connection with voters.
No matter what controversies happened, his poll numbers remained unharmed. Yet, his opponent's claimed that his most recent controversy would be the one that ended his campaign.
Polls generally had Clinton 2-4% ahead of Trump nationwide the whole time. Yes, it's an advantage. But with a difference so small, pundits were not correct in saying she had a 90% chance of winning.
It's very hard for a party to keep the presidency for more than two terms. Clinton, running for a third term, had to battle against inertia.
In 2012, they polled very well with Obama, but in 2016, this advantage shifted to Trump.
Many people ignored the fact that a key demographic of Obama's went to Trump.
Whoever wins Florida wins the election, generally. More specifically, Florida is the tightest swing state in the country. If Trump were to be beaten by a landslide, he likely wouldn't have been tying with her in Florida polls.
This is typically an indicator of an unstable election. Perot in 1992. Nader in 2000. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in 2016. Did these third parties themselves shift the election? I'm not sure. But there's no doubt they indicate a desire for parties to change.
There are millions of people who favored Clinton over Trump but weren't enthusiastic enough to go and vote for her.
Due to strong aversion to Trump, many of his supporters hid their support to avoid being called a racist or misogynist at their work, school, or social circle. Many Republicans condemned him publicly but voted for him behind the curtains.
His turnout was similar to Romney's and not as depressed as many expected.
Pundits universally agreed Clinton had a 99% chance of beating Sanders in the Michigan primary, but he ended up winning decisively.
This meant that pundits were not always right, and that rust-belt voters were angry at the establishment.
In general, Clinton won the primaries with much more opposition than most expected.
The stigma against Trump supporters did cause the Clinton camp to overestimate their advantages.
