How Hillary Could Have Won

It's been a couple of days since Election Day 2016. Personally I am not disappointed Hillary lost, but I think she lost for one particular reason: she failed to make the campaign about issues. Had Hillary focused her speeches, her debates and advertising war chest on the contrasts (or, more importantly, the lack thereof) between herself and Trump, she would have driven a wedge between Donald Trump and his conservative base and won easily. Instead she relentlessly attacked Trump's personality, which only fueled his base to get out and vote.

If you had your TV on at any time in the last three months, chances are you saw it: the ad with the children sitting in front of the TV watching as Donald Trump made one extreme remark after another. It probably won't go down in history alongside other memorable TV ads from past campaigns (mostly because Hillary lost and most people remember winners' ads), but it is definitely the most memorable of this campaign. This ad, for better and for worse, exemplifies Clinton's entire campaign strategy: pointing out what a nasty scoundrel Donald Trump is.

Hillary's campaign staff and her supporters in the press and popular media followed this strategy to the letter. Late night comedians constantly pointed out Trump's flubs and erratic behavior every night of the week. Democratic panelists on various news shows focused on the seedy characters Trump seemed to attract, from Milo Yiannopoulos to David Duke. Some went on to imply (and in some cases declare outright) that all or most of Trump's support came from extremists like them.

This was the wrong strategy to take because it only served to fuel Trump's base's rage against the political, media and entertainment elite. They knew Trump was and is a sorry human being. A large portion of his base (at least many from all over the country that I talked to personally and on social media) was reluctant in their support. Hillary failed to turn that reluctance into a decision to stay home.

Most conservatives (I say this as a conservative-leaning libertarian who grew up around conservatives and who lives in a very red state - Alabama) have a persecution complex. They are used to being marginalized, ignored and villainized by the movers and shakers of society, and they tend to identify with people who are the targets of attacks from the left. If you want an example, look no further than Sarah Palin. The more liberals made fun of her, the more conservatives loved her, bought her books and tuned in to her TV shows.

Trump understood this. He was willing to take the abuse and dish out some of his own, which only further stirred his base, many of whom felt that both Romney and McCain failed to attack Barack Obama. Romney in particular further alienated the Republican base by failing to take a strong stand on issues dear to conservatives.

Had Hillary commended Trump for his stance on LGBT issues,
how many conservative votes would Trump have lost?
Photo Credit: Colorado Log Cabin Republicans

Here's where 2016 was different from 2012: in the debates and with his stump speeches President Obama made Romney speak to these divisive issues. And when he did, millions of conservatives stayed home. Clinton by and large did not attack Trump on any specific issues. And she had wide-open opportunities to do so. Trump is not a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. Many of his positions, especially on social issues, are similar to Clinton's. In particular, look at Trump's embrace of LGBT rights. Many conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, would balk at such positions. They are the type who would stay home rather than vote for the "lesser of two evils." Clinton did not need to attack Trump in this regard. She could have praised him for having an openly gay man speak right before his acceptance speech at the GOP Convention. She could have made a big deal out of finding common ground with Trump.

But Clinton never brought this up. Maybe she was afraid if she found common ground with Trump that some of her support might go away. Maybe she was afraid of humanizing someone she was determined to treat with disdain. Whatever the reason, the ceaseless personal attacks continued, and with each one she dug herself into a deeper hole she ultimately could not climb out of.

Open Runoff Elections - Fair or Unfair?

Let me preface this with a quick primer on my political views: I consider myself an independent, a Christian libertarian. I have never voted a straight party ticket in my life. I try to stay informed the best I can and vote for the best person, in my view. I have always lived in open primary states, so in the primary I choose whichever ballot has the most action. In southeast Missouri where I grew up, I took a Democrat ballot. In northern Alabama, I take a Republican ballot.

Today is primary election day here in Alabama. Alabama’s election process includes a runoff election between the primary and the general election. In a primary election you can have any number of candidates from each party for a certain office. The purpose of the primary election is for party loyalists to choose their favorite candidate for the general election. After the regular primary election, in Alabama we have also have a runoff election. (It’s scheduled for July 15.) In the event no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote the top two candidates face off in the runoff election. It’s sort of a second round of the primary. It certainly makes the election process more interesting. When there are three or four candidates in the primary, the favorite is going to push to win the primary outright so he can avoid the runoff. When there is a huge field, everyone knows there will be a runoff, so the real battle is for second place in the election so he can win a spot in the runoff.

As I said, Alabama is an open primary state. That means you can come to the polling place on election day and choose which party you want to vote for. Other states require you to register as a member of a certain party, and you have to take that party’s ballot in the primary. I don’t have an objection to either of these methods. Of course anyone can choose any candidate on the general election ballot, regardless of party. No one is obligated to vote for their chosen party on the general ballot.

The quirk in Alabama’s system is that the runoff election is open, too. It’s honestly not that big of a deal, it’s just something I remember vividly from the last election, and I find it remarkable that neither of the major parties has sought to close that loophole, especially given Alabama’s history of one-party rule.

Let me illustrate the issue with the real-life events that happened in the last election year. In 2010 there was a particular Republican candidate I wanted to win the governor’s race (I don’t even remember his name now), but it was a crowded field with seven or eight candidates. The candidate I wanted to win won first place in the primary. The second place winner was a surprise – Robert Bentley, a nondescript dermatologist from Tuscaloosa whose main claim to fame was that he once treated Bear Bryant (If you wonder why that matters, you’ve never been to Alabama).

There was a strong Democrat race for governor as well, but it was between two candidates. The one candidate won the primary, and that was it. So we had another six weeks of the two Republican governor candidates duking it out on the campaign trail and endless TV and radio commercials. Meanwhile here in Morgan County, if I remember right, there was one minor county office and one minor state office – secretary of state or something like that – on the Democrat ballot. Naturally the Republican governor’s race was the main focus of the public and the media during the campaign cycle.

When I went to the polls on the runoff election day, I was the 77th person to vote at that precinct, Decatur Baptist Church on Danville Road. I know this because I signed my name on the 76th blank to receive a Republican ballot. When I looked at the Democrat sheet, there was only one signature. The final results in Morgan County were not that far off from that. More than 90 percent of the votes cast were on the Republican ticket. I know Decatur is mostly a Republican town, especially the area I happened to be voting in that year. But you can’t tell me Republicans outnumber Democrats 76 to 1, or even 9 to 1.

And the numbers weren’t that unbalanced because all the Democrats stayed home. The runoff turnout was only slightly smaller than the primary turnout. No, the results were that way because lots of Democrats voted in the Republican primary. And I think it is safe to assume the vast majority of them voted for Bentley, the more moderate of the two candidates. So was I disappointed that my candidate didn’t win? Yeah. Would he have done that much different from what Bentley has done the last 3 ½ years? I don’t know, probably not.

But the point is that is not the purpose of the primary election. The primary election is for party supporters to choose for themselves. That’s why you have separate ballots. I remember some people saying at the time that Bentley was the Democrats’ real nominee for governor. I wouldn’t go that far, but it does reflect a flaw in the system. People may see a candidate who wins this way as a less than legitimate candidate.

There is an easy solution for this that would preserve the open primary system: have an open primary and a closed runoff. When you take a ballot in the primary election, the poll worker could note which party you took. It wouldn’t be that hard. Then when you come to the polls for the runoff, the poll worker looks at the letter printed beside your name and hands you the same party’s ballot that you selected in the primary. No one would be allowed to vote in the runoff who hadn’t voted in the primary, unless there is something like a statewide ballot issue, and they would only receive that ballot. No one would be obligated to take the same party ballot in the primary in the next election cycle. This would preserve the open primary system.

I’m not a native Alabamian, but frankly I am surprised neither party has “fixed” this already. Since the Civil War Alabama’s government has been characterized by one-party rule. By one-party rule I mean the governor and the majority of both houses of the legislature and the Supreme Court have been all of one party. It hasn’t happened every election cycle, but most of the time it has. You would think that with that much control of the legislative process the party in charge would have kept such a situation as I described above from taking place. But they haven’t. Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe it is a way to preserve the voice of the people in a one-party system. But neither of the main parties is concerned as much with the will of the people as they are with preserving power. That’s why I’m surprised the runoffs are open.

Don’t forget to vote today if you are in Alabama!