What Just Happened

The Inconceivable President-Elect Trump

This will be quick because I can only write so much in my current state of shock. However, there is about to be a lot of post analysis theories, and I wanted to get in what I know before misleading ideas start to take hold.

How did he do it?

Quite simply he turned out more votes. OK that's obvious, but let see want that means isn't.

1. He turned out a historic number of rural voters. We aren't yet done counting, but what I last saw was 120 million voted in this election. By the end, you will start hearing how many records this beats. I expect it is the highest turnout in my lifetime.
2. The American Election system is designed to advantage rural voters. Note that as of writing this, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote and is likely to be the final outcome. He did not just get a a a lot of vote, he got the right kind of votes.
3. He understood it was cultural not ideological. Since Romney's defeat there has been an argument between whether the Republican party needed to reach out to more minorities or get more republicans to turnout. The 'establishment' did not believe the votes where there. The 'conservatives' believed they were there, but Romney had failed to sell 'conservatism'. They were both wrong. There were more Republicans to turnout, and they did not care about 'conservatism'.

How did we get it wrong?

For the record, we didn't (though more in CYA way). I had from the beginning kept insisting there was a chance and warned of  Shy Trump voters. Before Election Day, Clinton was up +3%. The estimate of Shy Trump voters is 2.5%. Clinton is likely to win the popular vote by 0.5%.

However, I suspect the Shy Trump voter was really a Quiet Trump voter. I don't think they lied to pollster. I think they just didn't pick up the phone.

Nate Silver did warn that a 3% polling error, which has happened before, makes Clinton lose. He also warned that the nature of the Electoral College, meant it was easier to break through Clinton's 'firewall'. Both proved true.

What I did get wrong was that I underestimated his chances of him winning the rust belt. (Though this was more in private. In posts, I mentioned the possibility. I just didn't emphasize it.)

What did not happen?

OK this is the more important point. We are about the blame a lot of people and circumstances, and I need to voice what I learned watching the election so closely before everyone starts jumping on them.

1. No one failed to turn out. Clinton gave maybe the best GOTV in modern history. We can argue a few votes here and there. The votes just weren't there.
2. There was voter suppression or shenanigans. Again remember that there was a record turnout on both sides. The Trump campaign never showed the level of organization to do so at a national scale, and the places where there might have been some, he won by enough of a margin to not have made a difference.
3. It was all racism. Maybe some, but not all. People are just more complex than that. You have to remember this was a cultural outcry from the voters, not an ideological one. Clinton has been demonized by a consistent propaganda campaign for almost 30 years. It was like trying to convince people to side with Iran to fight England. If more 'Jebs' had voted Clinton instead of Johnson, she could have won.
4. It was Clinton's fault. The vote was against all democratic and 'establishment' idea. Any democrat could have lost. Perhaps if the candidate had made an appeal to one or two of the issues: anti-globalism or an isolationism. But, that would have lost support from democrats and the republicans that did vote for her. Before you bring up Sanders, while the word 'socialism' became acceptable within the primary, you have no idea what a deal killer that is to most who remember or experienced communism, including minorities and especially Trump voters.
5. It was Third Parties. Jill Stein yes. If she had not run, Clinton would have won. But for Johnson, I've done the math. Polling that was going to Johnson mostly came from Trump. In fact, the best way Johnson would have help might have been by being a better candidate. However, that is questionable. His voters more likely would have stayed home rather than vote for Clinton.

And the Comey Letter

Here I would give some blame but not has much as you think. I pointed out early that Trump had done more than suspected to motivate republicans. Then news of premium increases mobilized more. This was all before the Comey letter, and polls for Trump were already rising. The Comey letter might have taken 1% from Clinton. (Maybe more if it was affecting those that early voted. Though that does not look like it by who voted.) What it did do was allow Trump to hold on to what he had gained longer. If Comey had never sent the letter, or at least released the clearance sooner that could have made a difference. Not much, but just enough.

Before you try to blame Clinton on this let me make a few points. The email server scandal was the result of the Benghazi witch hunt by the republican congress. It looks like Comey may have sent the letter because of those within the FBI that were going to leak it. The agents were likely motivated by the 30 year propaganda campaign, and I believe they would have been doing the same to any likely candidate for president. They had been doing the same to democrats in general.

Once it became apparent, at least to democrats, that FBI agents were trying to influence the election, polls for Clinton started increasing before Comey cleared her.

For you to say this would only happen to Clinton, you have to say that FBI agents that were willing to follow any accusations by Brietbart or Trump would have not done the same to any other candidate.