2016 Election
7 Reasons Donald Trump Won The Presidential Election
Published
9 years agoon
(NPR) By Domenico Montanaro | The dust is starting to settle in Washington and around the country after an election that stunned political watchers and pollsters.
Here are seven things we’ve learned about Donald Trump’s path to victory Tuesday night:
1. Hillary Clinton now has a wider popular vote lead than Al Gore in 2000, but the Electoral College picks presidents.
As vote continues to be counted, Hillary Clinton has now surpassed Al Gore’s 2000 popular vote margin. Clinton’s popular-vote lead is 668,171 over President-elect Donald Trump, according to the latest totals compiled by the U.S. Election Atlas. Gore got 547,398 more votes than George W. Bush in 2000.
Clinton’s lead will only likely grow as votes continue to be finalized. Democrats have now won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, but lost the Electoral College in two of them. This takes place as Democrats continue to migrate to cities and the coasts where their population is more concentrated.
The constitution mandates the Electoral College picks presidents. The founders created that system in part to avoid the largest states picking “favorite sons” and having outsize influence.
2. Overall turnout will be about the same as 2012.

Domenico Montanaro/NPR
It may even surpass it when all the vote is counted. These figures represent only about half of all eligible voters in the U.S.. But, as explained below, Clinton earned a lower share than Obama and more voters chose third party candidates.
3. A significant chunk of voters were dissatisfied with their choice of candidates.
The number of people electing not to vote for the Republican or Democratic nominee went up by 4.5 million votes, nearly tripling from 2012:

Votes for third party or candidates outside the major parties in 2012 vs. 2016.
Domenico Montanaro/NPR
It’s difficult to say who those voters would have gone to precisely. Libertarian Gary Johnson got more than 4 million votes (or 3 percent), up from 1.3 million in 2012. Green Party candidate Jill Stein got 1.3 million votes in this election, only about 1 percent overall.
But more young voters went third party this year:
18-29 YEAR OLDS WHO CHOSE THIRD PARTY/OTHER
2012: 3 percent
2016: 8 percent
4. Clinton did not fire up the Obama Coalition.
Clinton got nearly 5 million fewer votes overall than Obama:

Domenico Montanaro/NPR
Trump, meanwhile, got roughly the same number of voters as Mitt Romney four years ago:

Domenico Montanaro/NPR
18-29-YEAR-OLDS
Young voters were the same share of the electorate (19 percent), but went in smaller margins for Clinton than Obama and they jumped in third-party support from 3 percent to 8 percent:
2012: 60-37 Obama, 3 percent third party
2016: 55-37 Clinton, 8 percent third party
LATINOS
By their sheer size, Latinos went up as a share of the electorate from 10 percent to 11 percent, but the idea that they would turn out for Clinton in bigger numbers than Obama because of Trump turned out just not be true overall — and a significant share, especially among Latinos, went third party:
2012: 71-27 Obama
2016: 65-29 Clinton; 6 percent third party
Latinos certainly had an impact in the Southwest, helping Clinton win Nevada and Colorado and even made Arizona and Texas closer than past years. Texas was within 10 points for the first time in 20 years, and Latinos were a quarter of the electorate (24 percent).
It might be becoming clear that about 3 in 10 Latinos are simply part of the conservative base.
BLACK VOTERS
Black voters were down as a share of the electorate slightly and went for Clinton in a smaller margin — more like 2004 numbers for John Kerry:
2012: 13% of electorate, 93-6 Obama
2016: 12% of electorate, 88-8 Clinton
In places like Wayne County, Mich., home to Detroit, and Milwaukee, Wis., Clinton was significantly off from Obama’s vote total in 2012. In fact, had she met Obama’s vote total, it would have made been more than enough to make up the statewide differences in both states:
WISCONSIN STATEWIDE MARGIN: Trump +24,000 votes
MILWAUKEE
Obama total votes 2012: 332,000
Clinton total votes 2016: 289,000 (-43,000)
MICHIGAN STATEWIDE MARGIN: Trump +13,000 votes
WAYNE COUNTY
Obama total votes 2012: 595,000
Clinton total votes 2016: 517,000 (-78,000)
A similar pattern wouldn’t have helped Clinton win Pennsylvania. She turned out about 25,000 fewer voters in Philadelphia than Obama, but that discrepancy would not have made up for the crumbling in rural areas and even some counties Obama won. Luzerne (Wilkes-Barre), for example, shifted huge to Trump – by 25 points. Erie shifted 18 points.
In North Carolina, despite Clinton doing better in the Research Triangle area than Obama, black voters, who traditionally turn out at high rates in North Carolina, dropped significantly:
BLACK VOTERS IN NORTH CAROLINA
2012: 23% of electorate, 96-4 for Obama
2016: 20% of electorate, 90-8 for Clinton
Could they have made up the difference? Quite possibly. Trump won the state by 177,000 votes out of about 4.7 million votes. If black voters were the same share of the electorate as 2012, and Clinton won 90 percent, she would have picked up some 126,000 votes. Now, if they voted in the 96-percent, same margin as they did for Obama and turned out at the same share of the electorate, Clinton would have picked up 191,000 votes.
Now almost no one expected, including the Clinton campaign, to get the same margins and share of the electorate with black voters as Obama, so these calculations probably aren’t fair. What’s more, Trump increased turnout among Republicans, so the black share would have to drop even if the same raw number turned out as 2016.
Sure, mathematically, no slippage with black voters, no third-party bleed among young voters in particular and juicing the Latino vote would have meant Clinton could have won despite a white, working-class cratering (more on that below). But that’s not realistic, considering the election didn’t take place in a vacuum. The declines are interrelated.
POST GRADUATES
Post-graduates went by a slightly wider margin for Clinton than Obama:
2012: 18% of electorate, 55-42 Obama
2016: 18% of electorate, 58-37 Clinton
This furthers the distinct education gap in this election, especially among whites.
5. Whites without college degrees have fled to the GOP.
They were a group Democrats used to compete with. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won them by a point. But they have fled to the GOP in the years since –- and now the gap between whites with college degrees and without appears to be the widest ever. A whopping 35 points.
NPR’s Danielle Kurtzleben charted it here.
WHITES WITHOUT A DEGREE
2016: R+39
2012: R+26
2008: R+18
2004: R+23
2000: R+17
1996: D+1
1992: D+1
6. And that leads to what might be the biggest story of the election – Democrats’ cratering with blue-collar white voters.
Ohio and Iowa went by huge margins for Trump –- almost 10 points in Iowa and 9 in Ohio. Trump won Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (by less than a point), leads in Michigan (by an even smaller margin), and lost by less than 2 points in Minnesota.
These are all states that went for Democrats in six straight presidential elections. They were crucial to the Democratic Blue Wall, and Trump took a sledgehammer to it.
We heard the voices of Obama-Trump white, working class voters in our stories online and on the air, but they never registered in big enough numbers — in public or private, non-partisan, Republican or Democratic polling before the election to show that a Trump win was apparent. Take a look at the vote shifts among the white, working class in some key states:
THOSE WITHOUT A COLLEGE DEGREE IN INDUSTRIAL NORTH

Domenico Montanaro/NPR
MINNESOTA
2012: 53% of electorate, 52-46 Obama
2016: 44% of electorate, 55-38 Trump (net gain: R+23)
WISCONSIN
2012: 58% of electorate, 51-47 Obama
2016: 55% of electorate, 56-40 Trump (net gain: R+20)
IOWA
2012: 57% of electorate, 52-46 Obama
2016: 57% of electorate, 54-40 Trump (net gain: R+20)
MICHIGAN
2012: 54% of electorate, 56-43 Obama
2016: 58% of electorate, 49-45 Trump (net gain: R+17)
OHIO
2012: 60% of electorate, 53-46 Obama
2016: 56% of electorate, 51-45 Trump (net gain: R+13)
PENNSYLVANIA
2012: 52% of electorate, 57-42 Obama
2016: 52% of electorate, 52-45 Trump (net gain: R+12)
7. Clinton forgot how she campaigned in 2000.
Overall, the reason Trump won was because he flipped big margins with white, working class voters in the Midwest and Pennsylvania — something that was always a possibility.
Trump spoke to these voters — whether it was on policy with how he blew up the Republican message on trade and Clinton’s ties to the establishment and pro-globalist agenda; or his fueling white resentments and racial bias; and there was likely some degree of sexism that played a role. That’s something that’s difficult to measure, though there will likely be dissertations written about it.
But Clinton made her mistakes with this group — calling half of Trump supporters “deplorables” likely fired up these exact kinds of voters, for example.
The late-in-the-campaign letter from FBI Director James Comey about Clinton’s emails likely also played a role, reinforcing a narrative about her as untrustworthy especially with voters who were prone to believe the worst about her.
In the end, though, Clinton allowed the caricature created of her to become cemented. It’s actually surprising considering how she campaigned for her 2000 Senate seat. Back then, she took on the caricatures of her as a carpet bagger who didn’t deserve it by meeting and talking with voters in upstate New York. Some questioned that strategy given New York City and the suburbs have such big populations and generally determine the outcome of statewide races. (Sound familiar?)
Clinton, though, worked hard and won many of them over — and easily won the Senate seat.
She never did that this time. It was something she promised she would do at the outset of this campaign, but it was never attempted during the general election when she was against Trump. Instead, she was largely absent from the campaign trail for most of August, staying out of the news as Trump was steeped in controversy. That turned out to be as mistake.
She never created an affirmative message about her candidacy. “Stronger Together” was reactive to Trump. And she took for granted what used to be a critical piece of the Democratic coalition. It’s ironic that instead of courting these voters to solidify the Blue Wall, she spent a lot of time courting Republicans. But the Republicans who would be open to her message would be metropolitan globalists, and it’s the very type of message that would turn off populist, blue-collar Democrats.
A rural Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin tour might not have reversed this 36-year trend away from Democrats, but given how extraordinarily close all three states turned out to be, Clinton likely would have reduced the margins enough to win.
Of course, that’s not what happened.
You may like
2016 Election
[OPINION] We Need More Saturday Night Live, Especially This Election Season
Published
6 years agoon
August 12, 2020ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN NEWS) – We need political comedy, not political correctness. SNL is the answer.
Saturday Night Live has been a staple of American comedy for almost 50 years. Founded in 1975, it’s hilarious skits, songs, and other performances have become iconic in entertainment history.
Many a famous actor has gotten his and her start as an SNL cast member, with many celebrities starring as guest performers. Here is a short list of some of the talent that has graced the SNL set:
- Tina Fey
- Will Ferrell
- Eddie Murphy
- Andy Samberg
- Jimmy Fallon
- Bill Murray
- Adam Sandler
- Justin Timberlake
- Steve Carell
- And so many more!
SNL is notorious for its election season performances, which become viral overnight.
In the 2016 election, several cast members had recurring roles throughout the election. They spent months spoofing debates, press conferences, interviews, and campaign events as their respective characters.
Take Alec Baldwin, whose Trump impression is unmatched. He has appeared in more than a dozen shows portraying the President, and has even won an Emmy for the role.
Kate McKinnon took on the role of Hillary Clinton and knocked it out of the park, also winning an Emmy.
Other characters included Larry David as Bernie Sanders, Beck Bennet as Mike Pence, and Cecily Strong as Melania Trump.
The 2016 election season was glorious, with some of the funniest ever performances. In my opinion, there is nothing more bipartisan than laughing at the faults of political candidates.
Democrats and Republicans alike can laugh at the hilarious goofs, one-liners, and relationships between Trump, Hillary, and all the other candidates and big players.
We all understand that politics and elections are serious business, but sometimes we all need to step back and take it all a little less seriously.
In our time of political correctness, the acceptable limits of comedy are shrinking drastically, which is unfortunate. Any joke that has anything to do with race, ethnicity, gender, age, weight, or religion is strictly prohibited.
Of course, no one wants to be attacked or discriminated against, but we’ve lost the ability to laugh at ourselves and to take a joke.
It’s one of the large divides between generations, with young people being offended at older jokes while not understanding the different mentality behind them.
Maintaining the freedom to joke about our political candidates is essential to keeping us light-hearted and united. It’s so easy for both parties to dig in their heels and attack each other ruthlessly, but if we can stop and just relax for a minute, we’ll see how much we have in common.
All I’m saying is that I give SNL and any other comedy group permission to go full steam in the coming election. With everything happening in 2020, we could use a good laugh!
Here are a few of my favorite 2016 SNL Election videos:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg0pO9VG1J8&list=PLKcs1UrERaDwjMCdnOJEMow1ofPl2QHO-&index=215
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iBb1gvehI
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHG0ezLiVGc&list=PL6n5NMRLjaR_kk9Lhg2BYXlnQcvQWGKnz&index=58
________________________________
Marcos Barrios is a Florida National News contributing writer. The avid writer and musician is passionate about politics and entertainment in Florida and abroad.
2016 Election
[OPINION] POLITICS AT ITS WORST… It’s not just a DC thing!
Published
8 years agoon
October 10, 2018By
Randy RossORLANDO, Fla. (FNN NEWS) – Recently I reported on social media a verbal assault my mother and I experienced while leaving local downtown eatery. A total stranger screaming his hate of President Trump in my direction while I pushed my mom in a wheelchair from the restaurant. While unpleasant, I chalked it up to my being as close as many can get to express their dislike of our President.
On Saturday, while returning home from an assignment here in Orlando the hate reared its head again. While traveling on I-4 I received a call from a number I didn’t recognize. Traditionally I would not answer such a call, but the nature of the project I was working on warranted answering the call to ensure it wasn’t work related.
Me: “Hello.”
Voice on the other end: “This is [not disclosing] from the Florida Department of Children and Families. I’m sitting here with your mother Betty. We are investigating a complaint of elder abuse in your home.”
Me: “I’m sorry. Is this some type of joke? Who are you?”
The gentleman on the other end reconfirmed. At this point I’m sure I begin breaking the speed limit to get home. I mean, I have cared for my mother for nearly 30 years. He continued, “There was an accusation that you had thrown your mother down a flight of stairs.” I immediately said, “Ok, I’m 10 minutes from home. However, I need you to step outside the home until I get there.” He agreed.
I had no idea what truly was going on and what to expect when I arrived. He could have been anyone holding her hostage or something.
In the interim, I immediately called my friend and Attorney Roger Scott and explained the situation. He confirmed I had the right to ask him to leave the home and didn’t even have to allow him to come back in. However, I expressed to Roger that when I got to the house I was going to speak with the representative and would determine from his demeanor whether to allow him back in. After arriving home and a few minutes of speaking with the representative I quickly realized he too felt the anonymous allegation was false. I then contacted my attorney and had him listen to the conversation, via speaker phone, between the representative, my mother, and me.
Now keep in mind, Roger is not a Trump supporter. We both are very clear in our politics. However, he also knows when something smells rotten. Roger further clarified that he’s heard the same allegation before on social media and that, if true, my mother and her medical advisors ad physicians would have stepped in long ago. Scott said, “I have personally been in the Ross home and witnessed the love and care he gives his mother. This is clearly politically motivated.”
After wrapping up the call with my attorney, the representative shared he would be talking to my neighbors, Mom’s doctors, and my sister in Indiana. He stated, “I feel this is something that will be wrapped up quickly. If so, I’ll call you in a few days and alert you to my decision.”
Yesterday, Tuesday, October 9th, that call came. “Mr. Ross, I wanted to let you know I’m closing the case and that we saw no proof of your mom being thrown down the stairs or elder abuse after speaking with neighbors, your mother’s doctors and your family.” I simply said, “Thank you,” and hung up. That’s when the reality of the situation hit me… I realized whomever had made this accusation had been successful in one thing…humiliating me and my family. It could have stopped there. But that’s not how I roll. I wanted to speak up and out for all Americans that happen to have a voice and support our President.
Here’s the reality. Since I accepted the role of Orange County Chairman for Trump in 2015 I have faced enormous pushback from former friends and the community of people who don’t like our President. It was seemingly impossible for them to believe you can be a gay conservative, let alone one that supports President Trump.
Trust, I’ve heard it all. False allegations that I drugged and raped multiple people. I’ve received more death threats and threats of violence towards me than I care to mention. One threat in particular suggested, “I hope to wipe the blood of your crippled mother on the streets of downtown Orlando.” See a pattern? I’ve heard pretty much anything and everything horrible that could be said, all categorically false. But I don’t think I ever expected someone would go so far as to make such a false allegation regarding my mother. One that had a different representative with a different agenda showed up at my home could have gone strikingly different. In fact, as the representative mentioned, “We could have your mother removed from your home.” My mom, who is 76 years old, 85 lbs soaking wet, frail, with severe rheumatoid arthritis, never had anything more dramatic in her life but a speeding ticket, could have been taken from my home, via a false allegation… and all because I support President Donald J Trump? Is this really the state of politics in America? Then again, I know my mother… she would not have gone quietly. And I’m pretty sure my sister and brother in law would have taken the next jet from Indianapolis to get here and straighten them out. Quickly.
I decided to utilize the various platforms of influence I have to bring awareness that I, like basically anyone with high profile support of our President, am a target. But let me be perfectly clear: I am not a snowflake. The silent majority is simply tired of being silent.
No, I’m not President Trump and I certainly can’t imagine the attacks Justice Kavanaugh must have endured, however, I’m realizing how pathetic those that disagree with my politics have become. You can’t even eat dinner without some nut job trying to interfere under the direction of “Chief Derangement Officer” Maxine Waters. But this?
I, and my entire family for that matter, support President Trump unapologetically and will continue to no matter the barbs and attacks sent our way. Imagine if some of that hate and negative posturing was utilized to actually make the change you seek? I guess that would require too much real work.
I’m not sure what will be the next attempt the left, or possibly those in my own party, will throw in my direction because of my successful support for our President. But one thing’s for sure: You’re messing with the wrong American. Elder abuse is a very, very serious issue. The idea that anyone would ignore the needs of a senior is unimaginable to me. However, using the fact that I care for a senior, who happens to be my mother, as a tool for political gain? Well, there’s a special place in hell for people like that!
_________________________________________
Randy Ross is a political contributor for Florida National News.
2016 Election
Trump travel ban partly reinstated; fall court arguments set
Published
9 years agoon
June 26, 2017WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to go forward with a limited version of its ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries, a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.
The justices will hear full arguments in October in the case that has stirred heated emotions across the nation. In the meantime, the court said Monday that Trump’s ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.
The administration has said the 90-day ban was needed on national security grounds to allow an internal review of screening procedures for visa applicants from the six countries. Opponents say the ban is unlawful, based on visitors’ Muslim religion. The administration review should be complete before Oct. 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.
A 120-day ban on refugees also is being allowed to take effect on a limited basis.
Three of the court’s conservative justices said they would have let the complete bans take effect.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, and that it will suffer irreparable harm with any interference. Thomas said the government’s interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.
Some immigration lawyers said the limited nature of the ban and the silence of the court’s liberals on the issue Monday suggested that the court had not handed Trump much of a victory. They said relatively few people would fall under the ban because people coming to study, work or visit family members in the United States already have sufficient relationships with others already is in the country.
Trump, though, hailed the high court’s order as a “clear victory for our national security.” He said in a statement that his “number one responsibility” is to keep the American people safe.
The court’s opinion explained the kinds of relationships people from the six countries must demonstrate to obtain a U.S. visa.
“For individuals, a close familial relationship is required,” the court said. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, “the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the purpose of evading” the travel ban.
The opinion faulted the two federal appeals courts that had blocked the travel policy for going too far to limit Trump’s authority over immigration. The president announced the travel ban a week after he took office in January and revised it in March after setbacks in court.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was “rooted in religious animus” toward Muslims and pointed to Trump’s campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the travel policy does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination. That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends September 30.
Trump’s first executive order on travel applied to travelers from Iraq and well as the six countries, and took effect immediately, causing chaos and panic at airports over the last weekend in January as the Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out whom the order covered and how it was to be implemented.
A federal judge blocked it eight days later, an order that was upheld by a 9th circuit panel. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy.
In March, Trump issued the narrower order.