In the conventional sense, absolutely. Very few pollsters or pundits predicted it. I sure didn't. And in a sense, the polls were close to correct: Ms. Clinton won the national plurality by nearly 2.9 million votes.
In another sense, though, Trump's victory was the culmination of at least three trends we could have seen coming. Two have been mentioned before on this blog: Clinton was broadly unpopular and seen as dishonest; and the country had lost faith in many of its institutions and in Washington, DC, in particular. Hillary was nothing if not the consummate Washington insider, running in a year where that was, to put it mildly, no advantage.
But there is a third trend less often mentioned.
That trend is the decline of the Democratic Party over the course of the Obama Administration.
Obama himself is a uniquely talented, apt and shrewd politician, and when he was on the ballot, Democrats at least held their own. Otherwise, the Party has been cratering, as the graph below illustrates. In addition, when you look at the electoral map, the Democratic Party has become a regional organization. It's strong in New England, the Northeast, and for a long swath about 30 miles wide going inland from the Pacific. Other than a scattering of cities like Denver, Minneapolis and Miami, that's it. The map is almost all red.
Although this blog is not about politics, taking some note of politics is unavoidable. We talk here about judicial selection, sentencing legislation and policing and enforcement policy, all of which are closely linked to outcomes at the polls. It is likewise no surprise that Kent, Mike Rushford, Steve Erickson and I all generally view the Republican Party as more favorable to the views we hold.
But for however that may be, if I were a Democrat, having just lost the Presidency to the least favorably regarded candidate in the history of polling; with Barack Obama sidelined; and having little to no bench outside of septuagenarians, I doubt I'd be in a real chipper mood (which they aren't).
P.S. But that was a brilliant move by Harry Reid to banish the filibuster for nominations other than the Supreme Court. Really. Brilliant.
Good post, Bill, though I think you are missing the urban/suburban/rural dynamic here, Bill. Ds are in control as mayors in 25 of the 30 largest cities:
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_current_mayors_of_the_top_100_cities_in_the_United_States
Younger and more progressive types have been gravitating more to cities in recent years, which has made cities more liberal and the suburbs more conservative (and the 2010 gerrymander impact is a huge part of the state-level statehouse story).
I also think the enduring "stain" of the Clinton brand for the Ds should not be understated. Reagan was a big needed break from the Nixon/Ford GOP baggage and history, and he also helped nurture the Bush dynasty (which might well have continued but for Trump).
Obama was unable/unwilling to break from the Clinton brand, and he even arguably stained his own brand by make HRC SoS. Moreover, with HRC as the all-but-certain candidate in 2016, lots of folks who might have used the Obama years to develop a national "brand" surely did not see any real opportunity ahead.
None of this is meant to diminish your analysis, but all of this is meant to suggest that modern politics is extremely dynamic, and will likely be ever more so in the age of Trump. I am already starting to wonder if Trump might face a primary challenge in 2020 because he might well tick off all wings of the GOP. Interesting times.
"[U]niquely talented, apt and shrewd politician" who just alienated millions of long-standing, dyed-in-the-wool, Democrats: Jews for whom the safety, survival and well-being of The Jewish State is the number one issue upon which they cast their presidential and congressional vote.
Trump has a unique opportunity to bring almost all American Jews into the fold of the Republican Party for generations to come. The issue is will he back his Twittering bluster with concrete actions that show beyond any doubt that Israel and the United States are joined at the hip. I hope so!
paul --
Even talented, apt and shrewd people suffer from indiscipline and overreach. In politicians, this tendency is particularly egregious at the end of your term where you know you won't be facing political accountability again.
I should probably leave it there, lest the discussion become too overtly political (which is mostly my fault). So I will just say in closing that my sympathies on this question lie with you 100%.
"Clinton was .. seen as dishonest"
~HaHa.
It is true that with unreasoned opinion,
'perception is reality,' yet:
Newton was seen as brilliant;
Benedict Arnold as traitorous;
and Marilyn Monroe as attractive.
[Sometimes popular perception and reality meet {Rom 2:14-15}].
=== === ===
Clinton: "nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it."
Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified
on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?”
Comey: "That's not true"
~judiciary.house.gov/press-release/goodlatte-chaffetz-outline-case-perjury-clinton/; video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000532378
I'm trying to be polite!