All of this demographic analysis is interesting, but not very primal and instincts are the biggest driver when we make choices.
When there is no incumbent, every voter is voting for some kind of change, and voting for personal qualities. The candidate that offers the safest and most promising change will win.
Hillary is only able to offer a continuation of Obama’s policies, to do otherwise would be a Democrat betrayal. She was always handicapped with protecting Obama’s legacy.
That legacy has been constantly eroding for years, witness the Republican gains in Congress. Hillary never could articulate any policies that pushed back on Obama. Her campaign was always fatally flawed.
That is why Sanders did so well, he offered legitimate change.
There is another kind of change that voters reached for - a change back to a more orderly society. All the rioting in support of the Black Lives Matter nonsense was driven by Hillary, as obviously Trump directly refuted it.
Finally, when we hire someone, we look for personal qualities such as work ethic, energy, boldness and drive. Clearly, Trump outworked Hillary and that quality trumped all of his weaknesses.
I agree on the motivations, but the fact is, about 130,000 voters in two states saved the election. As I say, you can throw out WI and ME CD2 because without either MI or PA, we would have been short.
And yes, there was fraud, but still. This was almost as close in real votes as Bush’s 2000 victory of 937.
I think that if the Dems had run Sanders, he would have easily beat Trump.
Their foolish mistake.