Population, Household, And Employment Trends - Washington County: Fill & Download for Free

The question refers to a May 2016 Quartz article that reports 2016 Republican primary exit poll data analysis by FiveThirtyEight which finds Trump voters to have higher median household incomes and education levels. This conclusion was based on registered Republicans who voted in the 2016 Republican primaries.Since then a massive Gallup study has reached not exactly the same but far more detailed and nuanced conclusions, specifically tendency for slightly higher median household incomes but similar education levels among those who viewed Trump favorably. This study by Gallup's Jonathan T. Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell is based on a 15-month survey (1, also if interested see how Washington Post, and New York and PS magazines report this analysis in 2, 3, 4, respectively).It suggests income stagnation, chronic ill-health, and diminishing opportunities for their children are key factors, that Trump support is likely a symptom of something seriously amiss in the health, life circumstances and future expectations of Trump-supporting middle-class White Americans living in relatively sparsely populated, white-dominated communities, that rational economic considerations such as trade deals and immigration don't explain the Trump phenomenon but perception that one is losing out does.Who: Gallup Daily Tracking survey microdata collected from July 8, 2015 through October 11, 2016. 132,815 American adults reached through random dialing of cellular and landline phones and asked if they held 'a favorable view of Donald Trump over this period'.They thenMerged this data with zip code, county or state of residence, and aggregated counties to commuting zones (CZs).Calculated CZ level educational attainment data from county data available from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey.Used the latest Census data for population density.Assessed health status by looking at the 2014 mortality rate from the US CDC (CDC Wonder).Measured social capital using 2009 county-level data on voter participation rates and non-profit association numbers.They then used a specific type of Regression analysis - Wikipedia, multi-variable probit regression 'to estimate how various factors are associated with the binary probability of holding a favorable view of Trump in Gallup’s Daily Tracking surveys'. They also confirmed the results of their regression analysis using machine learning algorithms.Data: 125,430 responded either yes or no: 63% unfavorable, 4.2% no opinion, 1.4% hadn't heard of him, 0.9% refused to answer.Extended Demographic Analysis On The 125,430 Responders (see details in table below from 1)Suggests those who viewed Trump favorably were more likely toHave slightly higher income. However, keep in mind all responders had higher income than the average US median income of ~US $57000 (5).Consider religion important.Be veteran or family member of veteran.Be male, married, older, White.More likely to live in counties with lower population density.Live in non-diverse zip codes.Have higher mortality rates among the 45 to 54 year-old age group.And that they were less likely than non-supporters toBe Hispanic or Black.Rothwell and Diego-Rosell found other important Health & Socio-Economic predictors of Trump support wereCounty-level diabetes rate.County-level low-weight births.County-level overall age-adjusted mortality.Zip-code level disability rates, both gross and age-adjusted.Reliance on social security income.Lower economic mobility as in lower college attendance probability. Suggests Trump supporters in particular may be witnessing manifest and undeniable diminishing opportunities for their children, i.e., experiencing a high likelihood their children will be worse off than themselves.Living in white enclaves, i.e., racially isolated zip codes with lower diversity than neighboring areas.Living in places not directly affected by immigration.Higher rate of self-employment.The authors also concluded Trump supportWas less common in places with excessive alcohol consumption.Was not more likely in places with high drug poisoning death rates or obesity.Didn't correlate with unemployment/not working/looking for work.Rothwell & Diego-Rosell's Conclusions In Their Own Words (1, emphasis mine)'These results do not present a clear picture between social and economic hardship and support for Trump. The standard economic measures of income and employment status show that, if anything, more affluent Americans favor Trump, even among white non-Hispanics. Employment status and occupational categories are among the least important explanatory variables for Trump favorability.Surprisingly, there appears to be no link whatsoever between greater exposure to trade competition or competition from immigrant workers and support for nationalist policies in America, as embodied by the Trump campaign. These results make it very unlikely that direct exposure to harm from globalization could be a causal factor in motivating large numbers of Trump’s supporters.Yet, various measures of health, longevity, and intergenerational mobility at the community or zip code level do relate to the likelihood of viewing Trump favorably, and these data indicate that low levels of social or economic well-being are a factor in his support. Moreover, higher disability rates and greater reliance on Social Security income and the Earned Income Tax Credit are predictive of Trump support. Education is also hugely important predictor of one’s views on Trump and suggests that his supporters are worse off than many Americans on that dimension.The causal mechanisms linking health and intergenerational well-being to political views are relatively unexplored in the social science literature. The most straightforward interpretation is that ill-health leads to disaffection with the political status quo, in the same way as low-income might. With intergenerational mobility, it may be that parents see their children or those in their community failing to reach milestones predictive of success and find fault with the political status quo. In any case, these results warrant further study.The analysis provides clear evidence that those who view Trump favorably are disproportionately living in racially and culturally isolated zip codes and commuting zones. Holding other factors, constant support for Trump is highly elevated in areas with few college graduates and in neighborhoods that standout within the larger commuting zone for being white, segregated enclaves, with little exposure to blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.This is consistent with contact theory, which has already received considerable empirical support in the literature in a variety of analogous contexts. Limited interactions with racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and college graduates may contribute to prejudicial stereotypes, political and cultural misunderstandings, and a general fear of not-belonging.Finally, the results concerning race, age, gender, ethnicity, and religion imply that political behavior is not related directly and neatly to economic self-interest or class position. One could argue that blue collar men would disproportionately benefit from Trump’s policies on trade and immigration, but as discussed above, these factors are relatively unimportant. As others have found, cultural views and social identity are likely quite important in affecting political preferences.'Mortality data in this Gallup analysis eerily echoes the baffling and disproportionate mortality rate increases observed among middle-aged American Whites since ~1999 in the now-famous 2015 Case and Deaton study (6). A more detailed re-analysis of the Case-Deaton data by Andrew Gelman - Wikipedia (7)Suggested increase was initially observed among both non-Hispanic White men and women <52 years old.That the increase stabilized among the former by 2005 but continues for the latter.This is a trend completely out of sync with their counterparts in other OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Wikipedia) countries. When a demographic trend completely defies predictions and expectations predicated on historical trends, as this one does, it signals something may be deeply amiss in that demographic in particular.J. Eric Oliver and Wendy M. Rahn add to this analysis the notion of the 'representation gap', i.e., a scenario where the existing political parties no longer respond to large sections of the electorate (8). Oliver and Rahn examined this representation gap byAnalyzing the Congressional Quarterly's party unity votes, i.e., votes in which a majority of Democrats opposed a majority of Republicans, andComparing 'these scores to attitudes of the citizenry toward government responsiveness using different survey questions' from 1988 to 2014 from American National Election Studies, Gallup and Pew Research Center.They concluded the public felt particularly unrepresented in the mid-1990s and now in the 2010s.Next, they assessed a nationally representative Internet survey of 1,063 adult American citizens between February 26 and March 3, 2016. The survey consisted of 14 questions assessing their feelings towards the political process, experts, common wisdom, and attachment to an American identity. They concluded'Trump’s supporters are distinctive in their unique combination of anti-expertise, anti-elitism, and pronationalist sentiments.'The refrain of the 2016 US election is why such unexpected, frenzied, committed and considerable support for a demagogue? Why such support for a message predicated on fear, pessimism and resentment? Obviously can't devise correct policy correctives if underlying problems aren't accurately identified.The stark reality is both mortality and unemployment rates among African Americans still remain significantly higher compared to Whites yet surveys suggest the former feel more optimistic about their future and that of their children. Yet another reminder if ever we needed one that perception is reality and that far more than other groups, Trump supporters likely perceive they and their children are being left behind in a world that's changing faster than their ability to keep up.Bibliography1. Rothwell, Jonathan T. "Explaining nationalist political views: The case of Donald Trump." Available at SSRN 2822059 (2016). http://www.umass.edu/preferen/You%20Must%20Read%20This/Rothwell-Gallup.pdf2. Washington Post, Max Ehrenfreund, Jeff Guo, August 12, 2016. A massive new study debunks a widespread theory for Donald Trump’s success3. New York magazine, Eric Levitz, August 12, 2016. Study Reveals the Post’s Desire to Dismiss Economic Explanations of Trump’s Rise4. PS magazine, Jared Keller, August 16, 2016. The Secret to Donald Trump’s Success Isn’t What You Think5. Household income in the United States - Wikipedia6. Case, Anne, and Angus Deaton. "Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112.49 (2015): 15078-15083. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf7. Death rates have been increasing for middle-aged white women, decreasing for men - Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science8. Oliver, J. Eric, and Wendy M. Rahn. "Rise of the Trumpenvolk Populism in the 2016 Election." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667.1 (2016): 189-206.

Every major city has a bad area with a more potential for crime. In Arizona, some parts of the West side of Phoenix tend to be more dangerous.Here is an article I found to help with this question: The 10 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America [2017]10. Kinston, North Carolina (E Bright St / S Queen St)According to NeighborhoodScout’s data, Kinston has a greater percentage of children living in poverty than 99.6% of all U.S. neighborhoods. Only 5% of the adult population holds a four-year college degree. Per capita income is lower than that found in 99.9% American neighborhoods. Based on NeighborhoodScout’s crime index scale from 100-1—(with 100 being “safest”) Kinston scores a 1.9. Indianapolis, IN (E 38th St / Sutherland Ave)This neighborhood has an income level lower than 94.9% of all other American neighborhoods. More than 50% (55.7%) of its children live below the federal poverty level and its residents have one of the highest divorce rates in the nation. Violent crime increased by 7% in Indianapolis last year, despite a downward trend nationally.8. Chicago, IL (S King Dr / E 60th St)Chicago’s disturbing crime rate—and the fact that it is one of America’s largest cities—makes it a favorite talking point of politicians when advocating legislation over gun control and the penal system. This area in Chicago is a particular hotspot with 82% of the children here living in poverty. The income level is lower than 98.7% of U.S. neighborhoods.7. Anniston, AL (W 15th St / Boynton Ave)According to NeighborhoodScout’s analytics, you have a 1 in 37 chance of becoming the victim of a violent crime in Anniston (and a 1 in 212 chance for the entire state of Alabama). The per capita income of this neighborhood’s residents is lower than 99.2% of the neighborhoods in America. 84.6% of children live in poverty here.6. Indianapolis, IN (E 34th St / Sutherland Ave)This area has more single-mother households than 99.0% of the all American neighborhoods. Sixty-eight percent of the children live in poverty and over 96% of residents do not have four-year college degrees—a lower rate than 97.7% of all other neighborhoods. In a for sale listing on homefacts.com—this area is ranked with a high crime rate and a “C-” for its school district.5. Kansas City, MO (Independence Ave / Prospect Ave)This neighborhood, sadly, has an extremely high child poverty rate—90.5%. The area also has one of the highest rates of rentals than other neighborhoods with almost none of the residents owning their own homes. There is also a high immigrant population, per NeighborhoodScout’s data crunching; the number of residents who have been in the United States for five years or less is a greater rate than in 96.4% of U.S. neighborhoods. The chances of becoming a crime victim in that area in one year are 1 in 12 with 81.97 violent crimes per 1,000 people.4. East St. Louis, IL (Caseyville Ave / N Park Dr)This neighborhood has a higher vacancy rate than 80.6% of all other American neighborhoods. The per capita income is lower than 99.9% of others. The area also has some of the highest rates of people living alone—81.2%, which NeighborhoodScout found to be higher than 100% of all other neighborhoods in the country. East St. Louis is safer only than 3% of other cities.3. Atlanta, GA (McDaniel St SW / Mary St SW)More than 60% (65.7%) of this Atlanta neighborhood’s children live below the poverty level. Per capita income is lower here than in 99% of other neighborhoods. According to the data analytics, the neighborhood residents are subject to a “brutal” commute to work—averaging more than two hours per day. Real estate site Trulia rates the area as having the highest crime rate of its entire county.2. Springfield, IL (E Jackson St / S 11Th St)With high divorce and vacancy rates, this neighborhood also suffers from high levels of child poverty (74.1%) and a per capita income lower than 98.9% of other neighborhoods in the country. Realtytrac.com rates the area as having “moderately high crime,” below average schools, and an abundance of registered sex offenders living within a small radius.1. Washington, DC (S Capitol St SE / Livingston Rd SE)This neighborhood holds the unfortunate distinction of being ranked NeighborhoodScout’s most dangerous, based on its platform’s algorithms. It has more single-mother households than 98.5% of other neighborhoods. While its location in the nation’s capital keeps employment levels steady (and unsurprisingly, a majority of residents are government workers) this neighborhood has an income rate lower than 82% of other neighborhoods in the U.S. You also have a 1 in 12 chance of becoming a victim of violent crime here with a statistic of 83.46 violent crimes committed per 1,000 people.

1 . Trump positioned him as completely anti establishment.(Source fivethirtyeight.com)To understand the success of Trump it is necessary to consider the anger among the general populace against the so called elite establishment sitting in Washington.This anger was prominent in both the republican and Democratic factions in the primaries.Bernie Sanders who stood against the centre dominated elitist culture in the democratic party was able to win 23 state primaries and 43% of pledged delegates.The success of a self proclaimed “socialist” in a country which has prided itself on being the harbinger of capitalism is in itself the biggest proof of the disconnect of most sections of the society with the elites.Trump won despite the republican establishment condemning and abandoning him.Later in the campaign the phrase “ Drain the swamp” which literally is done to kill the mosquitoes that inhabit the swamp was used as a metaphor in reference to the power wielding politicians of Washington DC.But in this anti establishment politics lies the hypocrisy that is Donald Trump.If Donald Trump was a Che Guevara or even an Arvind Kejriwal i.e a person who had risen up from the lowest rung of the society or had a history of fighting the system,then this anti establishment rhetoric would have made sense.The recent example of this was the Delhi assembly elections in which the credentials of Arvind Kejriwal matched with his rhetoric of being an anti establishment guy.But the fact is that Donald Trump was himself a part of the corrupt establishment that he was supposedly fighting against.The establishment in America doesn't only signify the corrupt politicians but the corrupt bureaucratic-businessmen-politician Nexus.And Donald Trump had been a part of the system as he hadn't paid his tax returns,has more than 1000 lawsuits filed against his corporation and has filed for bankruptcy which clearly indicate the rampant corruption that the president elect indulged in .The fact is that the very system that he claimed to fight against had made him a billionaire.The other thing that has gripped America and many of the European countries is that they tend to blame the system for everything rather than doing something for making it better. It is a general tendency of human beings to criticize the system rather than shifting the focus to their own flaws. To understand this, take the example of a student blaming the exam setter for setting up a difficult question paper(this has happened a lot with me).In this case instead of blaming his or her own preparation ,the student finds it simpler to blame the education system as a whole.Similar to this was the anger among the unemployed white working class which instead of enhancing their own education qualifications and technical skills blamed the immigrants for “taking their jobs”.Various surveys in the Midwestern states concluded that unemployment was rising not due to the lack of jobs but due to the unwillingness of the white working class to work in menial jobs.Yes, of course the system in Washington was not all hunky dory but the reality was that people , especially in rural and suburban areas were unwilling to adapt to the changing times and systems.This takes us to our next reason.2.The rural urban divide in America is at an all time high.It is clear from the graphic above that Clinton virtually annihilated Trump in the urban cities and as we move down the hierarchy from cities to rural areas Trump's performance improves tremendously.Now this kind of deep polarization of cities and rural areas is not exclusive to USA.We saw a similar trend emerge in Britain at the time of Brexit when major cities such as London and Manchester overwhelmingly voted for remain whereas the rest of England voted to leave.Another thing that happened in 2016 is that the rural urban polarization widened. In 2016 Hillary did match Obama’s performance(2012) % wise in the urban areas but underperformed badly in the rural areas.Another thing to consider is that Donald Trump was able to draw out more voters in Rural areas especially in the Midwestern swing states than Mitt Romney did in 2012.Conversely the urban overall voter turnout especially in key swing states counties( same as constituencies in India ) such as Milwaukee county in Wisconsin fell by 7% and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania fell by 4% to hand trump these states.So what made the trump campaign appeal to the rural voters and Hillary's campaign a virtual no show in urban counties?To understand this first we have to look at the histories of the Democratic and the Republican Party. It maybe surprising that up until 1960 the republican party was the liberal party which had a progressive agenda that believed in a strong center and large social sector spending.This made them appeal to a more diverse background.The Democrats on the other hand were deeply conservative and had a strong hold in the conservative Southern part of the United States.They basically stood for the state rights.But all of this changed with the emergence of the civil rights movement. In 1965 the Democratic president Lyndon B johnson signed the Voting Rights act which secured voting rights for blacks throughout the United States.This led to a complete role reversal of the Democratic and Republican party.The Republicans embraced the Conservatives of the deep south who were left disenchanted by the Democrats and the Democratic party became a platform for Blacks, Hispanics and Asians to put forward their agenda. So basically by 2000 the Republican party became the forebearer of the conservative agenda whereas the Democrats consolidated their position by adopting a completely liberal point of view.These agendas basically shape up the Voting patterns of the urban and rural areas.Urban cities being the flag bearers of economic growth and infrastructure development attract a more diverse group of populace and thus are more likely to support liberal views.Democrats bank on the support of the urban voters and since most of these cities are on the west coast and east coast so the Democratic party is now called the party of the west and east coast.Coming to the 2016 campaign,clinton wasn't able to draw many of the liberal voters to the polling booths firstly because of her unpopularity ( due to the email scandals) and secondly but more importantly that many of the liberal electorate, especially the youth were attracted to the radical socialist ideology put forth by the Bernie Sanders campaign.They were tired of the slow progress that the current system which was to be continued by Clinton promised.They wanted drastic changes at the ground level and Bernie Sanders ignited their hopes.Socialism has always been the best policy on paper and that is why it has led to so many revolutions and the young liberals of America wanted a revolution.With Clinton’s narrow win in the primaries they were left unexcited with the policies that the Clinton campaign had to offer and thus opted to sit out in a statement of revolt against the current leadership and direction of the Democratic party.The rural electorate has always mongered a certain hate for the so called educated elites in the cities.What Trump did this election was that he used this anger against the city elites and combined it with the traditional conservatism of the Republicans to form a deadly combo whose extent wasn't anticipated by the media.Another thing about rural America is that their is a cultural homogeneity among the people.They are predominantly white and the church has a great influence on their lives.The anti immigration stance taken by Trump was welcomed and celebrated in the rural parts of the countries even though these areas have a sparse population of immigrants.This is due to the fact that the people here fear a loss of identity and secondly it is difficult for them to digest the fact that for example some Syrian refugee in the city is having a better quality of life.Their situation is the same situation faced by a 5 year old child when his/her younger sibling is born.The child starts to develop a feeling of being neglected as all the attention falls on the needs of the infant.He/She knows that the infant needs more care and protection yet it is very difficult for the child to come to terms with this fact.Similarly the rural people in America are finding it hard to accept that the govt is concerned with the well being of the immigrants in preference to theirs. So when donald Trump said that he would build a wall and deport millions of illegal immigrants, he captured their imagination and ignited the fake hope of an homogeneous America.But shouldn't rural America have seen that the ideology presented by Trump was not only impossible to implement in the 21st century but if by any chance implemented would lead to a large scale massacre and genocide?Had they forgotten that Hitler and Mussolini played the same card of nationalistic identity to lead their people astray?These questions lead us to the third reason.3. Education Levels matter a lot.One thing that this election taught us was that as we move further into the 21st century, the traditional voting blocks of class and race will be replaced by formation of newer voting blocs such as those based on education levels.The most important voting blocs of 2016 elections were segregated on the basis of education. In the 50 least educated counties of the USA (min population 50000) Trump improved on Mitt romneys 2012 margin by an astounding 30 points.Conversely in the 50 most educated counties in the USA Clinton improved on Obamas performance by 9%.But since most of the uneducated counties lie in the swing states such as North Carolina and Ohio,Trump was able to capture the necessary electoral votes whereas most of the educated counties lie in states such as California and New York which were already solidly democratic states and hence she wasn't able to reap the benefits of the educated voter shift towards her.Coming to the question that why Trump was able to capture the vote of those without a college degree( in America people without a college degree are termed as uneducated),especially the whites without a college degree.The word of the year 2016 (according to the Oxford dictionary ) is post truth. It basically means that facts are less influential in shaping up public opinion as compared to appeals on emotions and personal beliefs of a person.This was true of both the Brexit elections and the US presidential elections in which the rhetoric of the leaders overshadowed the facts.Donald Trump promised to make America great again and bring back jobs.He said that he would repeal the bad trade deals and Obamacare.He said he would build a wall and provide tax cuts.All these things formed a part of the rhetoric which could be easily understood by the masses and all of it was populist talk.He never addressed the question of how he would achieve his goals.Whenever he was questioned on his policies, his one standard reply that he was a businessman and knew how things were done.Basically his focus was repeating and again repeating the same lines(watch the presidential debate) so that even the most uneducated could connect with him and know his agenda.Whereas on the other hand Hillary Clinton dived too deep Into issues such as renewable energy and Obama care.Though she had a framework for implementing the policies, she wasn't able to explain her complex position(one between that of President Obama and Bernie Sanders) which ultimately lead to her demise as only an educated person who has the resources and time would be able to examine the facts and come to a logical conclusion. As for the uneducated person, too much details, instead of clearing the air of confusion, would instead lead to a feeling of alienation.4. Party loyalties remain unaffected by the choice of candidate.During the election cycle the GOP (Republican establishment) tried it's best to prevent donald Trump from becoming the party's presidential nominee.Trump responded by demeaning his opponents and calling them names.He went on to call Ted Cruz lying Ted, insulted his wife and accused his father of assassinating John F Kennedy.He called Marco Rubio little Rubio only because he had small hands and insulted Carly Fiorina on the basis of her looks.According to him John McCain, who was a prisoner of war in the Vietnam war, a loser.Simply said ,he pissed of a large part of Republican establishment.But when the Hollywood access tape came out in September 2016 and Trump was heard making lewd comments about women, many poll analysts concluded that it would cause Republicans,especially Republican women to vote against or at least not vote for trump.But the final exit poll numbers showed that overwhelming 91% of registered Republicans voted for Trump.This happened due to the fact that firstly Republicans hated Clinton a lot and secondly in recent years party partisanship has become a strong part of a person's identity. So much so that Republicans that hate Democrats and Democrats that hate Republicans are at an all time high.Simply put party loyalties Trump personal choices in America.5. White woman don't want a white woman as a president.It's a shame that a country that prides itself on bringing about the feminist movement hasn't had a female president in its 300+ years history. In 2016 America had the chance to elect a woman president.More importantly American woman had a chance to elect one of their own brethren as the president.They had the chance to show the world that a misogynistic man,who proudly proclaimed that he could grab a woman's p***y and get away with it, a man who was accused of sexual assault by at least a dozen women could never ever become the president of the superpower of the modern world.For all the stats that I have written about, the stat that really shines out is that 51% of white women voted for Donald J Trump.If this number would have been less than 50% then probably the United States would have had a different president.This election is a major blow to the feminist movement as a whole and sadly it shows that most women themselves aren't revolting against male chauvinism.6. The liberal media went overboard to demonize trump.Most of us agree that Donald Trump’s characteristics are similar to a modern day demon.But the role of the media is to put out the facts in the public domain and let the people do the rest.Sure some degree of opinion from the journalists is necessary to shape up the public opinion in the perceived right direction.But the role of the media is to be more of a facilitator than a teacher.In the 2016 election cycle 91% of the coverage of the liberal media was hostile towards Trump.Some of the things said by leading journalists such as comparing Trump to Hitler, calling him an imbecile and clinically insane,labelling him as a meth head and most importantly calling his supporters bigoted were uncalled for.Instead what these comments and the general attitude of the media provided the Trump campaign ammunition to attack the system by stating that it was rigged in favour of Clinton.Also the credibility of the media being as low as 28% in 2016, the negative coverage of trump paved the way for neutrals who were already disenchanted with the media to side with trump.we all know that too much of anything is bad.Too much of bashing of trump by the media somewhat paved the way for a trump presidency.7. There is genuine anger amongst the white working class.The one thing that propelled Trump into the white house was the overwhelming support he got amongst the white working class,which has gradually shifted its allegiance from being a solid democratic vote bank to a Republican friendly group.The blue collar workers in the rust belt revolted against the Obama presidency due to loss of industrial jobs and a stagnant paycheck.The premiums of Obamacare were rising by as much as 25% which worsened the problem. In some states such as Iowa and Maine's second congressional district there was a net shift of 20% towards Donald Trump.The fact is that Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 was doing badly with southern white class working voters but was doing well enough with the Northern and Midwestern white working class voters . In 2016 Clinton lost these crucial white working class voters which led to a bruising defeat in Ohio, Iowa,Wisconsin,Michigan and North Carolina and Pennsylvania which together account for 86 electoral votes.8.Clinton campaigned really poorly.To put it in Donald Trump's words :“The Clinton campaign was a disaster”.The Clinton team's position was analogous to a student who is so overconfident that he would clear the exam cutoff, that he starts preparing for topics in which he is weak just in order to show off, in the process ignoring revising his strong topics and ends up failing in the exam.The Clinton team in the first week of October preferred to campaign in a strong Republican bastion such as Texas rather than a crucial swing state such as Wisconsin and Michigan . It is astonishing to note that clinton didnt campaign in Wisconsin since the month of August the end Trump ended winning a state which the Clinton team could not imagine losing in there worst nightmares.Another thing that was wrong with the Clinton campaign is that it had no particular agenda.The phrase stronger together was less an election slogan and more a reaction to Trump's divisive politics.The success of a campaign depends upon a uniting point on which the people could unite.I sincerely think that clinton should have played the woman card more(Barack Obama played the black card in 2008 and 2012 to perfection) which could have led to more women coming out or their homes to support http://her.In the debates, instead of correcting Donald Trump, she tried to laugh off his lies in the hope that people would care enough to check the facts by going through her website(she repeatedly stated that people go to her website to check the facts).Instead she should have played tooth for tooth and attacked the fake statements of Trump.One more thing that we saw in the debates was that clinton was sometimes unsure of her position. In some cases such as Obamacare she defended President Obama whereas in others such as Trans Pacific Partnership she took a stand against Obama administration.She was caught between Barack Obamas legacy(towoo the black voters) and her own personal agenda which left the electrorate confused.9. Independent voters don't vote on character: They vote on economy.“It’s the economy, stupid” was a phrase coined by Bill Clinton's adviser James Carville in the 1992 election.In the 2016 election this statement came to haunt the Democratic Party. It is not that the Obama administration failed on the economy front.(Obama's approval ratings were above 50% at all points of his tenure).The fact that Obama took the economy at the time of great recession and managed to stabilize the economy is by no means a small achievement.Some of the amazing things he did were:bring down the unemployment rate from 10% in 2010 to a record low of 4.9% in 2016,restore the housing prices to pre recession levels,the stock index hit record highs and gas prices went down.But the fact is that most of the people in America believe that they should be better off than they are.The inequality,student debt and public debt in America are at an all time high.But the issue that most hurt the Clinton campaign was the stagnant worker pay.The average American household income is $54000 which is the same as 20 years ago(when adjusted for inflation.The wages issue was exploited by Donald Trump who somehow was able to convince the electorate that cutting taxes was going to increase their wages and would help in economic recovery . So when Americans came out to vote on Nov 8 th, the controversial personality and character of Trump was overshadowed by the issue of jobs and economic growth.10. America is not a true democracy.You may call me crazy for questioning the Democratic credentials of the country which prides itself on shoving down the throat the idea of democracy throughout the world.But the fact remains that the american system has failed in the essence of the word democracy.The first and the most essential aspect of the word democracy is “by the people” that literally means that the person/party that receives the most no. of votes should be elected as president.But in america the person who secured almost 2 million votes than his opponent is declared as the loser.The second interpretation of the word democracy is that the each and every person should have the right to vote. In america upto 1848 only white men with property could cast a vote.Upto 1920 women could not vote and upto 1965 people were subjected to education and relegious tests which basically were meant to block non white voters.Even today America doesnt have an independent election commission.Each state has the right to frame their own election rules.This has led to republican governors enforcing stricter voting registration norms so as to block ethnic groups unfavourable to them from voting.A classic example of this is the 2000 elections in which George bush needed to win florida to defeat his democratic challenge al gore.Bush won the state by a mere 539 votes and became the president of united states of america.Later it was found that the republican governor of the state, jeb bush(who also happened to be the brother of george bush) had striked of the name of 12000 voters on the basis that they were convicts(in America even those convicts that have served their sentences are not allowed to vote).But it was found that these 12000 persons were not convicted at time of the election and hence the striking of the names was unconstitutional.If these 12000 people had voted in the election(majority of whom were african American and hence were more likely to vote for the democratic candidate) then perhaps the United states would have had a different president.Another undemocratic practice that is followed in the United states are the primaries and caucuses of both the parties.The caucuses and primaries conducted in different states have different sets of rules regarding voter registrations . In some states voter registration ends months before the primary is scheduled to take place and it is easier for the establishment candidate to win them.The hacked emails of the democratic national commission proved that the establishment tried to manipulate the primaties in favour of clinton over sanders.There was also the case in which delegates in iowa decided their votes by coin toss (as the race between sanders and clinton was too close) and each time the coin flipped in favour of clinton.The results of the Nevada primary were also shady and bernie sanders went on to claim that the system was rigged.Similar things happened on the republican side as people in the colorado primary were not allowed to vote for their candidates and the delegates were awarded to the establishment candidate ted cruz in order to stop Trumps nomination.My last objection is more to do with the presidential system of democracy. In a presedential form of government the president is the supreme executive and has no accountabilty to the legistlature. In the case of USA ,the president can veto any bill.This type of power in the hand of a tyrant (who mightget elected by swaying the electorate by showing them impossible dreams) may lead to destruction of a country.In 2016 the election was between two unpopular candidates . In Fact data showed that only 10% of registered voters voted for hillary or trump in the primaries.The very fact that a narcissistic man and a corrupt woman were the only two choices before in this election is in itself a failure of the american democratic system.