Registered voters who identified as Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to stay home ... The biggest reason given by non-voters for staying home was that they didn’t like the candidates ... Trump was able to win, in large part, because voters who disliked both candidates favored him in big numbers... Clinton, apparently, couldn’t get those who disliked both candidates — and who may have been more favorably disposed to her candidacy — to turn out and vote.
The anecdotes are different but the narrative is the same across battlegrounds, where Democratic operatives lament a one-size-fits-all approach drawn entirely from pre-selected data...guiding...decisions on field, television, everything else. That’s the same data operation...that predicted Clinton would win the Iowa caucuses by 6 percentage points (she scraped by with two-tenths of a point), and that predicted she’d beat Bernie Sanders in Michigan (he won by 1.5 points).
the changes in Obama’s approval ratings and Clinton’s performance mostly went hand-in-hand. Obama’s relative approval rating dropped a point or more in 25 states, while it rose a point or more in only 12 states ... Democratic support was becoming deeper but more narrow before the 2016 general election really got underway ... Clinton’s problems reflected the electoral drawbacks of the evolving Democratic coalition at least as much as her own inabilities as a candidate.
If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the 2016 presidential candidates, gender will be part of the campaign in an unprecedented way. It goes beyond the fact that Clinton would be the first woman nominated by one of the two major parties as its presidential candidate: Polls consistently show that women really, really don’t like Trump, and men — to a lesser but still significant degree — really don’t like Clinton.
Clinton’s presidential run is being supported by wealthy donors in ways that Sanders’ is not ... The majority of Clinton’s money comes from big donors ... Last year’s fundraising reports show that Sanders raised fully 72 percent of his campaign money from people who gave $200 or less, while for Clinton those donors accounted for just 16 percent of her funds.
Behind Sanders’ astonishing success in the primaries so far stands a coterie of more than 1,000 volunteer techies pumping out innovations... a rate of about one new app a week. The contrast with Sanders’ Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, couldn’t be more stark. Her operation is led in part by former Google executive Stephanie Hannon and an army of digital hands who honed their online skills on Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns or elsewhere in the Democratic advocacy power structure.
Perhaps the most eye-popping statistic to come out of last week’s Iowa caucuses was Bernie Sanders’s overwhelming advantage among young voters ... Sanders beat Hillary Clinton 84 percent to 14 percent among Democrats aged 171 to 29. He also won voters aged 30 to 44 by a 21 percentage point margin. But Clinton easily won among voters aged 45 and older ... In 2008, Barack Obama performed better than Clinton among younger Democrats, but not by nearly the margin that Sanders won them in Iowa.
The usual question posed about presidential aspirants is: Why is he running? This year, the answer seems to be: Why not? As long as one is not too attached to one’s dignity, there is little to lose and a lot to be gained from running.