LEARNING FROM LOSS

Why did Hillary Clinton lose the 2016 presidential election? This book deconstructs the many competing explanations—and shows why they matter in 2020.

Early on, political scientist Masket writes that the book was supposed to be about the Republicans’ shattering loss in the 2016 election, asking “how a patently unelectable candidate like Donald Trump somehow got the nomination and cost them an election that was obviously theirs to win.” It didn’t work out that way, leaving the Democrats to wonder how their eminently well-suited candidate failed to capture the White House. Many narratives were offered: The American public is sexist at the core. Clinton was out of touch with ordinary people. Voters rejected insider politics. Trump’s victory was a fluke. Then—though Masket doesn’t belabor the point—there were Comey, WikiLeaks, and the Russians. All these competing narratives have merited serious conversation. Analyzing them—while saying that the narratives themselves are less important than the interpretations—Masket examines how party politics work: The candidate is usually decided on well before the primaries ever begin, the polity is so polarized that landslides no longer occur, and campaigns are steadily less important than other vehicles of messaging. One critique is that Clinton should have campaigned harder in swing states, but, the author counters, she went all out in Pennsylvania and wound up losing by about a point all the same. “If all that campaign effort couldn’t save her in Pennsylvania, why would we think it would matter in Wisconsin?” he asks. In short, he notes, “there was no consensus explanation of 2016.” Looking at identity politics, messaging, coalition-building, the representation of minority and women voters, and the power of party elites, Masket concludes that by all measures, the Democratic Party is “actually a stronger party than the GOP.”

Catnip for election watchers and politics junkies, who will want to reread the book when the dust of 2020 settles.