The popularity index of Hillary was surprisingly higher than Trump as the Gallup claimed it to be 63 as compared to 30 for Trump, and the CNN reports that both candidates were viewed most unfavorable than their forerunners since 1984, as Trump scores a net negative of -33, with a favorable rating of 24% compared to 57% of voters who view him unfavorably and Clinton fares only slightly better with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favorable rating and a 52% unfavorable rating (Wright, 2016), and that she had won the presidential debates on nearly all occasions, the Trump victory has been doubted and may not be digested easily by many Americans especially the democrat camps.

The election of 2016 has been analyzed by analysts in different perspectives with a different logic and argument. Drumnov (2016) assumes that Clinton did worst among the millennial, working class and white undergrads as compared to her predecessors. He also opines James Comey as major factor in Hillary loss costing her about 2% vote. Similarly Roberts (2016) identifies poor economic policies, trust deficit among the voters and message vacuum as the main contributing factors of Clinton’s ultimate loss in the election and Cooper (2016) believes Clinton’s personal weakness as candidate, the leaked emails perceived to be an outcome of Russian involvement and Trump’s victory in Rust Belt industrial states responsible for Trump’s victory over Clinton.

Hazen, Holloway, Pierson, Frel and Leopold (2016) give a more comprehensive analysis of the reasons for Trump’s win and Hillary’s loss in the shape of thirteen theories including the role of racism and white voters and high degree of party loyalty favoring Trump, the Comey factor causing a major blow to Clinton’s election campaign, the role of media and fake news tarnishing conspiracies against Clinton, perceived corruption, feeling of displacement and economic turmoil and the personal weakness of Hillary as a candidate. Similarly Domenico identifies that it was Clinton’s inability to fire up Obama’s coalition and secured 5 million less votes than Obama while Trump got nearly the same votes as Romney. The black voters showed less concern for Hillary than they did for Obama. Similarly among the non-degree holders, the support for Trump was higher than Clinton. Surprisingly, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which the democrats have won in the past six elections were also won by Trump. Hillary secured 4300 and 78000 less than Obama at Wisconsin and Michigan respectively.

Greenberg and Carville (2016) believe that Clinton would have won the election if she had secured higher number of votes in the democratic base voters and among the working class and especially if she would have won the Rust Belt states. Similarly Mehlman (2016) highlights five reasons for Trump win and five reasons for Hillary loss. He assumes that the Americans and wanted change and the change voters were dominated by Trump. Trump also did well on key issues scoring 4% more on economy and 2% more on security than Hillary. On the other hand, Clinton had weaker support than Obama, lacked the trust and her message was not as clear as Trump. Moreover the American dislike for third term and the absorption of critical vote by the third party resulted in Hillary loss. Norpoth (2016) forecasted through primary model that Trump would defeat Hillary by 87% certainty. The model is based on the assumptions that candidate with better primary vote will win the general election and the white party wins the second term but loses the third term.

The Argument

Historical analysis of the data related to elections identifies some patterns, calling them triumph cards that support and contribute to Trump win in the election. These patterns are:

• White Population more likely vote for Republican while the Non-Whites (Blacks, Latinos, Asian and Others) vote for Democrats,

• Population with 40+ years of age more likely vote for Republicans,

• The Rubio Factor in Florida,

• White Women more likely vote for Republicans than for Democrats,

• The voting collapse for democrats

Card I: White Population more likely vote for Republican while the Non-Whites (Blacks, Latinos, Asian and Others) vote for Democrats

The National Election study (1952-2012) identifies in the democratic partisan by race and show a gradual decrease in the white’s support for Democrats from 53% in 1960 to below 30% in 2008 and then an increase to 49% in 2012 while the democratic partisanship of blacks increased from 53% to 77% in 2012, and that of Hispanic remained 60% in 2012, with minor ups and downs in the past.

Democratic Partisan Identification by Race, 1952-2012

Source: National Election Study

In the election of 1992, 60% of the white population voted for Bush Sr. than 40% to Dukakis while 90% blacks and 46% Hispanic voted for Dukakis as compared to 11% blacks and 53% Hispanic for Bush. Similarly in 2012 election 59% of white population voted for Romney as compared to 39% for Obama, though Obama won but his victory was fostered by the support of 93% blacks, 71% Hispanic, 73% Asians and 58% other non-whites as compared to 6%, 27%, 26%, 38% to Romney respectively. The total demography of white voters for Romney was 88% as compared to 56% for Obama, however Obama had 24% black voters 20 % other non-whites which is much greater than 12% non-whites for Romney including the 6% black voters.

Table 1: Partisanship by Race in Election 1992 and 2012

Source: National Exit Polls

The National Exit Polls 1982-2012 show a marked decrease in the voter turnout of whites for democrats from 77% in 1972 to 56% in 2012 while statistics of whites for Republican party remained about 90% during this period.

Percent of White and Non-White voter’s partisanship (1968-2012)

Source: National Exit Polls 1982-2012, The Washing Post

Card II: Population with 40+ years of age more likely vote for Republicans

Another pattern evident from the analysis of past elections is the popularity level

of Republican Party in aging population. Statistics reveal that the younger population between the age 18-40 years more likely vote for Democrats rather than Republican due to the non-conservative and more liberal polices of democratic party, however the aged population with more than 40 years of age tilt towards Republican party. In the Election 2012, Obama secured 60% in youth between 18-24 years, 60% between 25-29, 55% in between 30-39 years, 48% between 40-49, 47% between 50-64 and 44% in the population of 65+ age while Romney on the other hand secured 36%, 38%, 42%, 50%, 52% and 56% in those age categories respectively. This shows a gradual increase in the popularity level and voting turnout for republican with increasing age of population.

Age and Candidate Support

Source: CNN/Fox/MSNBC Exit Polls (N=26565)

Card III: The Rubio Factor in Florida

The Latinos, as the results of the past elections justify their support with the democrats, with a big chunk of population in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico will have its impact on favorable turnout for Democrats, however in Florida the Marco Rubio factor will come into play for the success of Republican candidate.

The Latino Vote in Presidential Elections: 1980-2012

Source: Pew Hispanic Centre

Card IV: White Women more likely vote for Republicans than for Democrats

It has been noted that like the white men, the white women also favor the republican candidates. Romney secured 56% votes among the white women population as compared to 42% by Obama. However the non-white women more likely voted in favor of Obama than Romney.

Race-Ethnicity x Gender and Candidate Support

Source: CNN/Fox/MSNBC Exit Polls (N=26565)

Card V: The Voting Collapse for Democrats

It has been noted that voting turn out for the Democratic Party candidate has declined during the last few elections. It ranged high for Obama in the first presidential election and declined in 2012. The same trend followed in the number of votes for Hillary.

Democratic Party Vote Collapse (2008-16)

Source: US Election Project, wwbs.org

The Republicans are enjoying the support of 159 Solid Republican Electoral votes, and Trump needed 111 more seats from the Lean republic, lean democratic and tossup states to win the election.

Among the Lean republican states including Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina, on the basis of the patterns/ Triumph cards, Trump was expected to win all these state as these states have high number of republican voters, greater population of whites, reasonable number of aged population and greater probability of winning election.

In Arizona and Missouri, the percentage of republican voters decreased by 4% and 8% respectively from the 2012 election however the republican candidate was able to win election in these states by securing 50% and 57% votes.

Among tossup states, Florida and Ohio are very significant. Florida has 29 electoral votes with 83.2% white population and 15.1% aged population and the number of republican voters is less than 50%. However, the Rubio factor as forecasted played its role not only in his victory as senator but also in capturing the 29 for Trump.

Iowa, Nevada showed an increase in the voters turnout for republicans while Pennsylvania and Wisconsin showed a decrease of 3, 4% percent for the republican nominee. However, to the astonishment of Democrats, Trump won Michigan and Pennsylvania which the Republicans have not won in the last six elections and also Wisconsin which has not voted for a Republican candidate since 1984 (Drum, 2016).

Table 3: Triumph cards analysis in Toss up states

Table 4 shows an analysis of the fourth triumph card that is the population with 40+ years of age more likely vote for the republican candidate than for Democrat. It also shows the increase in support for republicans with increasing age of both men and women.

Table 4: Presidential Support by Age in Election 2016

The Election of 2016 also justifies the analysis that the white population more likely vote for republicans. It is evident from the table that white population voted in favor of Donald Trump.

Table 5: Presidential Support by Gender and Marital Status in Election 2016

Adding to the Misery

The model based on the aforementioned patterns was also augmented by decline in Hillary support among the Millennial, women, average income group voters and working class. She secured less votes than her predecessors. She also did not do well at the primaries.

1. Millennial Vote

The Millenials have always voted more for Republicans than democrates as the previous data reveal, however Obama and Clinton scored more votes as compared to the data of 1976-1988. Hillary could not sustain the support of millenial to the extent which Obama did.

Favorable Response of Millennial towards Presidential Candidates.

Source: Nelson, N. (2016, October 7). Making Sense Of The Race For The Millennial Vote. Retrieved November 10, 2016, from Youth Radio: https://youthradio.org/journalism/making-sense-of-the-race-for-the-millennial-vote/

1. Performance at the Primaries

Unlike the previous election trends, the candidate with good performance at primaries won the election as it happened in the presidential election of 1912, 1964 and 2012 when the Democratic candidate with good performance won the election, Hillary comparatively did not do well and had a narrow win from Sanders at the primaries. This has a bad impact on her stature as the presidential candidate.

Table 6: Performance at the Primaries (1914, 1964, 2012 & 2016)

Source: Norpoth, H. (Ed.). (2016, October). Primary Model Predicts Trump Victory. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from Primary.com: http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/

2. Working Class and Undergrads

Clinton also performed poor among the working class securing 14% less than Trump among white working class, 8% less among the nonwhite class and 2% less among nonwhite college graduates.

Hillary Clinton and Education Divide

Source: Drum, K. (2016, November 21). The 3 Big Reasons Hilary Clinton Lost. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/why-clinton-lost-bitter-bernie-crooked-comey-and-wounded-working-class

4. Income Groups

One of the contributing factors in the Hillary loss in the election was her poor performance in different income groups which was foreseen otherwise. Trump performed comparatively well among the income groups especially among the income groups with below $30000 income and those with income between $30000 to $49000.

Net Vote Share change towards Republicans by income group (2012-2016)

Source: US Presidential Election Exit Polls

The analysis of this paper reveals that Trump’s win in the election is not surprising and the decline of GOP as forecasted by some scholars based on their theories of assimilation seems very pessimistic. Trump’s antics, vulgar rhetoric, insulting speeches against the women and the Muslims, Latinos and Blacks may have some impacts on the voting turnout but the historical facts substantiate his success in the election 2016 and also give rays of hope for the future of GOP. The triumph cards will have their bearings in the future elections at the United States. The American whites being conservative in their beliefs and attitudes like the Republicans and will vote for their candidates. Similarly, the aging population is more in the favor of Republicans than the Democrats and the decline in the voting bank of Democrats during the past elections favor the future of GOP. Though the Non-Whites (Blacks, Latinos, Asian and Others) and the young population and women favor the Democrats for their liberal policies however the republicans can counter this trend through policies that can draw the attention of these strata of American population and will heal the splits in the American society as Trump pledged during the victory speech on Wednesday; "I say it is time for us to come together as one united people". He added, "I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans".