One thing that I noticed was that turnout was higher in 2016 than 2012, particularly in Philadelphia.
I'm not convinced that the Democrats have to boost turnout.
A close look at the 2012 and 2016 numbers says the same thing.
Hillary Clinton Timothy Kaine Democratic 584,025 82.30%
Donald J. Trump Michael R. Pence Republican 108,748 15.32%
Barack H. Obama Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Democratic 588,806 85.24%
Willard Mitt Romney Paul Ryan Republican 96,467 13.97%
Hillary only lost 4,800 votes compared to Obama in Philly
Trump gained 12,000 votes compared to Romney in Philly.
Also, wasn't Hillary's problem a lack of turnout in key urban areas?
Not in Philly, see above.
The article is full of bad analysis and there was and is a genuine failure to understand how PA politics was evolving at the time or even subsequently, which has produced many a table pounding response from myself going back a decade or more. They kept harping on the fact that Philly burbs were the decisive area and they were getting more Democratic, so the GOP could never, ever win (#analysis). The problem is, this is wrong. The Philly suburbs were not decisive and have not been for a long time. While they were getting more Democratic, Republicans were gaining ground elsewhere, even in 2008. The decisive areas are the Harrisburg metro, Lehigh Valley, NE and NW parts of the state. Obama destroyed McCain in these areas and McCain failed in his blue collar strategy, look at the map for 2008 in PA. Between the economy and the war, there was no way McCain could win Luzerne, tie in Lackawanna or win Erie County, so yes his path was blocked obviously. McCain was also a poor candidate to pull this off because of his positions on the very wedge issues that would have broke these voters off from their Casey Democrat ancestral voting (foreign policy, immigration, trade and energy).
Most of the mid 2000s "analysis" involves the GOP retracing their steps back to being able to win moderate, fiscally conservative suburbs like the Philly suburbs. The problem is politics does not work that way, especially when the Democrats are doubling down on their strategy since the 1990's of winning over these former Republicans as a hold over until their children start voting (will come back to these children later on). Politics actually tends to follow certain laws of physics, if you go all in on the environment, guess where the coal miners and loggers go? If you go all in on social liberalism, guess where the pro-lifers all go? This is how the two parties have always evolved, it is the 200 year old dance of death, and most of these people with their #analysis expect the equivalent of stepping on the other's toes. It doesn't work like that.
Children of these voters, solidify and make permanent trends their parents started as "angry defectors". Boomers solidified the South as Republican, after their parents started to defect from the New Deal Coalition. Millennials are solidifying these places like NOVA. They see no attachment or legacy of Republicanism to work against such a move and their economic interests aren't benefited by the next Reagan cutting their taxes, but by Bernie Sanders coming in and forgiving their student loans.
When you old path becomes untenable, you find the path of least resistance and the one requiring the least change by which to reach victory. There are dozens of articles just like this one from the period, that sounds ridiculous today because it failed to comprehend this. If for no other reason we should know better now, because of how Trump got elected.
