HOW THE DEMOCRATS ALIENATED AMERICANS AND LOST A SURE

ELECTION, AND HOW THEY CAN REGAIN THEIR SUPPORT

Tyler Sutton
Electoral Politics
Fall 2016
 Abstract:

The shocking victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 General Election was not so

much a product of scandals or bigotry, as much as it was a result of the Democratic party failing

to mobilize its relied-upon voter base. By running a candidate who did little to show she would

do more than uphold the status quo, and who made ultimately little effort to inspire confidence in

poor and minority voters, the Democrats failed to secure the turnout rates they needed. Donald

Trumps victory must be taken as a sign of how the policies that the Democratic Party has

embraced since the years of Bill Clinton have profoundly disaffected many Americans. If they

wish to regain the confidence of the American people, they should take a cue from Sanders

campaign, and adopt more broadly left-wing policies, and show poor, working Americans of all

races, gender, creeds, and sexual orientations that they are willing to fight to secure a better and

more fair country on their behalf.

Introduction:

Even the most conservative campaign polls put Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump

throughout the 2016 election, even during her lowest points and Trumps highest. At one point,

she was even estimated by 538 to have a 88% chance of winning. On election day, that chance

was at 75%. And then it began to drop, and Trumps began to rise. By the end of the day, Trump

was placed at a > 95% chance of winning. For many Americans, liberal, moderate, and

conservative alike, it was shocking. How could a candidate who seemed so crude, so dishonest,

so inexperienced win against a well-funded, well-organized, well-established Washington

insider? How could such a significant portion of the country see merit in someone like Trump?
Many things have been blamed, and they all certainly play a role. The alienation of white

working/middle class voters from the liberal shift towards identity politics, the proliferation of

fake news on social media sites, and what many suspect was deliberate outside interference by

Russia are all things being heavily discussed in the media these days. What is left out is the role

the shift in governmental and economic policies played in alienating many undecided American

voters from voting.

The Issue And Its Importance:

The Democrats and the Republicans, social issues aside, have become increasingly

indistinguishable for the majority of Americans. One major reason for this is how Bill Clinton-

era economics have long steered the Democratic Party away from policies targeted towards the

average American. Bill Clintons adaptation of NAFTA gave American corporations much

more leeway to act as they wished, cutting wages and support for average American workers,

and denying millions jobs by outsourcing them overseas. This cost the Democratic party the

support of many working-class Americans, as well as of generally left-voting organized labor.

The Obama administrations endorsement of the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade deal which

would give even more leeway to corporations, in addition to allowing drastic copyright

enforcement measures, further served to convince many that the Democrats simply did not care

about the working class. The repeal of the Glass Steagal act, which removed many of the
regulations on banks, creating the conditions that lead to the housing boom and bust, are a further

example of what many see as a betrayal.

The Obama administrations continuation of many of these policies, on top of its support

of broadening encroachment of peoples right to privacy by government agencies. Its inability to

address the wide concerns about police officers callous treatment of African-American citizens,

to close down Guantanamo, or to change course from Bush-era foreign and war policies, if

anything further embracing the use of drone strikes, also alienated many left-Democrats.

And the scandals that rocked the Democratic Party during the 2016 election, such as the

reveal of what many saw as massive amounts of internal corruption within the DNC, the embrace

of a candidate so symbolic of the beginning of the Democrats pro-corporate shift, and the

rejection of a candidate who promised a shift towards more left-wing economics, only further

cemented this image in peoples minds. As disgusted as many were with Donald Trump, they

simply could not support the Democrats in good conscience either.

If the Democratic Party wishes to regain the trust of the American people, it must reform

so it can tackle the social and economic issues facing Americans head-on.

Data Overview

According to official counts, as of November 30, the voter turnout of the 2016 General

Election was at a twenty-year-low, with over 45% of Americans not participating, as compared

to 40% not voting in the 2012 election, and only 37% not voting in the 2008 election. According

to an analysis by Pew Research, while Trumps own numbers among white voters were

comparable to Romneys, being more popular among them than Clinton by 21 percent, turnout
among all demographics was actually down for Clinton, compared to turnout for Obama in 2008

and 2012.

For example, despite his controversial comments, women only supported Clinton over

Trump by a 54% margin, not much different from the 55% margin by which they supported

Obama over Romney. Clinton held the edge among African Americans and Hispanics by 88% to

8% and 66% to 28% respectively, smaller than Obamas 93% and 71% edge, despite predictions

that Trumps immigration policies would severely cost him the Hispanic vote.

Perhaps the most significant gap in voter turnout between Trump and Clinton was in

regard to college-educated voters. College graduates favored Clinton by a 9-point margin, while

those without a college degree favored Trump by an 8-point margin. Trumps share among white

Americans without a college degree in particular was massive, he enjoyed a 39 point advantage

(67% versus 28%) over Clinton, and even a 4 point advantage over Clinton among whites with

college degrees.

Another group which favored Trump was the middle-class, who voted by a small

majority in favor of Obama in the 2008 election, but by 2016, according to another Pew

Research Center analysis, the Democrats had lost favor with them, enough that they voted in

favor of Trump by a margin of 5 percent nationwide. Middle-class areas which were pro-

Republican in 2008 remained so in 2016, and 18 of the 30 middle-class areas which voted in

favor of Obama in 2008 voted Republican in 2016. In the Midwest and Northeast, the Democrats

experienced drastic, double-digit drops in support.

Democrats also experienced drastic losses of support in manufacturing-dependent

(meaning 10% or more of the workers in said area were employed in manufacturing jobs)

districts, unsurprising, considering that Trumps campaign largely targeted the working class.
Out of 27 manufacturing-dependent metropolitan areas which supported Obama in 2008, 15

shifted to supporting Trump in 2016.

However, what proved to be more decisive in Trumps favor was not who turned out to

vote for him, but rather the massive amount of people who did not turn out to vote at all.

According to Daniel Weeks Democracy In Poverty: A View From Below, published in 2013

in the Edmond J Safra Working Papers, those with limited incomes and education are less than

half as likely to vote in elections compared to the rest of the population. Several factors play a

role in this: One, voter ID and registration laws end up turning away a large amount of voters,

indeed, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 14 states instituted new voting restrictions

before the 2016 general election, ranging from strict photo ID requirements to registration

restrictions. Indeed, Neil Albrecht, executive director of Milwaukees Election Commission, said

stated that the new voter ID laws instituted in Wisconsin, districts with large portions of high-

poverty residents experienced a decline in voter participation as compared to the 2012 general

election.

Two, many low-income voters, especially minority voters, experience difficulties with

finding the time to vote as well as acquiring transport to polling places. According to data from a

Caltech/MIT survey, 2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections: Final Report,

while white voters were most likely to report disapproval of candidates as their main reason for

not getting to the polls, minority citizens generally reported transportation problems as well as

bad time and location as being their main reasons for not voting. The survey determined that in

2008, an election with extremely high turnout overall, between 910,000 and 3,000,000 votes

were lost due to registration problems.

 Three, many simply do not feel they have the ability to influence the political process in

any significant way. In The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken

Promise of American Democracy (Kay Lehman Schlozman, et al), class-based participatory

inequalities shape what politicians hear about political needs, concerns, and preferences.

According to Schlozman, Americans ranking in the bottom fifth in terms of socio-economic

status have the lowest political participation rates, with only a third of citizens in said

demographic deemed politically active. These numbers increase steadily based upon citizens

socio-economic status, with nearly three-quarters of those ranking in the top fifth deemed

politically active. The numbers are even smaller when one looks at direct participation in

political organizations, with only four percent of citizens ranking in the bottom SES reporting

being active in political groups.

Data Analysis

Taken together, the reason for the low turnout in the 2016 general election and for the

decline in votes for the Democratic party becomes clearer: Working-class voters simply do not

feel the political system represents them. While many white working-class voters were swayed

by Donald Trumps rhetoric, many more simply felt that the neoliberal policies of the

Democratic Party did not represent them. The foreign trade deals cut by the Clinton and Obama

administrations had, after all, significantly undermined the power of American unions, and had

cost millions their jobs as they were outsourced overseas. Hillary Clintons campaigns failure to

focus upon or alleviate concerns Americans held about their jobs while the Trump campaign

hammered upon those concerns again and again from a variety of angles cost the Democrats
any chance of having a significant working-class voting base, as, simply put, none felt the party

would do anything in their favor.

In addition, the increase in voter restriction laws, which primarily affect minority turnout,

coupled with the increase in both anger over institutional racism in America and the return of

reactionary movements who see this as a threat to the status quo (many of whom came out in

favor of Trump), saw even greater disillusionment and even more greatly reduced turnout among

minorities, who historically tend to vote Democratic. Where Obama represented a great symbolic

victory for African-Americans, Hillary barely touched upon such issues. The Democrats

decision to uphold the status quo, to adopt America is Already Great as a response, showed a

denial of some of the most pervasive concerns held by this group of voters, whereas the Trump

campaign was able to seize upon white fears about such movements and use them to their

advantage.

Indeed, the one-note approach of Clintons campaign played a large role in its failure to

mobilize lower-class Americans against Donald Trump. Rather than putting forth her own

solutions and policies, Clinton continued to press on Donald Trump and attack him, despite

overwhelming evidence that, no matter what he said or did, that strategy would not work. She

did not have an overarching message or rallying cry, while Clinton proclaimed how Trumps

policies would hurt minorities and the poor, she did not put forth any comprehensive plans to

help them or give them the impression she would advocate for their interests. Furthermore,

Democrats were complacent, assuming that their voting base would turn out in the same numbers

it did for Obama, and thus made no serious effort to shore up support in key Rust Belt states. The

Clinton campaigns effort to turn Republicans against Trump rather than lock down key blue
states was ineffective, with exit polls showing 90 percent of voters still stuck with the partys

nominee.

While we do not know how well Sanders would have fared against Trump, he was able to

mobilize a base of passionate young voters, to stick to a message that appealed to working-class

and college-age students, promising that he would ease student loan debt, make Wall Street pay

its fair share, and ensure fair healthcare would be provided for all Americans. Clinton,

meanwhile, had no such promises or focuses. She came in assuming the majority of people

wanted some slight remodeling done to the current system, not to see the whole structure swept

aside, and never deviated from this message.

Courses of Action and Solutions

The Democratic Partys failings were laid bare in the aftermath of the 2016 General

Election. It assumed voters in key regions would turn out for them, it did not do enough to

mobilize its voter base, and it did not base its campaign around much more than what Donald

Trump wasnt. Furthermore, it failed to address grievances the partys voting base had had with

it since Bill Clintons election. If the Democrats wish win congressional seats in 2018, and

perhaps defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election, they will have to shift their internal focus and

strategy drastically.

They cannot be a complacent party anymore, and would be wise to take cues from Bernie

Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other progressives, and draw a harder line on pro-science issues

such as global warming, be more outspoken on issues that concern young and poor liberals such
as the comingling of government and corporate interests, and listen to voters outside the sphere

of Silicon Valley billionaires.

Supporting unions and their aims would go a long way towards the Democrats regaining

support of the working class, by promising that average Americans would make a decent wage

and be guaranteed work, and by working towards this goal, more voters would turn out to vote

Democratic in order to preserve these benefits.

Steps should be taken to reform the DNC, to sweep out much of the old staff whom the

public has lost a great deal of trust in since the Wikileaks scandal and bring in a newer,

younger, and more diverse group of people to run the affairs of the party, who will lend a more

attentive ear to social and economic justice issues.

Finally, the Democrats must find a clear, consistent message they can rally people

behind, and stick to it, rather than muddling between general social progressivism and neoliberal

trade and fiscal policies. This may be best approached by simply taking cues from what gets

Democrats elected on the local government level that way, the party can learn what it is exactly

the public wants from them.

Conclusion and Closing Thoughts

The 2016 election exposed some of the most glaring flaws in American democracy, leaving them

undeniably bare. We saw how partisan politics has become a tug-of-war between citizens with

drastically different ideas of the country, we saw just how stagnant and out-of-touch our political

parties had truly become, we saw the extent of corruption, both internal and external that wracks
our political systems, and we saw just how people have lost faith in the ability of the system to

represent their interests in any significant capacity on the federal level.

But this does not mean that it is a time for despair. Because by highlighting, by exposing

these flaws, we can begin to fix them. The Democrats learned many hard lessons in the General

Election, but they were lessons they needed to learn. Now it falls upon their members and

constituents to work to change the party into something truly responsive to the needs of

Americans, both those that Trumps campaign lured in, and those that fear the repercussions of

his election and need to know that the government will work to protect, not undermine their civil

rights. If the Democrats are smart, they will seize upon this chance to start creating a more

inclusive political system, one that people are truly motivated to support.
 Bibliography

Weeks, Daniel. Democracy in Poverty: A View from Below. Edmond J. Safra Research Lab

Working Papers No. 10. (2013) : 1-68. Print.

Schlozman, Kay L., Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal

Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton University

Press, 2012. Print.

Tyson, Alec, and Shiva Maniam. Behind Trumps Victory: Divisions by race, gender,

education. Pew Research Center. 9 November, 2016. Online.

Wallace, Gregory. Voter Turnout at 20 Year Low in 2016. CNN. 30 November, 2016. Online.