Here is why Hillary Clinton lost, and why Bernie Sanders would have lost as well:
The fact is that this was not an election decided by voters who are socioeconomically poor. The majority of voters who made less than $50,000 voted for her, and the majority of those making more than that amount voted for him. This disparity is not one that emerged as a result of tremendous General Election organizing efforts, or the absence thereof. The evidence that his support was not actually amongst those with low incomes was exposed by none other than Nate Silver on May 3, 2016—the day of the Indiana Primary—entitled, “The Mythology of Trump’s Working Class Support.” There’s plenty of good debates going on about the appeal of the economic populist message in this election cycle, but as Nikole Hannah-Jones pointed out on Democracy Now, the majority of folks disadvantaged by a neoliberal, globalized economy that relies on automation, outsourcing, depressed wages, and so forth, did not vote for him, they voted for her.
Further, she points out that we cannot ignore the role of state issued photo ID laws in states considered to be the bellwethers for those making economic populist arguments. In Ohio, and Florida, voters not possessing state issued IDs are forced to vote on provisional ballots. This was not the case in previous elections. In Indiana, and Wisconsin, you cannot vote without a state issued photo ID. This was not the case in previous elections. In Michigan, if you wish to vote, but do not have a state issued photo ID, you must complete an affidavit. This was not the case in previous elections. A Harvard Law School study found the following:
The expenses for documentation, travel, and waiting time are significant—especially for minority group and low-income voters—typically ranging from about $75 to $175. When legal fees are added to these numbers, the costs range as high as $1,500. Even when adjusted for inflation, these figures represent substantially greater costs than the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.
In other words, not only was his support from wealthier folks, his support was from folks who were not impacted by state issued photo ID laws or long lines. Turning them out simply meant reminding them to vote. Her support, her turnout vote, because it came from low-income folks, was disproportionately and aversely impacted by state issued photo ID laws, and long lines. Translating her pool of support amongst registered voters into actual ballots cast was a Herculean task, because it meant fighting voter suppression, whose egregiousness we don’t yet have a full grasp of, but whose deleterious effect is undeniable in places like North Carolina.
The fact is that this was an election decided by voters who are anti-immigrant. He launched his campaign by calling Mexicans criminals, drug dealers, rapists, and murderers. His most repeated refrain from the campaign trail and the convention was, “Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!” He went on to propose a ban on Muslims. On the campaign trail he singled out Syrian and Somali refugees. Amongst all of the election night bloviating, no one, not one single journalist or analyst pointed to the August survey of his supporters demonstrating that
91% of those who strongly supported him wanted that wall built. This survey occurred at the same time he met with Mexico’s President, and delivered his “modified” stance on immigration. When divided along partisan lines, 63% of Republicans and GOP leaning independents supported his border wall, and 84% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents opposed it. This was all of course, before he started saying in nationally televised debates and widely broadcasted rallies that “illegal immigrants are pouring over the border to vote.” This led militant, white supremacist organizations, to grab their guns and deputize themselves to serve as
“poll watchers.” Something that tried to find the humor in on Election Day, but became impossible to laugh at because of the well-documented record of hate crimes he inspired.
While it is true that white women saw some migration toward Democratic presidential candidates before September 11, 2001, the data show that the margins of white women voting for Republican presidential candidates have remained reliable and steady ever since, regardless of who runs. In 2004 Bush won 55% of white women, compared to 44% for Kerry; in 2008 McCain won 53% of white women compared to 46% for Obama; and in 2012 Romney won 56% of white women compared to 42% for Obama. The first woman to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for the presidency—she, herself a white woman—lost the white women’s vote. 43% of white women voted for her, 53% of white women voted for him. The only group of white women she won, were college educated white women. That said, despite the fact that on Election Day—when it counted—college educated white women only voted for her by a margin of 51% to 45%. Bill Clinton did better than Hillary Clinton among white women. (Let that sink in).
According to Barney Frank “” are the only white men who vote for Democratic presidential candidates. In an article called, “So Long, White Boy,” Thomas Schaller writes that the only white men voting for Democratic presidential candidates are Union members, and even in that specific demographic, white men in labor only skew Democratic by single digits. The data show that white men reject Democratic presidential candidates, even when aggressively courted:
What about Super-Bubba himself, Bill Clinton? By siphoning off 22 percent of the white male vote in 1992, Ross Perot would appear to have prevented Clinton from breaking the Democrats’ pattern. But more revealing is the fact that when in 1996 Perot’s support among white men fell by half, to 11 percent, Clinton’s support improved by a meager 1 percent. The truth is that Clinton was no more dependent on white male votes for his two wins than Gore and Kerry were penalized for garnering the same level of support from these voters in their two defeats.
The fact is that no political party has held the presidency for three terms, with one exception. Since the 22nd Amendment established term limits for the presidency, there have been eight opportunities for a party to hold the presidency for more than two terms. 1988 is the one and only time that the incumbent party has emerged victorious. In May of 2015, in an article entitled, “The GOP and Willie Horton: Together Again,” Politico’s Roger Simon wrote:
The ‘88 Bush campaign was run by Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes… They were both tough as hell, political knife fighters and proud of it. Atwater was the campaign manager, Ailes was the media wizard, and Bush was merely the candidate. And the candidate wasn’t doing that great a job.
Dukakis had built up a 17-percentage-point lead during the summer, and Atwater was afraid the lead would become insurmountable. So the Bush campaign went on the attack. It had all the usual stuff like taxes and defense, but it also had Willie Horton.
Horton was serving a life sentence without parole in Massachusetts for killing a man. He got a weekend furlough, fled and made his way to Maryland, where he broke into a home, tied a man to a joist in the basement, slashed his chest and stomach with a knife, then beat and raped the man’s fiancée. Horton was black. The couple was white. And Michael Dukakis was the governor of Massachusetts.
As Susan Estrich, the Dukakis campaign manager, would write: ‘There is no stronger metaphor for racial hatred in our country than the black man raping the white woman. If you were going to run a campaign of fear and smear and appeal to racial hatred you could not have picked a better case to use than this one.’
But how could George H.W. Bush, a Yankee Brahmin, a patrician known for his courtly manners and good nature, be persuaded to go along with such an attack? Atwater held a series of focus groups in an office in a shopping mall in Paramus, New Jersey, and then went to the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, with the results: Tell Dukakis voters about Willie Horton and they stopped being Dukakis voters.
Atwater told Bush… And Bush’s response? ‘After that,’ Atwater said, ‘it was an easy sell.’
The 1988 equivalent of a political action committee (PAC) partisan independent expenditure group supporting Bush ran the first Willie Horton ad on primetime television, and then the Bush campaign put up its own ad, using footage of prisoners going through a revolving door. 89% of Black voters supported Dukakis, 70% of Latino voters supported Dukakis, but only 40% of white voters supported Dukakis. The one and only time a political party was able to hold the White House since the passage of the 22nd Amendment was when the GOP directly tapped into a reservoir of antipathy and resentment that coalesced because it directly appealed to authoritarianism and the many forms of racial prejudice motivating white voters.
Today the data tells the same story. When the now President-elect launched his campaign, 54% of the GOP believed that “deep down President Barack Obama is a Muslim.” This when only 24% of Republicans had a favorable view of Islam. Therefore, his proposed ban on Muslims, promise to turn back refugees from Islamic countries, and plan to put mosques under surveillance struck a chord. At the same time, his support from those scoring high on the authoritarian scale was overwhelming and unyielding. He declared himself the “law and order candidate,” and referred to his supporters as the “silent majority” days after five police officers in Dallas were killed. He took the phrase “Make America Great Again” from Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign. And as wrote in April:
You’ve seen them. Printed on a white background with varying shades of blue and red, the signs are invariably held by middle-aged men and women. They’re waved in Donald Trump crowds alongside Confederate flags and dance in front of the stage while the billionaire speaks.
“The silent majority stands with Trump.”
Who are the silent majority? What does the term mean? And why are they coming out for Trump? The answer has its roots in the intense white backlash to the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Act. It’s a throwback to the coalition that helped Richard Nixon rise to power in 1968, and has much of the same connotations of white backlash to racial change and civil rights. Trump is tapping into that same coalition and ideology in his quest for the presidency.
We can talk all day and all night about this that or the other. But the facts and available data demonstrate this was a white backlash election that no Democratic candidate could have won.
I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Primary. It is easy to buy into the narrative that Bernie’s economic populist message would have won over white voters, but the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion. Hillary Clinton’s white supporters and Bernie Sanders’ white supporters are ultimately the same—low income, college educated, Union members, etc.— with the exception of white millennials. but there aren’t enough white millennials in swing states to offset the white voters over 30 that the President-elect won. And the same “enthusiasm gap” and state issued photo ID laws, and long lines, leading to voter suppression would have applied. There are no models demonstrating that Bernie could have won more votes from voters of color than Obama.
Bernie wasn’t part of the Democratic Party machine, but as a holder of public office since 1981, he is the “establishment candidate” when pitted against someone who has never served in the military and never served in public office. That means Bernie would have been vulnerable to the same charge lobbed by the antithesis of a career public servant against Hillary Clinton:
"This is just another politician talking folks. Every few years they promise, but nothing changes. Why haven't you done it over the last several decades in public office?"
"They want to raise taxes and then turn around and give all of your money away to illegal immigrants and welfare queens instead of supporting our veterans and putting money back into your pockets."
"The rest of the world thinks President Obama is a joke because we won't fight, so we need to bomb them without warning, and take them and their families out—water board them and worse—without apology, which is the opposite of the all talk and no action they offer."
We need to stop repeating the lie that this election was decided by those left behind and those who feel as though they are outside of the system, and therefore must lash out against it. For all of the 60 Minutes segments and other media spotlight segments on former factory workers, this election was not decided by socioeconomically poor white people. Economic hardship bearing white voters who were able to cast ballots did not defeat Hillary Clinton. She won low-income voters. She won Union voters. But the number of poor whites is smaller than the number of middleclass whites. And the same state issued photo ID laws and long lines that suppressed the votes of voters of color suppressed the votes of poor whites. He might have bragged about how he loved the “poorly educated,” but the truth is that white people with college educations and middleclass to upper class incomes—those with checking and savings accounts, ample credit lines, and pensions and/or 401k retirement accounts—are the ones defeated her. White voters, regardless of class, have consistently voted for the GOP. Bernie would have lost them too.
The President-elect attacked and mocked Muslim, Latino, Asian, Black, and Native Americans without apology. This distinguished him in a crowded field of GOP candidates with extreme right wing policies. He was rewarded for not being “politically correct” and “telling it like it is.” We need to stop claiming that Bernie Sanders’ economic populism could have won this election, because that ignores the role of racism and xenophobia in this campaign as a net positive in the Electoral College outcome, and it ignores what is well documented regarding the white vote and the inability of parties to hold the White House for more than two consecutive terms. There may not be much we can do in the short term about the latter, but if we care at all about the future of this country and people who call it home, then we need to be honest about white voter bias.
Racial animus was on the ballot. Chauvinism was on the ballot. White people voted for both.
If you have white skin and you're unwilling to confront white supremacy, institutional racism, and anti-Black, anti-Muslim, anti-Latino, anti-immigrant, anti-Native American, and anti-API sentiment, then you're part of the problem. This means doing intersectional work. On the campaign trail, she promised living wages and he opposed increases in the minimum wage. She stood strong with equal LGBTQI rights and he promised to appoint Supreme Court Justices to overturn equal marriage rights. Thousands upon thousands just spent months chanting "Trump that b*tch!" and selling/buying/wearing t-shirts reading, "Hillary sucks but not like Monica." Again, either you're willing to confront sexism, misogyny, and the suffocating, oppressive, marginalizing force of patriarchy, or you're part of the problem. This applies to men and women.
White men have not supported a Democratic candidate since 1964. Not one. White women have been targeted and treated as swing voters because they narrowly supported Bill Clinton in 1996, and nearly broke even for Al Gore in 2000. Hence the endless fights for "white soccer moms," “young white women,” "single white women," “college educated white women,” "married white women," etc. And yet, when push came to shove, white women did not support a white woman. Overall, they preferred a white man who unapologetically incited and instigated racial violence, and serially and overtly perpetrated sexual violence. Black women, Native women, Latinas, Asian women, all other women of color made the opposite choice and voted for her—against him—by wider margins than men of color. There are substantive reasons for this. The US ranks 33rd in the world when it comes to women in office. These are facts, not footnotes.
White Americans you either know that you fear, resent, and hate people of color, immigrants, and religious minorities, and don’t care that your heart is filled with fear, resentment, and hate. Or like Lorne Michaels, Jimmy Fallon, Billy Bush, and other white celebrities who played along, egged him on, and sought to humanize, endear, and ingratiate him to those who vote on emotional impulse, rather than measured consideration, you think you get a pass because “some of your best friends are Black.” You simply aren’t willing to distinguish your lack of prejudicial intent from the very real, tangible, measurable, and egregiously harmful racist outcomes you’ve supported with your actions. Whether you voted for him or not, if you’ve been attacking Jose Antonio Vargas for simply making a documentary called, “White People,” and asking him and the other 11 million undocumented US residents why they “cut the line” and “didn’t follow the rules”; if you’ve been saying the Black Lives Matter movement is anti-white, and dangerous, and violent, and you’re quick to share “Blue Lives Matter” posts, but say nothing when trolls begin attacking the character of the Black, Brown, or Native person who was just killed; if you’ve been saying that you have the right to wear offensive Halloween costumes without criticism, use racial slurs in everyday speech without consequence, (because rappers use them in their lyrics) that “political correctness is an attack on free speech,” “white privilege doesn’t exist because Asians earn more money than whites and get higher test scores,” or “affirmative action is reverse racism”; if you’ve been saying you’re “pro-life” while unarmed, innocent children are killed by neighborhood watch vigilantes, police officers, border patrol agents, and poisoned by lead and toxins already in their water and soil, or oil pushed through new pipelines, you are a racist.
I’ve just written 4,000 well-researched words, but I know that the paragraph above this one is the only thing people will read. I know I will be labeled divisive and prejudiced. You can attack me as the messenger. But I’m reporting the facts. The only time in modern US history that a political party was able to keep the presidency for three terms was when anti-Blackness was placed front and center. White voting behavior in presidential elections since the passage of the Civil Rights act has been consistently and reliably anti-Democratic. Barack Obama won in 2008 and 2012 but lost amongst white voters in both elections. The Democratic Party nominated white men to head the ticket in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004, and lost the white vote in all of those elections. Don’t get me wrong white voters do not bear all of the responsibility for delivering the White House to a candidate who has never served in the military or in elected or appointed office. Between one in four and one in three Latino and API voters also cast ballots for him. Those whose families came to the US fleeing communism have been reliable GOP voters because of economic conservatism. Those who are adamantly anti-choice have been reliable GOP voters because they want to see Roe v Wade overturned. Those who are adamantly homophobic, trans-phobic, and hetero-normative, have been reliable GOP voters since George W Bush proposed a Constitutional amendment to “ban same sex marriage.” But just so we’re clear, there are many Latinos and API voters who enthusiastically cast ballots to uphold every form of racism. This was a white backlash election, but it was also one that revealed anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, anti-Black, anti-Native, and anti-immigrant sentiments are deeply entrenched and very widespread in Latino and API communities.
If you’re still fixated on Wikileaks, and the DNC; if you’re still saying, “Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate, Bernie would have won,” and all of the research I’ve done and presented above hasn’t convinced you, maybe this video the Guardian US published in May will break through.