Posted by on November 17, 2016 3:34 am
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories: Chuck Schumer Democratic Party Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy donald trump Economy Elizabeth Warren Hillary Clinton new york Politics Politics of the United States President Obama Senate Social Issues unemployment United States

We’ve repeatedly said that Trump mainly won the election because voters thought that the status quo would hurt them economically.

Today, the Los Angeles Times reports that the Democratic leadership itself admits that the economy is the issue that sunk Clinton:

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York was elected by Democrats as minority leader of the Senate on Wednesday ….


Schumer also broadened the Democratic leadership tent with the intent of improving the party’s standing with both its progressive wing and its working-class base, two groups whose frustration with the party and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton helped lead to President-elect Donald Trump’s victory.


Populist [because she has stood up against the big banks and for the little guy] Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts also kept a top spot.

“There’s a debate going on about whether we should be the party of the diverse Obama coalition, or the blue-collar American in the heartland,” Schumer said, referring to the broad swath of heavily minority voters who helped put President Obama in office.

We need to be the party that speaks to and works on behalf of all Americans and a bigger, bolder, sharper-edged economic message that talks about people in the middle class,” Schumer said. He said Democrats should also confront  “the unfairness in the American economic system.”

The Democratic leadership is admitting that it has to focus on changing its economic message.

Lambert Strether – who is extremely knowledgeable about political horseraces –  adds additional evidence:

First, the swing from Obama to Trump was greater in counties that were economically stressed. FiveThirtyEight:

Instead, to understand what drove Trump’s victory, we can look at how Trump’s margin against Clinton in 2016 compared with Romney’s against President Obama in 2012. Sure enough, the swing toward Trump was much stronger in counties with a higher share of routine jobs; the swing toward Trump was also stronger where unemployment was higher, job growth was slower and earnings were lower. It is clear that the places that voted for Trump are under greater economic stress, and the places that swung most toward Trump are those where jobs are most under threat. Importantly, Trump’s appeal was strongest in places where people are most concerned about what the future will mean for their jobs, even if those aren’t the places where economic conditions are worst today.

Notice that job crapification (“routine jobs”) is part of economic stress.

Second, economic optimism among Black voters was much lower than in 2012. WaPo:

“Pre-election research showed that among African Americans, their feelings of economic optimism were precipitously lower in this election than in 2012,” said Geoff Garin, a pollster for Priorities USA who conducted this research independently of the super PAC. “And their feeling that Clinton’s economic policies would help people like them were substantially lower. “Those kinds of things affect people’s willingness to come out to vote.”

Third, primary counties with high Case-Deaton death rates voted for Trump. WaPo:

In every state except Massachusetts, the counties with high rates of white mortality were the same counties that turned out to vote for Trump.

We’re focusing on middle-aged whites because the data show that something has gone terribly wrong with their lives. In a study last year, economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton pointed out that mortality rates for this group have actually been increasing since the ’90s.

Economic struggles have likely contributed as well. Case and Deaton also found that the increase in the death rate has been driven by people with less education. For those without a college degree, the economy in recent decades has been increasingly miserable. This may explain why some have turned to self-destructive behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse.

The people I’ve been describing — this distressed, dying demographic slice of America — are similar to the people who tend to vote for Trump, according to phone and exit polls. Trump supporters are mostly white; skew older; and are less likely to have college degrees than other Republicans.

(“Less educated” is a proxy, for “working class.”)

Fourth, the swing from Obama to Trump was greater in counties that where housing costs were high. WaPo:

According to the analysis, respondents in hundreds of surveys were more likely to view Trump favorably if they lived in Zip codes with heavy mortgage-interest burdens relative to local incomes, after taking into account a range of socioeconomic factors.

Clinton supporters assumed that women would vote for her.

But the Guardian reports:

A majority of white women voted for Trump. And while Clinton did carry the female vote overall, her advantage among women was a percentage point less than Obama had enjoyed over Romney in 2012.


As John Cassidy points out in the New Yorker, not only did Trump carry white women, so did Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008 and Bush in 2004. Presumably, many white women have conservative views, whether on taxes or abortion, and neither Trump’s misogyny nor Clinton’s anatomy could override those commitments.

Trump also appealed to many women who feared downward mobility and poverty, winning a majority of women without college degrees, as well as rural women. He denounced the trade deals that they felt had wrecked their economies, and vowed to create jobs by rebuilding America’s decaying infrastructure. Meanwhile, Clinton partied with her funders in the Hamptons. She represented an out-of-touch elite, and many women felt that deeply and resented her – or simply didn’t care about her campaign.

Clinton also failed to excite some of the women who were part of the traditional Democratic base. She did win among poor women (those making under $50,000 a year), young women, Latinas and, overwhelmingly, black women. But turnout among some of these groups was disappointing. She won black women by two percentage points less than Obama did in 2012. And compared with Obama, her margin even among the much-vaunted Latina vote was about eight points lower.

Newsweek adds:

White women without  college degrees [went] for him two to one.

Vanity Fair notes:

Even educated women white voters just barely leaned toward Clinton; 51 percent of white women with college degrees voted for her ….

Overall, a slim majority of women voters – 54% – went for Clinton.

And see this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *