There are few feelings worse than those that follow losing an election. The crippling sense of disappointment; the frustration of finding out that your vision for the future is not shared by the majority of the electorate. As liberals we have had to become accustomed to this over the past two years, but the Trump victory feels of greater significance to the geopolitical order than anything that has come before it – even Brexit.
It is vital that our anger is channelled into learning from the mistakes that become retrospectively apparent in our defeat. So what can we learn from the US election that can be applied to our campaigns? Here are a few of my initial thoughts:
Movements win elections
The strength of the Clinton campaign’s state-by-state ground game was long acknowledged as a major advantage that the Democrats would hold over the Republicans on election day. Whilst Clinton had millions of volunteers, thousands of field offices and huge financial strength, Trump’s campaign was an operation regularly accused of amateurishness.
Yet no party’s get-out-the-vote strategy can compete with the enthusiasm of a cause. Trump’s supporters were inspired by his anti-establishment appeal and promise to “Make America Great Again”. The Clinton camp, by comparison, struggled to find a consistent message that was memorable and of mass-appeal to the electorate. Instead her stump speeches were filled with technocratic policy ideas and often felt unfocused.
Whereas Trump supporters were motivated to rush to the polls, many traditional Democratic voters did not feel the same. In fact, the post-result analysis shows that the Republicans didn’t increase their number of voters when compared with 2011, the Democrats just failed to get as many of their supporters to go to the ballot box.
This highlights the importance of deciding quickly on a simple and memorable campaign message that emotionally resonates with people, then repeating it ad infinitum. No amount of leaflets delivered through letter boxes or knocks on peoples’ doors can compensate for this.
The demise of the traditional left-right divide
This was extensively commented upon in Britain following the Brexit vote. Yesterday’s result only further strengthens the argument that the conventional political divides that have dominated Western democracies for the past 30 years have been substantially weakened. Voters are increasingly defining themselves based on their views on globalisation, immigration and tolerance. This was particularly apparent as the US election results came in. The generally wealthy, internationalist states of New York, Massachusetts and California voted by huge majorities for Clinton, whereas previous Democratic strongholds (such as Michigan) that are made up of primarily white working-class non-college educated voters, fell to Trump.
This change in the political spectrum is both an opportunity and a challenge for liberals. For many years our party has sought to frame itself as one that is in favour of the European Union, trade and immigration. We now find ourselves with a unique opportunity to do this. But we also risk being tainted with suggestions that the Liberal Democrats are part of the establishment and only interested in promoting the values of those who have benefited the most from globalisation. In Britain, it is vital to the future success of liberalism that we find a narrative and policies that appeal beyond the pro-Remain portion of the electorate, otherwise significant electoral gains will be very difficult to achieve.
The declining influence of national governments
Globalisation and technological advancement have had profound effects on the ability of national governments to improve the lives of their citizens. Barack Obama promised change when he was first elected to office eight years ago, yet the incremental changes that he has implemented in government have proved little match for the ability of global corporations and emerging economies to disrupt the status quo in places such as Michigan and offshore jobs.
Trump chose to simplify policy issues that involve great complexity and nuance in order to gain the office of the presidency. Yet he will likely find himself hamstrung by the same realities as those before him. Those manufacturing jobs are never coming back and in four years’ time he will have to explain to the electorate why his promises of “greatness” have not cystalised.
* Dan Whitehead is a councillor in the London Borough of Southwark and the Campaigns Lead for the Southwark Local Party.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
expats
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
24 Comments
Good article, Dan and spot on with the key issues.
I was in Florida the week before last and most people I talked to were heartily sick of being bombarded with leaflets, canvassers, TV and radio ads from all sides. Especially, so during the final world series games between the Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians.
Message is all important. If you don’t have anything of relevance to voters to say, it’s better to say nothing at all until you do. As you rightly note, no amount of leaflets delivered through letter boxes or knocks on peoples’ doors can compensate for this.
It is also important to recognise, that for all the bluster, governments do not control the economy. Domestic monetary and fiscal policies can facilitate conditions under which economic activity may flourish, but in a globalised and inter-connected world we are all dependent on each other one way or another.
It pains me to say this, because I do not, buy into the attacks on Hilary Clinton but the main lesson to learn is: you should not choose a leader based on the idea that it is their turn. Trump didn’t so much win as the democrats decided to lose. HC was given a more or less clear run to be the Democratic Party candidate and really struggled against a Bernie Sanders challenge that in some ways seemed almost designed to maker look more presidential.
“The Clinton camp, by comparison, struggled to find a consistent message that was memorable and of mass-appeal to the electorate.”
Trump openly said that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any votes. I don’t think that “make America great again” explains why someone is able to say all the things he did and not lose momentum. Perhaps a combination of “lock her up” and even Clinton supporters all recognising that there are compromises in supporting her as leader. The only group that really rushed to go vote for Clinton were Hispanic voters and I don’t think that was because of her.
Clinton was really just a poor choice of candidate. She may have had decades of experience (not worthwhile unless people respect it – Sanders has been on the right side of history while Clinton has been on histories side) but somehow managed to appear as the candidate of the 1% when her campaign was far more progressive than the white, male millionaire who inherited his money from his father.
There are positives to take as Clinton, despite everything, managed to win the popular vote. While Brexit, Cameron and Osbourne’s successful GE and Trump may prove that misleading and negative campaigning may win elections (and progressive parties will need to work out how best to counter this without copying it) we should recognise how slim the majority was in each case.
‘What can we learn from the US election ?’
Move out of comfort zone and address the issues voters are actually concerned about ?
45% of college graduate white WOMEN voted for Trump! Does nobody else find that astounding? These women are hardly the left behind, with few prospects. They are some of the best educated females living in the richest country on the planet. So, why?
Why would this group of highly educated women give greater power to a man who openly admitted to them only a few weeks ago, what this power gave him the ability/permission to do!
It’s important to learn the lessons that are anchored in fact. So did Donald Trump get more people backing him in 2016 than the Republican Presidential candidate in 2012 to win these key states? Of course he must have done so because Mitt Romney lost and Donald Trump won – right? Wrong! Trump often got either a very similar number of votes or actually got less than Romney. So why did Hillary lose? Because she got fewer votes in 2016 than Barrak Obama did in those key States in 2012. No doubt some 2012 Republicans voted Liberatian. No doubt some Democrats voted Republican, others voted Green and others stayed at home. What is true is that Lord Ashcroft’s polling on BREXIT and Trump supporters shows they hold a similar negative view on feminism, multi-culturalism, environmentalism, globalisation, etc. Liberals need to find clear, concise and convincing liberal responses to the concerns of the “marginalised” most of whom are pessimistic about their futures and those of their families.
10.40 Gavin – “What is true is that Lord Ashcroft’s polling on BREXIT and Trump supporters shows they hold a similar negative view on feminism, multi-culturalism, environmentalism, globalisation, etc. Liberals need to find clear, concise and convincing liberal responses to the concerns of the “marginalised” most of whom are pessimistic about their futures and those of their families”.
Are we to seriously believe that 45% of all the college educated white WOMEN in the USA fall into this category with these beliefs? This does not seem credible
Mike.S
One aspect that is being ignored about Trump is that it fits a fairly normal US election result. In the modern age Americans haven’t really elected Democrats or Republicans for more than two terms in a row. Only Bush senior bucked that trend. So really it shouldn’t be that surprising the Trump vote included college educated women. The point being that DT seems to have come out of nowhere to political commentators, but actually his victory fits an established pattern.
Mike S wrote:
“Why would this group of highly educated women give greater power to a man who openly admitted to them only a few weeks ago, what this power gave him the ability/permission to do!”
I think the answer to your question is twofold. Firstly, “because he is the Republican candidate”. Republicans are perceived by the better off and aspirational to serve their interests better than Democrats, just like Tories here. Secondly, a larger proportion of young people in America go into higher education than do here. The reach across the bell curve is that much greater. And they don’t all go to Harvard and Yale. There are some very crumby universities in America. You would expect with that breadth of intake to find a high incidence of unenlightened attitudes, including racism, misogyny and homophobia. In my day, 10% of young people went into higher education, and even then those attitudes were not unknown amongst students. Now, when those young people leave college, they go and live in the racially segregated suburbs that surround all the major cities outside the Pacific North-West, where fear of the other (and especially black people) is all-pervasive. Only the very wealthy can insulate themselves from such a culture, which explains why very high status areas such as Montgomery County, Maryland, Marin County, California, and Fairfield County, Connecticut, routinely vote Democrat by big margins.
Glenn
I take your point and admit I’m no expert on US elections. However, I thought the point was that this wasn’t a normal election by any stretch, and many would suggest DT isn’t even a Republican?
I guess the point I’m making is that I find it astounding that nearly half of CE white women would vote for a man in 2016 who has treated them with such disdain and arguably abuse.
Surely this group especially, have both the intelligence, debating skills (even if only amongst themselves) and passion for equal treatment, to not put themselves in a position of weakness?
Therefore, they presumably either see his comments indeed as simply ‘locker talk’ or there is a much greater fear (or hope) driving them. As I’m not a women, I am not qualified to judge.
The point is, are we all missing something fundamental here, a paradigm shift in attitude perhaps that trumps (pardon the pun) their fear of putting everything they and their mothers have fought decades for at risk?
Following on from Glenn’s point, any “normal” Republican candidate would probably have won the popular vote by a mile over Clinton, instead of narrowly losing it…
“In a period of rapid ethnic change, this cleavage separates those who prefer cultural continuity and order from novelty-seekers open to diversity. Policymakers and pundits should face this instead of imagining that old remedies – schools, hospitals, jobs – will put the populist genie back in the bottle.”
That’s the interesting conclusion to Eric Kaufman’s analysis of Trump and Brexit voters, “Why it’s again not the economy stupid” here http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/trump-and-brexit-why-its-again-not-the-economy-stupid/
In our towns and cities these two temperaments – the pessimists and the optimists – tend to live parallel lives.
We are a small party on the national stage but with (still) a cadre of experienced activists and campaigners, complimented by a relatively large number of new members.
What strength and potential we do have, therefore, would best serve a purpose by being bridge builders between the two.
For whatever reason, Hillary seems to have inspired as much loathing as Trump did.
I suspect for many voters, it was a case of ‘hold your nose and choose the lesser of the two evils’.
‘Vote for Change’ is the best slogan! Certainly worked for Obama.
Empathy with ‘ordinary people’ is really important. I think certain high-profile politicians are very good at faking it, and raking in votes as a result. Some of them have yet to be called to account for it. But all this ‘elite’ stuff comes from the impression all politicians live in a cosy bubble and have no idea what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet.
Given liberals are by nature empathic and open to others’ ideas, that’s a bit ‘granny/eggs’, but if voters don’t see it…
Listen, question, and explain. Perception is everything. Don’t appear, like Labour’s middle class intellectuals, to lecture and dismiss, or the Tories’ millionaires not to care.
@Andrew McCaig – Quote: “Following on from Glenn’s point, any “normal” Republican candidate would probably have won the popular vote by a mile over Clinton, instead of narrowly losing it…”
I think you’re exactly right. The only way Clinton could have won was by going up against a flawed Republican candidate like Trump. But what is also interesting is that the Republican base who gave him the nomination, rejected the very same bog-standard Republican candidates who could have so easily won the election for them. This election is in part a rejection of Clinton, Obama and the old Republican establishment, all at the same time.
Bill Le Breton.
Interesting . I think its a little more difficult than that because self interest plays a part in both votes and once things have changed one way that becomes the new small c conservatism. Fairly conservative religious communities for instance voted Remain, which plainly is not about novelty or openness and for a youngster the fear of change could play a part in voting Remain. The church of England favoured Remain. The Brexit vote had built for years. The Trump victory if you take Trump out of the equation the election actually follows fairly normal American patterns. Britain and America are entirely different countries with very different histories. If Boston in England voted Leave based on immigration. maybe it’s not because of an existential feeling of danger, but because local people don’t like being displaced by newcomers. We know that people tend to leave areas when the demographics shift which is why you can end up with enclaves of mini mono cultures. Plus immigrants are themselves as prone to tribal and conservative forces as the locals. Movement of labour is not about the advancement progressive thinking. People move here for the same reason Brits move to places. There’s more money, the prospects seem better and so on.
What fun! A largely male group discussing the mysterious motivations of women who voted for Trump. Probably those women discounted his behaviour as they found his references to sexual assault and attitude to women quite common place. Five years ago I referred in an article for LDV to a councillor openly describing another councillor as ” a cow who should be milked”. No-one in my local party understood why I was upset. This stuff, as I say, is common place.
If you want to “learn” something from the US presidential election then I suggest you look at Jonathan Pie’s latest rant on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/
There is more truth in those 6 minutes than everything I have read on this forum in the last 4 days.
@ Paul Murray,
Good, hard hitting video, saying what many think.
Paul Murray
Thanks for the link to the Jonathan Pie video. Pretty much everything that needs to be said is there.
A similar, but somewhat less sweary, is also shown here:
https://medium.com/@SeanBlanda/the-other-side-is-not-dumb-2670c1294063#.aaiccv4dw
Mark Pack has an interesting post today which I think explains quite a lot. The author believes that the Democrats and Remain dealt in facts and figures rather than in how people felt whereas Trump and Farage dealt with feelings. He also comments that the Left doesn’t like to do this, which I think is because for us , this kind of politics, seeking to stir up negative emotions, reminds us of Hitler.
Martin Luther King once said that you cannot fight hate with hate, only love can defeat hate, so maybe it’s time for us to find the emotion within us about belonging to the EU and about how successive governments have failed the little guy and fight for our beliefs in a different way.
@Sue Sutherland
With the greatest of respect, I think he is wrong. Remain did not deal with only facts and figures, it peddled fear and hate (how many times have you seen the word racist and xenophobe used when people have dared to raise concerns about the EU). This attitude is still very visible amongst many commentators on this site, in fact is now worse as a condescending “we know what’s best for you” attitude has also reared it’s head. If people are wondering why Trump was preferable to so many, perhaps they should look no further than CS Lewis:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
@ John Dunn,
But your leader ( or is he temporarily former leader again) wanted Mr Trump to win.
The whole point of the video, as I understood it, was that a man so unsuited to public office has been elected President of the US because those on the left have created an environment where bizarre and absurd behaviour, the banning of Louis Smith etc, the stifling of opinions that need to be voiced so that they can be challenged, have led to main stream decent people becoming disillusioned with mainstream politics.
It certainly wasn’t an endorsement of Trump or indeed Mr Trump’s fan Nigel Farage or their parties.
I still believe that man of the left Bernie Sanders would have won. He was a man who focussed on the issues facing those who were the victims not the beneficiaries of free trade. He wasn’t a corporate stooge.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/jill-stein-election-recount-fund-michigan-wisconsin-pennsylvania