How did the most unpopular presidential candidate in history (at least in the history of polling) accede to the highest office in the land?
It matters that our constitutional system honors not the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton won, but electoral vote, where Donald Trump prevailed.
But Donald Trump succeeded in eliciting support from a large minority of Americans, and it’s worth understanding why.
Here, too, multiple factors are at play — those desperately seeking unicausal explanations (it’s all authoritarianism or racism or not articulating my favorite economic message often enough) should probably look elsewhere, because, in fact, the sources of Trump’s support are many and varied. I don’t have space here to consider them all, though we will continue exploring them in coming weeks.
There’s certainly an economic component.
In a pre-election survey, we found voters’ perceptions of the nation’s economic circumstances correlated strongly with support for Clinton and Trump. Those positive about the national economy overwhelmingly backed Clinton, while those offering negative assessments gave their votes to Trump by huge margins.
Culture also played a significant role.
In another survey we completed just before Election Day, one of the biggest differentiators between Trump and Clinton voters was their response to the word “feminists.”
Overall, voters were divided, with 43 percent holding a favorable impression and 38 percent expressing an unfavorable view.
Over three-quarters of those with unfavorable views of “feminists” voted Trump, whereas 74 percent of those with favorable opinions supported Clinton.
One’s reaction to this word says a good deal about their cultural orientation.
A question with an obvious focus on culture produced similarly sharp cleavages.
Among the 38 percent who believe America’s culture changed for the better over the last 50 years, 74 percent supported Clinton, but among the 55 percent who said it had gotten worse, 65 percent voted Trump. Nearly two-thirds of those who saw little change also supported Clinton.
Only those hostile to the cultural changes they perceive supported Trump.
To say this election was just about the economy or culture though is to miss its broader contours.
Trump engendered, and was supported by, a revolt of the dispossessed.
Americans who believe “people like them” were once politically potent, economically central and culturally ascendant, but feel they have been increasingly marginalized in each of those arenas, came out in large numbers to support Trump.
Half the white electorate believes they are financially worse off than people like them were 30 years ago. They gave Trump a two-to-one margin.
Whites who see themselves at least as well off as people like them had been 30 years ago voted for Clinton by some 13-points.
Similarly, 52 percent of whites say politicians care less about them than they did about people like them 30 years ago. They gave Trump nearly a 40-point margin.
Those who perceive no diminution in politicians’ focus on people like them voted Clinton by some 20-points.
The sense of cultural dislocation was evident in the questions described earlier, but also appears in reactions to immigration.
Fifty-five percent of Americans believe newcomers from other countries “threaten traditional American customs and values,” whereas 45 percent see newcomers “strengthening American society.”
Those who see immigrants threatening our culture supported Trump by a nearly 70-point margin, while those who see immigrants as an asset gave Clinton better than a 50-point edge.
Some Trump voters are no doubt racists, misogynists and/or authoritarians — and we’ll attempt to measure that in future columns.
But these terms of opprobrium over-simplify reality. His supporters also feel marginalized, dislocated and dispossessed — pushed down the economic ladder, deprived of their political clout and forced to accept cultural changes they find discomforting.
In their view, the economic, political and cultural ground they once held has been taken from them.
Their grievances may be inaccurate and/or unjust, but to fight it, we need to understand this revolt of the dispossessed.
Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current clients include the minority leader of the Senate and the Democratic whip in the House.