Economic Dissatisfaction Explains the 2016 Presidential Election

When the economic situation of average Americans is improving, Americans are prone to express contentment with their situation and confidence in their elected leaders. However, when economic times become more difficult for average Americans, their contentment with their situation, satisfaction in the political system, and trust in the government decline (textbook). When considering the American people’s dwindling confidence in Obama, specific points that Hilary Clinton highlighted in her campaign (or the lack there of), and the voting patterns of the American people, it becomes obvious that it is this idea that put Trump in the oval office.

In July of 2011, more than one third of Americans believed that Obama’s policies were hurting the economy and their confidence in his ability to create jobs began to dissolve. With wages remaining static, people felt as if they had been working harder for longer hours, however were not reaping the same rewards as those people in other parts of the country during the recovery of the Great Recession. As Pat Murray, an anti-Trump Democrat who worked 29 years as a press brake operator put succinctly, “Obama saved us from another Great Depression, but it never really got back to the working class” (fivethirtyeight). It was this economic dissatisfaction that drove people to listen to and eventually vote for Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

It was clear going into the 2016 presidential election that the American people wanted change. If Hilary Clinton had understood the relationship between voters’ satisfaction with their economic situations and elected leaders, Clinton would have discussed raising voters’ wages. However, Clinton did not do this. While campaigning for her clean energy platform, Clinton said that she was going to put a lot of companies and coal miners out of business. Understandably, Clinton received significant backlash and people questioned how she could say that she was going to put coal miners out of jobs while being a “friend” to the American people (theguardian). Additionally, Clinton did not spend much time making her economic case before people in mid size to small towns. Most of her advertisements were about Trump’s behavior and not about how to raise wages.

So why did so many people who voted for Obama in the 2008 and 2012 and viewed Trump as unqualified to be president vote for Trump? Trump talked about wages (fivethirtyeight). Trump promised to get jobs back in the United States. It no longer mattered if you were a republican or a democrat, the American people just wanted someone that was going to get things right. Economic dissatisfaction defined this election and is the reason why non conventional candidate Donald Trump is our president today.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-county-in-america-that-voted-in-a-landslide-for-both-trump-and-obama/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/us-economy-election-obama-donald-trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/more-americans-unhappy-with-obama-on-economy-jobs/2011/07/25/gIQABJ9sZI_story.html?utm_term=.f9d923843c6b

7 Responses to "Economic Dissatisfaction Explains the 2016 Presidential Election"

Abigail Belcher says:

February 11, 2018 at 11:27 pm

Chloe,
While I believe the people’s economic dissatisfaction is one of the reasons Trump was elected president over Clinton, I’m not sure it is the only reason he was elected over her. That being said, I do think that it played a significant role in his win in November of 2016. People care about their money almost as much (if not more than) as they care about their religion or their family. When people are worried about their finances (and especially when wages have been stagnant for years), they will do just about anything to secure financial stability. If not for them, then for their families that they have to clothe, feed, and shelter. Living paycheck to paycheck or simply being unsure if you’ll have enough money for food or electricity is a terrifying feeling, one that would push many people towards a candidate who expressed the ability to provide more jobs and income for the American people.
James Hulbert says:

February 12, 2018 at 12:15 pm

Chloe,

Thank you for your post. I absolutely agree with you that some remarks that Clinton made and her campaign strategies hurt her chances to become president come election time. In particular, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are three rust belt states that hadn’t voted for a Republican candidate since the 1980’s. It is clear that they lost confidence in Hillary Clinton and needed to vote for a candidate who could seriously change the economic landscape. However, I do not think money and economic interest was the only deciding factor in Trump becoming president. I believe that there were two other main factors. First, I think that the “silent vote” played a huge role in the election and explains why the polls were so incorrect leading up to the election. In a state like Florida, where most polls had Clinton winning, it was the people who were silent about their political opinions that voted for Trump. Whether it was embarrassment or not, people more than ever kept their political opinions to themselves throwing off all predictions. Lastly, I think the letter that James Comey sent to congress regarding her private emails only a few weeks before the election played a huge role in the lack of voter confidence in Clinton. People did not want to vote for a candidate who was going to potentially face legal battles for the foreseeable future.
Gwynna Ryan says:

February 12, 2018 at 2:08 pm

Chloe,

This is a really interesting post. I agree that economic change was one of the reasons why Trump was elected. This idea of change, however, goes much further beyond purely economic reasons. Dissatisfied Americans experienced the policies of the previous administrations, and their lives were not improving. They saw Donald Trump who was decidedly not a career politician and who didn’t sacrifice his beliefs for political correctness, and they thought that he was more likely to raise up the middle class than a career politician who was no different than all the other politicians who promised to help them. Regardless of how Trump’s presidency is judged in the future and regardless of personal views of him, his winning the election was remarkable.
Elizabeth Curland says:

February 13, 2018 at 12:38 pm

Chloe, I thoroughly agree with many of the points you mentioned in your post. As our textbook stated – when the government isn’t working to improve the economic situation of the average American (i.e. the Middle Class), people will seek political change. Though Obama was able to shift the U.S. economy out of a recession, the economic conditions of many American’s hasn’t seen improvement in years.

The Middle Class makes up approximately 60% of the U.S. population. Throughout history, the lifestyle and living conditions of the Middle Class has been categorised as the “American Dream”. However, this “American Dream” hasn’t been what it was for some time now. Increasing healthcare costs, greater college tuition bills, and the scarcity of jobs available, have made the “American Dream” nothing short of a fairy tail – completely unattainable. These frustrated blue-collar workers were fed up and ready to seek political change. Therefore, Donald Trump’s campaign to deal directly with these issues of the Middle Class contributed greatly to his presidential victory. So while the majority of forecasts and polls predicted Hilary winning the 2016 presidential election, that 60% of our U.S. population was clearly not being accurately accounted for.
Sara Milano says:

February 13, 2018 at 3:33 pm

Chloe,

This is a really well thought out post. The state of the economy is an issue that is important to all American voters at every socioeconomic level, despite the fact that they may have competing interests. While the upper class may want lower taxes and a healthy stock market, the middle class wants low unemployment and high income. People who are the worst off are often just looking to get by, whether by securing a job or becoming part of a government assistance program. Everyone wants to live a comfortable life, but to different people this means different things. I have read about the rise of populism, and how this helped Trump get elected. This disdain of government expressed by the common people is exactly the kind of platform Trump ran on. He related to the middle class and people in rural areas by appealing to their specific economic needs and making himself seem like an ally. Hillary Clinton was often viewed as an untouchable, pompous career politician who was born into wealth. However, anyone who recalls Donald Trump’s discussion of his “small loan of a million dollars” from his family knows that Donald Trump by no means hails from the middle class. He is, however, an outsider to politics. The Populist movement led people to distrust someone with decades of experience from a dynastic political family and to elect someone who they thought would have a different perspective on the issues. One of these issues was no doubt the economy, as you highlighted. A commonly recited reason people voted for Trump was that they believed if he ran the government like he ran his business, we would all be more prosperous. The populist movement ultimately drove Americans to elect a man who promised to uphold the economic interests of the common man, despite being a billionaire. His identity as a business man and criticism of government led him to be the perfect antithesis of his opponent.
Carlin O'Neill says:

February 14, 2018 at 11:58 am

Hi Chloe,

I also agree that Hillary Clinton’s lack of focus on producing more jobs in the United States played a large roll in her failure to be elected. Jobs are one of the driving forces in the United States economy as they obviously produce good and services, produce wages, and inspire consumption. If not enough jobs are being created, this would have a negative trickle down effect on the whole economy and society. Naturally her lack of reference to this key issue would impact her election. However, I also think that a ton of other factors played a roll into why Clinton was not elected over Donald Trump. Trump spoke extensively regarding his economic and infrastructure plans for the country that would create jobs, and this is attractive to voters who didn’t have job security at the time. Also past controversies involving Clinton during her time as Secretary of State might have reduced some voter confidence in her ability to govern. This isn’t without saying that Trump was and still is involved in many controversies of his own, but I think that it might be difficult to pinpoint one reason why Donald Trump was elected over Clinton. Thanks for your post!
David Shaw says:

February 15, 2018 at 8:20 am

Chloe,

This is definitely a strong point, though I think there is a broader reason than simple economics behind Trump’s victory. I’ve always felt that the key reason he won was fearmongering. That may be a blunt term, but he spread fear that years of Obama policy had set the nation in decline, fear that people from foreign nations would come to attack us if we did not take the precautions to defend ourselves, and fear that Hillary’s motivations were so self centered that she would favor foreign powers and stomp allies and loyal citizens just to cover her own backside. Trump’s business history was a big part of his election, but much of his success came from tearing down what he perceived as the façade of Hillary. He wanted to poke gaps in the strategies of his opponent and expose her scandals and weaknesses even to the point where the American people feared her. By the time Americans went to the poles, they had such an unshakable vision of Hillary as a political leech that many of them simply could not vote for her in confidence.

Comments are closed.