Turnout and Economy Helped Trump, Lehigh Political Scientists Say

A variety of factors can help explain Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton last week, several Lehigh political scientists said Tuesday, but they can’t remove the shock many Americans—and many political prognosticators—have felt over the unexpected outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

“I have been completely overwhelmed like many of you,” Vera Fennel, associate professor of political science, told an audience of 50 students during a panel discussion. “I’m surprised Hillary Clinton didn’t win because so many polls said she had a much better chance.”

“With this election,” said Anthony DiMaggio, assistant professor of political science, “I have given up trying to predict anything accurately.”

DiMaggio and Fennel were joined by Sean Beienburg, assistant professor of political science, and Saladin Ambar, associate professor and chair of the political science department, who moderated the discussion.

DiMaggio, who studies mass movements, social movements and inequality, listed the economy, trade, immigration, a reaction to President Obama and turnout among the reasons for Trump’s win.

“It’s not possible to say that one thing explained the outcome,” he said. “Certainly the economy played a huge role. According to the New York Times, the voters who said in exit polls that the economy wasn’t doing well went for Trump. People affected by trade also voted for Trump.

“Also, there was a backlash against Obama’s elections and the rise of the politically correct culture in the United States. If they were surveyed, Trump’s supporters were likely to say that immigration had threatened the economy and that they had a negative view of Islam.”

Turnout hurt Democrats and helped Republicans, said DiMaggio.

“Donald Trump won this election with fewer votes than Mitt Romney had when he lost in 2012,” he said. “Democratic turnout was down 14 percent from 2008, when Obama won his first election. By contrast, the Republicans have gotten roughly the same turnout since 2004. So it’s fair to ask, did the Republicans win or did the Democrats lose?”

Fennel, who studies comparative politics and globalization, said the media’s extensive coverage of Trump, during both the primary and general election campaigns, may have contributed to his victory.

“There’s been a lot of criticism of the media since Donald Trump first announced his candidacy,” said Fennel. “The fact that the media gave so much free coverage to his speeches raises the question as to whether the media sees itself any longer as a fact-checker. This issue came up repeatedly during the campaign.”

Ambar, who studies American institutions as well as race and ethnic politics, said the Democratic Party in the future will have to bridge a divide that has existed since 1972, when Senator George McGovern lost the presidential race in a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon.

“There is a fundamental fissure among Democrats,” said Ambar, “and that is the inability to marry white working-class voters with black and brown voters. We have not yet seen a real left-wing progressive party” that includes all three groups.

“Are we going to have to have a person of color, either as president or vice president, on the ticket from now on to bring the coalition together? Tim Kaine [the Democratic vice presidential candidate] and Merrick Garland [Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court justice] were not exactly lighting up the ‘hood.”

Beienburg, who studies the Constitution, Federalism and American political development, cautioned Democrats not to place too much hope that growing numbers of Hispanic Americans will translate into more support for their party.

In his native state of Arizona, Beienburg said, 31 percent of Hispanics voted for Trump, and the Republican’s percentage was higher among second- and third-generation Hispanic Americans. Meanwhile, Trump carried the state with a 4-point margin over Clinton.

“Don’t expect a demographically inspired turnaround [in Arizona] in 2020 or 2024,” said Beienburg. “To do so would understate the strength of Hispanic conservatives.”

Fennel, who studies comparative politics and globalization, noted that Republicans now control the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives. This raises concerns, she said, with the separation of powers among the three branches of government—executive, legislative and judicial—especially given that President-elect Trump might have the chance to make several appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The system of checks and balances may be lost,” said Fennel, “but then we don’t know how well Donald Trump will get along with the House and Senate. During the campaign, he gave the impression that he was at war with the Republican establishment, but his appointment of Reince Priebus [as White House chief of staff] shows that the relationship might not be as bad as was thought.”

As Trump prepares to take office in January, Beienburg said, progressives should “make peace” with the separation of powers and with the system of Federalism, in which political power is shared between the federal and state governments.

“Opposing the Trump presidency will require progressives to remember the merits of the separation of powers and federalism, two things they have all too easily forgotten recently,” said Beienburg.

If Trump follows through on a promise to “punish” sanctuary cities for not enforcing federal immigration laws, Beienburg said, progressives might find common cause with originalist judges and with Republican senators who identify as constitutional conservatives, such as Ted Cruz (Texas) and Mike Lee (Utah).

“Just as the federal government cannot turn local sheriffs into gun control enforcers, [the late U.S. Supreme Courtice Justice Antonin] Scalia’s opinion in Printz v. United States…establishes a non-commandeering doctrine that means that courts would almost assuredly strike down any effort to sanction, beyond funding, any anti-sanctuary city laws—assuming the Senate constitutional conservative faction doesn’t join with Democrats to block it first.”

Similarly, said Beienburg, Democrats should look for common ground with Republicans who support the legalization of marijuana.

“Truly legalizing marijuana in Massachusetts, California, etc., will require Democrats to make a federalism argument to win over anti-marijuana but pro-states-rights Republicans, of which there are many. Until then, marijuana growers and users remain at the mercy of a Trump administration.”

Following the panel discussion, students asked more than a dozen questions, on topics including Trump’s relations with China, his support from women voters, the super delegates who helped Clinton win the Democratic presidential nomination, and possible changes in direction for the Democratic Party.

Juan Palacio Moreno, a graduate student in political science, said he thought the reasons for Trump’s victory were multifaceted.

“Donald Trump is not a Reagan Republican,” said Palacio. “He went against the Republican platform by rejecting free trade and promoting an isolationist foreign policy…It’s not fair to generalize that all Republicans who supported Trump were racist, misogynist or xenophobic. At the same time, Trump could not have been elected had it not been for the reaction to Obama’s two terms in office.”

Several students and panelists noted that Clinton received more popular votes than Trump while losing the Electoral College, and thus the election, by 290 to 232 votes (with Michigan still undeclared). One student asked about the likelihood that the Electoral College would be abolished and winners chosen according to the popular vote.

Beienburg responded that such a change could only be accomplished by amending the U.S. Constitution, which would require approval from three-quarters of the state legislatures.

“I can tell you now that the states of the Mountain West will never give up the Electoral College,” he said.

Story by Kurt Pfitzer