It began even before either candidate had hit the magic threshold of 270 projected electoral votes.
As election night wore on and it became clear that Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, would become the 45th president of the U.S., there was remarkable confusion and anger over the impending results. Political pundits confusedly clamored on television. People didn’t hesitate to express their shock on social media. Most of them were asking themselves the same questions: How did this happen, and why didn’t anyone see it coming?
The answers to both are convoluted and multifaceted. Scholars will be sifting through the wasteland of this election for years. Many books will surely be written. But as I’ve pondered these questions over the last week or so, I’ve considered some things I previously hadn’t.
We as the academic liberal elite certainly played a role in Clinton’s defeat, whether we’d like to admit it or not. We like to joke, myself included, that Trump supporters living in traditionally conservative states exist in a bubble, out of touch with the rest of America.
But in reality, we were the ones entrapped in a bubble: a bona fide, self-sufficient liberal echo chamber fueled by our tendency toward bias and affirmation on social media that ignored nearly half the population.
The foundations were laid by a predominantly progressive millennial demographic. The walls were fortified by the unabashedly left-leaning mainstream media. We assumed that because everyone around us shared similar views, enough people around the country did the same. It made a Clinton victory appear inevitable.
The liberal elite also dramatically misjudged the undercurrent of political dissatisfaction among a significant chunk of the electorate. It’s no accident that there were two successful, nonestablishment candidates from both parties during the primaries: Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left.
While the bulk of Sanders’ support came from millennials, he also found footing among blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt states that have seen slow economic growth and stagnant wages over the last eight years.
This was evident earlier this year. For months leading up to the Michigan Democratic primary in March, polls showed Clinton held a substantial lead over Sanders. It was a state she was supposed to win in a landslide.
But the primary results proved the polls to be very, very wrong, just like they were in the general election. Sanders ended up defeating Clinton by roughly 17,000 votes. It ended as only a blip on her path to the nomination, but it spoke volumes about her unpopularity and the legitimacy of voters’ discontent.
Similarly, Clinton remained unable to gain traction in economically downtrodden Midwestern states against Trump. He won Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It was the first time Michigan and Pennsylvania voted Republican since 1988. Wisconsin hadn’t gone red since 1984. These states put Trump over the top and were all won by Barack Obama twice.
Are some of Trump’s supporters sexist, hateful and bigoted? Undoubtedly. But did all of those who flipped to Trump after voting for Obama four years ago suddenly become racists? I don’t think so. Ultimately, the Democratic establishment failed to acknowledge the dissatisfaction and calls for help from people who felt economically left behind. As a result, many people were willing to turn a blind eye and gamble on Trump instead of the safe, pro-establishment choice.
Clinton tried punching through the glass ceiling with fists stained by the blood of the victims in Benghazi. She was hampered by the baggage of an email scandal and nagging FBI investigation. Her dealings with the Clinton Foundation have been subject to scrutiny. But for all her flaws as a candidate — and there were many — none held her back more than her near quarter-century spent as a Washington insider.
In the end, it seems voters wanted change, no matter who it was or where it came from. That’s what they got.
Brian Lee is a UF English senior. His column appears on Thursdays.