On the day after Donald Trump’s victory, CNN proclaimed that Hillary Clinton had lost the race because “African-American, Latino and younger voters failed to show up at the polls in sufficient numbers.” It was just one of the first instances of an idea that became central to media commentators’ effort to explain Clinton’s spectacular defeat, despite news networks’ collusion with DNC officials & spending twice as much as her opponent. November 9th ( the same day ), the Washington Post published their own version of the CNN article, with the subtly accusatory title, “Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Was Crippled by Voters Who Stayed Home.” A quick look at the data will show anyone that turnout was low, of course — that’s a fact — but is it true that African-American, Latinx, & young voters “crippled” democrats’ campaign by “failing to show up at the polls?” Or could it have been the other way around — could democrats have crippled the voters’ turnout?
To shed more light on the issue, let’s look at some facts the media neglected to mention…
The 2016 Election:
Why Voters Didn’t Vote
Democrats probably lost because of low turnout among their usual voters — but, to put that in perspective, the loser of every election loses because fewer of their voters showed up than they’d hoped. That’s how elections work and, since many things can affect voters’ behavior & turnout, a candidate’s basic job is to figure out how to get their likely voters to the polls. Instead of blaming their voters for lower turnout, liberals ought to be asking “why didn’t our likely voters — particularly young people, working people, & people of color — show up?
That’s a bit of a trick question, though. While the democrats’ campaign strategy clearly didn’t do much to inspire voters, what most articles have ignored is the fact that voter turnout was already declining long before November 8th, 2016.
Young Voter Turnout
Has Declined for Decades
The truth is no one should be shocked about less young voters turning out — in fact, in the US, the participation of young voters has been falling since the 1960s. There are a few exceptions — in 2008, for instance, voters aged 18-24 spiked to 44% — but, generally speaking, it’s been a downward slope from about 51% in 1964 to 38% in 2012. Between ’92 and ’04, turnout languished at 32% — that’s less than 1/3 of the youngest age group! These figures, by the way, are only for presidential elections — during the midterms, it’s become normal to see less than 1/5th of young folks at the voting booths. For comparison, overall turnout has also declined but at a much slower rate — in fact, during the same time period, the overall turnout has stayed within the 50-60% range.
As an age-group, young voters have historically favored democrats and, while boomers have voted to the right, it is well-known that recent generations have tended toward the left — particularly millennials. How, then, were media analysts still surprised that somehow Clinton didn’t defy the overall trend, seizing the presidency on the wings of young voters, in spite of the DNC snubbing them during the primaries?
Liberals Upset Blacks & Latinx Voters
“Crippled” Clinton’s Campaign
Other groups that democrats apparently felt entitled to were Black & Latinx voters. While turnout among Blacks continues its long trend of growth, turnout among Latinx voters has increased at slower rates, compared to other demographics. Despite that fact, Clinton seemed to be relying on what some called the “Trump Effect,” which liberal pundits thought would drastically increase turnout among people of color — obviously, this either didn’t happen or, at least, it didn’t happen as dramatically as they’d hoped.
But why? Did Black & Latinx voters who “stayed home,” as the Post puts it, really “cripple” a campaign that would have been perfectly fine? Was voter apathy really the reason that 2016’s turnout was lower overall than previous presidential elections?
Or perhaps it’s the democrats’ fault for abandoning their voters?
The Two-Party Choice
Simply Isn’t Meaningful, Anymore
Instead of staring blankly as the US hemorrhages what’s left of its voter turnout, helplessly wondering why young folk & people of color are so damned “apathetic,” maybe we should admit this is a chronic condition of our so-called democracy and — since this was the trend before many of us were born — understand that it is very likely a problem, not with the voters, but with the system itself.
Now, what might make eligible voters — particularly, young, Black, & Latinx voters — disinterested in participating in the democratic process? The obvious reason would be the same reason that any group would feel disinterested — the process doesn’t offer them anything meaningful enough to motivate them. So — what might be meaningful enough to motivate young, Black, & Latinx voters to participate?
Young, Black, & Latinx Voters
Statistically, Want to Take a Left Turn
It’s not exactly a secret that — in the United States, at least — millennials at-large & non-white demographics both tend to fall quite a bit to the left of center. How left, you ask? Polling shows that majorities of both Black & Latinx say that the US “should help more needy people even if it means going deeper in debt,” while only 1/3 of whites say the same. Black & Latinx respondents were also more likely than whites to favor expanding public access to healthcare & raising the minimum wage — they’re more likely to say we should take a softer approach to immigration, less likely to want to increase military spending, & more likely to list unemployment & poverty as the most important political issues.
Like Black & Latinx voters, polling shows millennials landing consistently to the left of previous generations, which explains how Senator Bernie Sanders attracted more young voters than Clinton & Trump — combined. Among voters under 30, one poll showed that more had a favorable view of socialism than had a favorable view of capitalism, while other surveys show economic issues, such as unemployment & income inequality, are seen as important by today’s young people.
The US Political Spectrum
Is Strangling its Voters
Democrats pretty much abandoned the leftist ideas of Roosevelt’s New Deal in 1968, when they told young leftist, anti-war, & civil rights activists to get stuffed & lost to Nixon by shifting to the center. Turnout — nationally & among young people — has been decreasing ever since. The neoliberal policies of the “new democrats” don’t feel like a meaningful alternative to the republican strain of more-or-less authoritarian capitalism — or, at least, it isn’t meaningful enough to mobilize the unemployed, indebted young people, people of color, & others who are exploited by it.
Whether the United States’ authoritarian capitalism is a bit more or less capitalist or authoritarian is simply not a very meaningful choice for those who are anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, or both.
A Brief Food-Related Analogy
to Explore Voters’ Reluctance
Think of it this way — imagine that you’re a vegetarian and you’re a part of some kind of democratic organization, where you go to meetings & eat snacks. Now, say they’re holding a vote about what to keep stocked in the community-fridge — but, because of the way this organization is set up, the two options are going to be some kind of meat or fish. As a vegetarian, would you be excited to vote? Of course not! Even if you had an opinion on the differences between the cruelty of slaughterhouses versus fishing, you still wouldn’t feel super pumped about the whole thing, would you? It’s not that you don’t care what you eat — the opposite is true, in fact. The issue is that, unless you compromise your basic principles about eating, neither option is particularly compelling.
Now, replace “vegetarian” with “millions of US voters” & “meat & fish” with “republicans & democrats” — that is why no one comes to the United States’ crappy meetings, anymore. The 2 parties we get to choose from & their often suspiciously similar policies (which are actively failing us) just aren’t that attractive to a lot of us.
Quit Blaming the Voters!
Now that we’ve gathered some perspective by looking at the historical trends, polling data, & the expanding spectrum of political ideas, I’d like to bring us back to the question that the article began with — whether fewer people voting is the fault of the people or the fault of the system. CNN & the Washington Post can, of course, blame whatever & whoever they’d like for their failure to predict the elections’ results — it helps them sleep. Nonetheless, I must ask — is it fair to hold young voters & people of color responsible for being subjected to trends that started before they were born? And is it rational to expect them to defy statistics?
Those who want to actually fix the situation must stop blaming groups that have not typically had the power to fix the problem — people of color & young people, for example — and begin directing their stares at those parties & officials who use their power to maintain it. Now, I’m not a “political analyst” or anything — but I suspect that, if people were able to choose between policies they actually believed could improve their lives & communities, the voting booths would become a pretty popular place to be…
Recent Articles by John Laurits
FBI, CIA, & NSA: No Evidence Russia Hacked the Election & More (1/8)
BREAKING: “Intelligence” Finds New Evidence on Russian Hacks (1/6)
The Math of Cutting Food Stamps & Why That Would Be Insane (1/05)
Recent Polls Say Nobody Else Trusts the Media, Either (12/30)
US Elections, “Populism,” & the Growing Frustration w/ Capitalism (12/23)
Return of the Blacklist: What’s Next — Book Burning? (12/15)
Counter-Propaganda Bill Quietly Creates US Propaganda Factory (12/11)
#DAPL Easement Denied & What That Means (12/4)
Real News or Fake News: Who Gets to Decide? (11/20)
Math Says Clinton Defeated Herself — Not Third-Parties (11/11)
The Land Beneath the Pipeline (11/8)
The US Media is as Guilty as the Police at Standing Rock (10/31)
US Claims Russia is Influencing the Election by Telling the Truth? (10/12)
*If you appreciated this article, please consider buying John a cup of coffee at this link to his PayPal or, if you find yourself enjoying his articles often (& if you have the means), consider pledging a monthly $1 or $3, using John’s Patreon page…