2016 came as a big shock to many Democrats as Hillary Clinton led in virtually every poll leading up to Election Day and then fell to a shock defeat against Republican Donald Trump. However, this election loss was a result of one or two very simple facts that would have denied Hillary Clinton the Presidency in any national election since 2006. The truth is that America no longer has an appetite for her brand of politics, and her lack of personal charisma and ability to connect with voters sealed her fate.
2006 was a bulwark mid-term cycle for Democrats. They took back the House and Senate with sweeping victories: gaining 30 seats in the House of Representatives and 6 in the Senate. They even added 6 more state governorships than they had the year before. The reason for this success was twofold: first, America was sick of the Iraq War and was never going to vote for Republican Candidates who were so in bed with that decision, and secondly, because Democrats nominated true progressive candidates, which stirred up the base and put the entire liberal blogosphere on the map. Never before had traditionally Democratic voters, specifically young people, been so enthused for a mid-term election, and the results were reflected in the results. While eventually retaining his seat with a last ditch bid as an Independent, Democrats in Connecticut even managed to primary long term moderate Senator Joe Lieberman, who came to be seen as a traitor to progressive causes.
The momentum continued in 2008 for progressives: Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination for President, and then won a landslide victory over centrist war hero John McCain. Democratic enthusiasm was up and progressive ideas were gaining national traction for the first time since the 1960s.
As a result of this gulf of enthusiasm and movement towards a more progressive version of the Democratic party, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a centrist group of Dems, shut its doors only a couple years later because they could no longer raise money and were seen as irrelevant.
The story of the DLC pretty much begins with Bill and Hillary Clinton and ends between 2006 and 2008 with rise of progressivism. After 8 years of Reagan and 4 more of George H.W. Bush, Democrats looked like they would be in the wilderness forever; then, a group of centrists broke the Reagan coalition and seized control in 1992. Their platform was summed up by Bill Clinton at a 1991 DLC conference: “Our New Choice plainly rejects the old ideologies and the false choices they impose. Our agenda isn’t liberal or conservative. It is both, and it is different.” They were ironically called Democrats for the Leisure Class, and their lack of values reflected that. The DLC and the Clintons sold out unions, African Americans, and just about every progressive cause in the country in order to get the same white working class voters that lifted Donald Trump to victory last night. The strategy won. Bill Clinton carried states like Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, and West Virginia; states that modern day Democrats could not hope to win.
The Clintons carried this momentum into their time in the White House, passing laws that kept their political coalition together, but in aggregate did not help anyone. White working class voters were impressed by tough on crime bills that hurt the black community, but were screwed over by welfare to work and especially NAFTA. The only group that the Clintons definitely helped in the 1990s was the financial industry and Wall Street, specifically with the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. And yet, Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996 because of his personal charisma in spite of passing numerous policies that hurt the people in his coalition. Bill seemed genuine, sincere, and cool, and this carried him past boring politicians like Bush and Bob Dole.
So now we get to piece it all together and figure out why Hillary Clinton was never going to win in 2016. Hillary was a crucial figure in the unprincipled politics of the DLC in the 1990s, and she will forever be tied to those policies she helped pass. Yet, in the biggest “change” election in recollection, Democrats decided to give Hillary Clinton a lifetime achievement nomination because party insiders liked her, because she was a feminist icon in the 1990s, and because “she worked so hard and is qualified, so therefore she deserves to break the glass ceiling.” I don’t know how many times I saw posted on social media today “Hillary worked so hard and yet the man got the job… all women know how that feels.” This is a simplistic scapegoat that seeks to point the blame at others and not search for an answer within. The reason Hillary did not win last night had nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with progressives staying home. The fired up base of 2006 and 2008, which voted at the polls in record numbers, was nowhere to be seen in 2016, because they had spent the last decade fighting to destroy DLC Democrats like Hillary Clinton. These progressives understood that a vote for Hillary Clinton was a vote for the first female President in US history, but it was also a vote for the financial industry and for unprincipled, calculated politics, which would shove real progressivism to the wayside for 8 years. And it would also be a vote for an extremely hawkish candidate who was an unrepentant defender of her vote for the Iraq War for years. Why in the world, would this enthusiastic progressive base turn out in droves for this candidate whose entire career had been built on the exact opposite of their progressive ideals?
Further, Clinton did not lose last night because of white working class voters, or men, or college educated women, or any other demographic. Donald Trump had fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012, and yet he beat Hillary Clinton because progressives refused to vote for a status quo politician that was hostile at best to every progressive cause of the last ten years: she voted for the War in Iraq, she was on Team Wall Street during the days of Occupy Wall Street, and she has merely tolerated Black Lives Matter during this election cycle. The Reagan Democrats are not swing voters anymore and every election cycle since 1992 the centrist Democrats have come home; there is no reason to think they will sit an election out or vote against their values for a Republican, especially one like Donald Trump. The crucial factor in every presidential election since 2000 has been which side energizes and turns out its base best, and Hillary had no chance at turning out anti-establishment Occupy Wall Street veterans or Black Lives Matter voters. These are people who do not feel like it is their civic duty to cast a vote for a candidate that is still hostile to their values, even if she is marginally friendlier than the Republican.
At the Daily Kos and other progressive communities, these lessons were internalized ten years ago. However, the party elites have always been more about the horse race than reality. They care only about having a President with a D in after their name rather than helping actual people by passing meaningful legislation. These party elites, embodied by those in the DNC, conspired with the mainstream media (a status quo protecting institution, not liberal or conservative) to nominate an unprincipled insider over the top of the liberal base. If you are someone struggling with student loans, or frustrated at police brutality and murders of black citizens, or believe there should be no compromise on single payer healthcare for every citizen, issues are all that is important, and it doesn’t matter if the obstructionism comes from an R or a D.
If Democrats want to lose again in 2020 they will nominate another centrist “safe” candidate. However, if they actually want to win elections from now on and see progressive change in this country, they will nominate true progressives who can campaign on good policy. Progressive policies are untouchable in the rest of the western world’s politics for a reason: a vast majority of the population benefits from the policies. Universal healthcare, free college tuition and other good populist, beneficial policies would become just as untouchable as Social Security and Medicare if they were honestly debated in US politics. But to actually get change like that in America, you have to nominate a progressive, not another wishy-washy career politician with no core values. T