In 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain with over double the electoral votes, and almost 10 million more popular votes. The Democrats had control of the legislative and executive branches, with major left-leaning justices like Ginsburg in the judicial. Republicans were taken aback, they were weak, and they realized they needed a change.
Major conservative names like Rush Limbaugh called for a conservative re-evaluation of the party, and the era of Tea Party protests and Koch-endorsed politicians began. Albeit losing their bid for the White House in 2012, the conservatives within the Republican party were triumphant in filling House and Senate seats with far-right representatives. It seemed inevitable that this success would pave the way for far-right candidates such as Ted Cruz and Scott Walker to take the Republican nomination in 2016. But alas, Donald Trump secured the nomination months before the Republican National Convention, surprising party elites who had been pushing staunch, conservative candidates for the past 8 years. But maybe this should have been less surprising than it was.
It's hard to deny that the Republican Party has been shifting right on the party spectrum. This article from the Washington Post in 2012 analyzes this shift, noting major changes in policy and comparing old platforms to new agendas. There are plenty of theories as to why the G.O.P. allowed such a shift, but what's more important to note (for the purpose of this post) is that, for decades, and especially in recent years, moderate Republicans have been alienated from their party. Trump was a gift to these lost central voters, who had been craving a Republican who wasn't extremely polarized to the right.
Trump's nomination was a message to the Republican party: the people aren't following the forced push to the right, and the future of the Republican party is going to require accommodating to these moderate voters.
Contrary to the Republican realignment, Democrats were united in 2008 under Barack Obama. In 2008, Obama appealed to moderates who were looking for a drastic change from the Bush administration. In 2012, he shifted to a more progressive agenda, outwardly supporting gay marriage and encouraging stricter environmental policy. Albeit unknowingly, in moving left, Obama revitalized the progressive movement within the Democratic party.
In 2016, the progressives were looking for someone who would carry their ideals to the White House. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist and long time member of the progressive movement, offered a platform progressives could get behind. And although this was powerful during the primaries, it proved detrimental to Clinton in the general.
Millennials, which made up a majority of Sanders' support and were the target of much of Clinton's campaigning in the general election, sent a message in trying to nominate Sanders and refusing to support Clinton: The Democratic Party needed to go progressive to get their votes. The fact that Clinton didn't get the turn out from millennials she needed indicates how little the Democrats listened to the message.
The way I see it, Clinton had two main chances to demonstrate that she would represent progressives in the White House. The first: the DNC. Rather than trying to maintain a moderate agenda, it may have been beneficial for Clinton to try and introduce policies, like cracking down on Wall Street corruption, to attract Sanders supporters. Additionally, working with Bernie to write a more pro-Clinton speech could have helped shift the attitude of anti-Clinton progressives, seeing as Sanders' speech was deemed unconvincing to most of his supporters. The second chance was in selecting her Vice President. In picking Tim Kaine, a moderate, "technically pro-choice but personally pro-life", white, male candidate, Clinton was clearly trying to cater to the fence-sitting voters who wanted a Democrat they could get behind. And while this may not have been a mistake in trying to garner middle-of-the-road supporters, it certainly alienated progressives who were looking for someone that strongly represented their views.
In conclusion, the state of each political party drastically impacted the environment candidates had to campaign in. Trump, a candidate that moderate Republicans had been craving, was able to take the establishment by surprise. Conservatives who thought he was too moderate may not have liked him, but there was no way they were voting for Clinton, allowing Trump to take the majority of Republican votes in November. But even though Republicans craved a moderate, many young Democrats began craving more left-wing politicians. Clinton didn't satisfy this need, and when she could have made changes that would appeal to progressives, her campaign went a different direction. Unlike with Trump, these progressives didn't vote for Clinton out of spite for the other candidate; they simply didn't vote.
However, the real developments with party politics didn't occur last year, but will occur in the future. It will be interesting to see how Paul Ryan and Republicans adjust to Trump's presidency and moderate policies, while Chuck Schumer and Democrats determine how they will attract millennial voters in the future.
Below is the mind map for this week. I hope you like it!
