Democratic Party relied more on women and Americans with advanced college degrees, while the GOP depended on men and voters with some college experience
The 2016 election not only altered the political parties’ hold on the Electoral College map, it altered the parties themselves. WSJ’s Aaron Zitner explains on Lunch Break with Tanya Rivero. Photo: EPA
The 2016 election not only altered the political parties’ hold on the Electoral College map. It altered the parties themselves.
Women constitute a larger share of the Democratic Party, based on votes cast for Hillary Clinton. The proportion of wealthier Americans and those with advanced college degrees also expanded, compared with the 2012 election.
Men make up a bigger proportion of the Republican Party, based on votes that President-elect Donald Trump received, as do voters with some college experience but no four-year degree. Many of those voters have two-year associate degrees that provide an entry into many types of skilled labor.
The picture of the two parties comes from exit polls conducted during the past two elections. Those polls show whether Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton won a particular voter group. White voters without a four-year college degree, commonly called working-class whites, favored Mr. Trump by 39 percentage points, one reason that he won Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, states where those voters are plentiful.
THE TRUMP TRANSITION
In addition, the polls show the makeup of each political party—what share of its members come from which voter groups. Under Mr. Trump, for example, Republicans drew almost half their presidential votes—some 48%—from working-class whites. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, drew only 20% of her votes from this group.
In 1992, Bill Clinton had to pander to white bigots to win the presidency. In 2016, Hillary can call them what they are.
The day after the first presidential debate, all anyone wanted to talk about was the coup de grace: Alicia Machado, “Miss Housekeeping,” “Where did you find this? Where did you find this?” But the most remarkable exchange of that night had come earlier, when with a few blunt words Hillary Clinton reduced Donald Trump to peevish incoherence and, remarkably, conveyed the distance her party has traveled in the past quarter-century. If you listened carefully, you would have heard a kind of Sister Souljah moment, in reverse.
It happened after moderator Lester Holt pressed Trump on his birtherism. “Mr. Trump,” he said, “for five years you perpetuated a false claim of the nation’s first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: the president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?”
Trump tried to shift blame, pinning birtherism on the Clinton camp and its conduct during the 2008 Democratic primary. This is false. But more interesting than Trump’s answer was Clinton’s response. She didn’t just dismiss his claim. She pushed back in the strongest way possible. Trump “has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen,” Clinton said. “There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted.” She continued, tying the birtherism to a larger critique: “[R]emember, Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination, because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy. He actually was sued twice by the Justice Department. So he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior.” Clinton’s message was simple: From the beginning of his business career to the launch of his political one, Trump swam in a rank pool of prejudice and racist insinuation. And then, with Trump established as both a beneficiary and catalyst of American bigotry, she dropped the story of Machado, a former Miss Universe, on his head. “[O]ne of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest,” Clinton said. “He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman ‘Miss Piggy.’ Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she was Latina.”
The cyberattack aimed at the Democratic Party is evolving in some unsavory ways.
Less than a day after a hacker, or group of hackers who go by the name, Guccifer 2.0 published personal information belonging to high-ranking members of the party, some lawmakers are getting bombarded with ugly messages.
Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, said in a message to colleagues on Saturday that’s she has received “scores of mostly obscene and sick calls, voicemails and text messages.”
The representative from California was one of nearly 200 party officials whose personal emails and phone numbers were published online as a result of the hacking at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Pelosi called the cyber breach “an electronic Watergate break-in,” and a “sad course of events” for the party and the nation.
Given the raucous and unconventional nature of this year’s presidential race, lawmakers fear the cyberattack is an attempt to influence the election in November. The fallout forced former Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to announce her resignation just before the party’s national convention last month.
Her departure came after leaked internal messages revealed suggestions that the party favored presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her former rival, Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.
Lawmakers fear this is just the beginning.
An emergency meeting among party officials and cybersecurity experts was expected to be held Saturday.
Michelle Alexander, legal scholar, human rights activist, and author of a recent essay in the Nation titled, “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote,” joins Chris Hayes to talk about the presidential campaign, criminal justice, race, and the Democratic Party.
Bernie Sanders and his supporters don’t consider moving Hillary Clinton to the left a goal or even really a victory of any kind. They want to change America, not the stated positions of another candidate. And while he may not be beating her in the delegate race at the moment, there’s an argument that Sanders has already won by getting the issues he cares about into the political blood stream.
If Sanders hadn’t been in the race, for example, would Clinton have taken a firm position on the Keystone XL pipeline, the minimum wage and the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP, Asia trade deal?
In the early weeks and months of the campaign, she was vague on all of them.
“I can’t comment yet, because I haven’t seen it,” Clinton said last July in response to a question about her position on the trade deal.
Clinton had praised the deal in its early stages when she was secretary of state, but she spent the first six months of her campaign saying she couldn’t weigh in without seeing the details of a final deal.
South Carolina’s Democratic primary on Saturday will test the strength of Hillary Clinton’s support among one of her core voting groups, African-Americans, and show whether Sen. Bernie Sanders can connect with young minority voters as he has with young white voters.
The state is likely to be the most hospitable for Mrs. Clinton on the nominating calendar so far. African-Americans made up more than half the voting pool in the state’s 2008 Democratic primary, and national polls show that these voters strongly support the former secretary of state.
Mr. Sanders’s best hope is to ring up large margins among young voters, who flocked to his campaign in the Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada contests. But South Carolina has a far larger share of African-Americans — about 28% of the state’s population in 2014, according to the U.S. Census Bureau—than the earlier contests, which could benefit Mrs. Clinton.
As the results come in on Saturday night, after polls close at 7 p.m. Eastern time, the following regions will give clues to the outcome:
Charleston County and the Coastal Growth Centers: The coastal population centers are drawing new residents at a high rate, many of them former northerners. If Mr. Sanders is going to keep the race close, he will need to post strong numbers in these areas.