Understanding the 2016 and 2018 elections 331Understanding the 2016 and 2018 Elections
In recent years, every election has been described as “the most important election
in American history.” And in truth, elections always matter because they determine
who exercises power in Washington—who sets government policy. During the 2016
campaign, for example, it seemed likely that America’s next president would appoint
several Supreme Court justices, leading to significant policy changes on issues like
abortion and affirmative action. Republican control of the presidency would make
it easier to repeal President Obama’s health care and financial reforms, as well as his
executive orders. As we discuss throughout this book, the election of Donald Trump in
2016 has brought many of these outcomes to pass.
The essential question in 2018 was whether voters would support the Trump-
Republican policy agenda of tax cuts, reductions in domestic spending and increases
in military spending, loosening of business and environmental regulations,
reestablishment of tariffs, further restrictions on immigration, and selection of
conservatives to the federal judiciary. For Democrats, 2018 represented an opportunity
to block this agenda, along with the possibility of leading investigations into the Trump
administration, provided they could regain control of at least one chamber of Congress.
In political terms, the 2018 elections were scrutinized to see if the patterns seen in
the 2016 elections would prove lasting or transitory. Would Republicans retain gains
in rural and suburban areas, and among less-educated voters? Would the gender gap
widen or narrow? Would minority turnout, which dropped in 2016, increase to earlier
levels? The answers would determine which party held majorities in the House and
Senate, and thereby shape the trajectory of government policy over the next two years.The Path to 2018: The 2016 Elections
The first thing to understand about the 2016 elections is their uniqueness. For the
first time in 50 years, a major party nominated a presidential candidate with no prior
political experience, Republican Donald Trump. Trump also ran a unique campaign,
with limited advertising, a weak ground game, and a willingness to deviate from
the standard Republican platform on issues such as trade, civil liberties, and foreign
policy. He was the least popular major-party presidential nominee of all time, and
many Republican elected officials and party leaders refused to support Trump in the
general election. Democrats in 2016 selected Hillary Clinton, a former First Lady,
senator, and secretary of state, as their nominee. This choice was historic: Clinton was
the first woman to lead a major-party presidential ticket in America. Even so, Clinton’s
popularity was only somewhat higher than Trump’s.
In retrospect, the conditions of the 2016 Republican nomination were ideal for a
candidate like Trump. None of the other Republican candidates had the combination
of organization, campaign funds, endorsements, and voter appeal needed to claim
the status of frontrunner. Among these candidates, Trump stood out because of his
preexisting high name recognition, his popularity among a large group of Republican
primary voters, and his ability to largely self-fund his nomination campaign.
In congressional elections, attention focused largely on Senate races, as Democrats
needed to gain only five Senate seats to take majority control of the chamber (four if a
Democrat won the presidency). In a reversal of 2014, the fundamentals in 2016 favored
Democrats, who had only 10 seats to defend. In contrast, 22 Republican senators wereANALYZE THE ISSUES AND
OUTCOMES IN THE 2016 AND
2018 ELECTIONSElections matter, especially when
they determine who controls the
congressional agenda. Republican
gains in the Senate in 2014 led to Mitch
McConnell (R-KY) taking over as
Senate Majority Leader.Full_10_APT_64431_ch09_296-339.indd 331 16/11/18 1:46 PM