The question is, was 2016 a similar referendum on the Democratic Party embracing a two far left stance?
No. This was not much of a policy election. There were no spirited debates on things like trickle down economics or plausible ways forward on healthcare. This election mostly centered around a few other things, mostly character, as each candidate sought to make the other unacceptable to voters
(Trump = unfit, Hillary = corrupt, etc). When it did come to policy, the main topics were mostly trade and immigration.
I'd say the overall theme was globalization and multiculturalism, which trade and immigration represented. Trade and immigration are one thing that the establishment wings of
both parties have largely seen eye-to-eye on. However, there is an important caveat to what may look like a rejection of these issues: The young vs the old. Young people (18 - 44) basically voted overwhelmingly in favor of multiculturalism, but where trade mattered most, they did not (rustbelt). Older people (45+) resisted both.
Nope. In fact, Trump ended up adopting some policy from Democrats. Indifference on gay marriage, supports large infrastructure spending, leaving popular social programs alone, child care.
I think it's important to remember that Trump absolutely bombed among the 18 - 44 electorate, with the worst losses being among the youngest voters. He lost among
almost every substantial growing part of the electorate while consolidating support among the shrinking parts. The thing about Reagan is that he helped sell a new brand of conservatism to over a generation's worth of voters, including the young, Trump essentially energized the existing elderly GOP coalition and picked up some Democrat WCWs.
I would have to ask - what happens in 10 years, when conservatives/Republicans lose an entire decade's worth of their most stalwart supporters, and Democrats/liberals come to command the support of the entire 18 - 50 age bloc? I think there is little doubt that the GOP is the nation's current majority party in terms of who holds the most power, but the GOP coalition is still aging and dying off much faster than Democrats, and I have a feeling the GOP has already hit it's peak and the descent will be faster than the ascent.
In my opinion, Trump's win this year is reminiscent of Carter in 1976, in that the previously-dominant party had its last hurrah as it currently existed. After Carter, Democrats had to change to begin winning again. And like that, Republicans need to change to win again. They have resisted significantly so far and because of that, they are bringing in less new voters than Democrats. I think the effect of this has shown itself for over a generation. Since 1992, the GOP has not won a presidential election by more than 2.5%. In fact, in this time, they has lost the popular vote in all but 1 presidential election. Both Bush and Trump were first elected against the will of the majority of America.
You could argue their power at the state level, but Democrats were also dominant like that up until 1994, and then it all came crashing down as generations of increasingly Republican voters overwhelmed Democrats and their dominance in the South began crumbling.
Personally I believe that, like now, Trump will continue to be an unpopular figure and in all likelihood will cost Republicans substantial representation in 2018 and 2020, leading up to redistricting, resulting in the GOP no longer being able to inflict maximum pain via gerrymandering on Democrats. Thus, in my opinion, the 2020s will not be friendly to the GOP by any means.
