Populism vs. Establishment

[Vosem]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

[Vosem]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

The two most anti establishment GOP candidates garnered 70% of the total primary vote. Trump combined with third party voters in the general election came to 52% of the electorate, and while many people despise the political establishment as a whole, that doesn't mean that they weren't personally happy with the congressman representing their district.

This election was suppose to be a boring Bush vs. Clinton rematch but instead turned into an outsider campaign by two of the most unlikely figures to ever hit American politics (Trump and Sanders) leading the way. Most people didn't even expect Cruz to strike such a strong cord with the electorate.

Cruz's campaign was powered mostly by establishmentarian Trump-opponents, though; his voters in the initial few states were social conservatives who weren't particularly concerned with the establishment/populist divide. Cruz certainly entered in May 2015 intending to run a populist campaign, but he'd backed away from that by November (watch some debates from that time), much less the start of the primaries.

On the contrary, if people are happy with the people representing them, they aren't exactly voting against the political establishment, are they?

Trump and Sanders might've seemed like unlikely figures in 2013, but they both benefited greatly from the media environment (in Trump's case), and a lack of realistic other alternatives to Hillary (in Sanders' case). And neither won any resounding mandates from their party; both demonstrated that their supporters were clearly outnumbered. Cruz was already seen as a serious possibility by late 2013 and nobody from that time would've been surprised if you told them he finished second (unlike Trump in first, which would indeed have shocked people from that time).

[Vosem]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

The two most anti establishment GOP candidates garnered 70% of the total primary vote. Trump combined with third party voters in the general election came to 52% of the electorate, and while many people despise the political establishment as a whole, that doesn't mean that they weren't personally happy with the congressman representing their district.

This election was suppose to be a boring Bush vs. Clinton rematch but instead turned into an outsider campaign by two of the most unlikely figures to ever hit American politics (Trump and Sanders) leading the way. Most people didn't even expect Cruz to strike such a strong cord with the electorate.

Cruz's campaign was powered mostly by establishmentarian Trump-opponents, though; his voters in the initial few states were social conservatives who weren't particularly concerned with the establishment/populist divide. Cruz certainly entered in May 2015 intending to run a populist campaign, but he'd backed away from that by November (watch some debates from that time), much less the start of the primaries.

On the contrary, if people are happy with the people representing them, they aren't exactly voting against the political establishment, are they?

Trump and Sanders might've seemed like unlikely figures in 2013, but they both benefited greatly from the media environment (in Trump's case), and a lack of realistic other alternatives to Hillary (in Sanders' case). And neither won any resounding mandates from their party; both demonstrated that their supporters were clearly outnumbered. Cruz was already seen as a serious possibility by late 2013 and nobody from that time would've been surprised if you told them he finished second (unlike Trump in first, which would indeed have shocked people from that time).

Cruz was clearly running a campaign from the get go on anti Washington DC fervor. His base of support were evangelical Christians but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was running a campaign centered around being an outsider candidate.

You're getting it mixed up. Just because say, voters in my district are happy with Dana Rohrabacher doesn't mean they don't simultaneously despise congress as a whole; because they clearly do. Approving of one or multiple people in congress can't be extrapolated to prove that people approve of a majority of the 435 representatives as a whole. Congressional approval rating typically hovers around 15%. The only people more hated than congressmen are lobbyists and bankers.

It was virtually impossible for Trump to win a resounding mandate given that he was running in the largest field in GOP primary history and because even though people liked his message, he was stuck with high unfavorbles throughout the entire campaign because he was seen as an asshole by a lot of people. Bernie Sanders did amazing given that: 1. He's 100 years old 2. He had no establishment backing 3. He's a socialist 4. He had no name recognition at the start 5. He's a Jew; and likely nonreligious given his past statements. The fact that this guy couldn't be taken out early on Bill Bradley style really shows how popular his message was. Hillary Clinton had high favorables from Democrats throughout the primary process so you can't simply attribute it all to Sanders being the alternative.

Cruz was running a campaign from the get-go on anti-Washington fervor, but he dropped that once Trump crowded that space. By November he was talking about social conservatism and simply doing a direct critique of Trump; looking at his patterns of support, you see he did well in establishmentarian areas, especially in the Midwest. Counting Cruz's support as "populist" is simply dishonest.

Oh, I agree that people hate Congress as a whole. But it's ridiculous to say that a year is very anti-establishment when reelection rates aren't just high (they're always high), but the highest in a generation. I voted in 2016, but the last time they were as high as in 2016 was years before I was born.

People didn't like Trump's message. Polls had him losing head-to-heads with every major candidate in the field except Jeb Bush. Trump got 39% because that was the number who wanted him. (In all honesty, probably a little less, since he was unopposed in the last 11 states and those tended to be western states which are a little less pro-Trump than average). You can tack on a couple percent from people like Rand Paul who also count as anti-establishment, but basically the number was in the low 40s. Bernie did well when you look at it that way, but it's less remarkable when you consider that he was an incumbent US Senator and Hillary Clinton (who is deeply divisive, even within the Democratic Party) had no serious opponent running besides him.

[Vosem]

2016 was the congressional election with the highest reelection rates in many years (since 1990, as a matter of fact). Anti-establishment candidates managed to score poorly in the popular vote in the Democratic primary (43%), Republican primary (39%), and general election (46%). I would say that the actual public mood in 2016 was very pro-establishment, and that oddities in the electoral system foisted a "populist" candidate on the electorate.

If the concept is the right one, there'd likely be a pro-establishment backlash, and Democrats would be ill-advised to go down that route. But we'll see.

The two most anti establishment GOP candidates garnered 70% of the total primary vote. Trump combined with third party voters in the general election came to 52% of the electorate, and while many people despise the political establishment as a whole, that doesn't mean that they weren't personally happy with the congressman representing their district.

This election was suppose to be a boring Bush vs. Clinton rematch but instead turned into an outsider campaign by two of the most unlikely figures to ever hit American politics (Trump and Sanders) leading the way. Most people didn't even expect Cruz to strike such a strong cord with the electorate.

Cruz's campaign was powered mostly by establishmentarian Trump-opponents, though; his voters in the initial few states were social conservatives who weren't particularly concerned with the establishment/populist divide. Cruz certainly entered in May 2015 intending to run a populist campaign, but he'd backed away from that by November (watch some debates from that time), much less the start of the primaries.

On the contrary, if people are happy with the people representing them, they aren't exactly voting against the political establishment, are they?

Trump and Sanders might've seemed like unlikely figures in 2013, but they both benefited greatly from the media environment (in Trump's case), and a lack of realistic other alternatives to Hillary (in Sanders' case). And neither won any resounding mandates from their party; both demonstrated that their supporters were clearly outnumbered. Cruz was already seen as a serious possibility by late 2013 and nobody from that time would've been surprised if you told them he finished second (unlike Trump in first, which would indeed have shocked people from that time).

Cruz was clearly running a campaign from the get go on anti Washington DC fervor. His base of support were evangelical Christians but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was running a campaign centered around being an outsider candidate.

You're getting it mixed up. Just because say, voters in my district are happy with Dana Rohrabacher doesn't mean they don't simultaneously despise congress as a whole; because they clearly do. Approving of one or multiple people in congress can't be extrapolated to prove that people approve of a majority of the 435 representatives as a whole. Congressional approval rating typically hovers around 15%. The only people more hated than congressmen are lobbyists and bankers.

It was virtually impossible for Trump to win a resounding mandate given that he was running in the largest field in GOP primary history and because even though people liked his message, he was stuck with high unfavorbles throughout the entire campaign because he was seen as an asshole by a lot of people. Bernie Sanders did amazing given that: 1. He's 100 years old 2. He had no establishment backing 3. He's a socialist 4. He had no name recognition at the start 5. He's a Jew; and likely nonreligious given his past statements. The fact that this guy couldn't be taken out early on Bill Bradley style really shows how popular his message was. Hillary Clinton had high favorables from Democrats throughout the primary process so you can't simply attribute it all to Sanders being the alternative.

Cruz was running a campaign from the get-go on anti-Washington fervor, but he dropped that once Trump crowded that space. By November he was talking about social conservatism and simply doing a direct critique of Trump; looking at his patterns of support, you see he did well in establishmentarian areas, especially in the Midwest. Counting Cruz's support as "populist" is simply dishonest.

Oh, I agree that people hate Congress as a whole. But it's ridiculous to say that a year is very anti-establishment when reelection rates aren't just high (they're always high), but the highest in a generation. I voted in 2016, but the last time they were as high as in 2016 was years before I was born.

People didn't like Trump's message. Polls had him losing head-to-heads with every major candidate in the field except Jeb Bush. Trump got 39% because that was the number who wanted him. (In all honesty, probably a little less, since he was unopposed in the last 11 states and those tended to be western states which are a little less pro-Trump than average). You can tack on a couple percent from people like Rand Paul who also count as anti-establishment, but basically the number was in the low 40s. Bernie did well when you look at it that way, but it's less remarkable when you consider that he was an incumbent US Senator and Hillary Clinton (who is deeply divisive, even within the Democratic Party) had no serious opponent running besides him.

Social conservatives don't like the Washington establishment either. Cruz speaking to those people doesn't mean that he wasn't speaking anti-establishment rhetoric.

If 2016 of all years wasn't the year of being against the Washington and financial establishment then I don't know what year would even come close to that. Was it 2012 when we had an incumbent president and a millionaire who said corporations were people? Was it 2008 when we had two senators running for President? 2004? 2000? There's absolutely no other year in recent American political history that had the same sense of unrepentant anger directed towards those in power the way 2016 was. Nothing even comes close to it.

Trump was actually more popular than Paul Ryan right when he won the nomination (Source). So what if Trump wasn't winning head to head against Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio? That likely had much more to do with his personality than his rhetoric given that his rhetoric on trade, entitlements, immigration, etc. actually lined up fairly well with what the republican base wanted. Besides these head to head match ups were meaningless given that Trump annihilated Jeb and Marco.

And Hillary Clinton wasn't that divisive of a figure within the Democratic Party itself. Even at her worst she was still 66% favorable among Democrats and leaning Dem independents (Source.)

Cruz did not run against the ideological Republican Party the way Trump did. He certainly criticized their tactics, but he was not an anti-Washington consensus candidate the way Trump was. I invite you to go back and compare their statements in debates, or stump speeches, or the areas in the primaries they were strong. This is a very clear-cut thing.

Literally any of those years were more anti-establishment than 2016. Pick any year at all since 1990; it was more anti-establishment than 2016. 2016 did see a lot of anger towards the establishment from certain circles, but it was remarkable just in how fine with how things were going a majority of the electorate was. Most years in American politics see a large majority desiring some kind of shift; status quo politics was strong in 2016.

"Meaningless"? We're talking about what motivated voters in one election, not a broad view of history. In the latter sense it is in fact meaningless. In the former sense they're quite meaningful, since they reveal a lot. Considering how incredibly poorly Trumpist, protectionist candidates did in Republican congressional primaries (literally 1 candidate, a guy in Louisiana, won, and nobody else; though there are a small number of incumbents with those views), it seems easy to conclude that that strain is very weak in the Republican Party. Or if a majority do hold those views they don't inform voting behavior, at least. (Similar to the way a majority of French people want less immigration but less than 40% would even consider voting Le Pen).

Hillary Clinton clearly inspired a great deal of hatred from certain wings in the party which not only voted against her twice (for Obama in '08 and Sanders in '16), but provided those candidacies with a great deal of enthusiasm. You're right that most Democrats were fine with her -- that's why she won a double-digit victory, after all. But there was (and remains) a minority who were assuredly not.

[Vosem]

I'm tired of responding to just paragraphs and paragraphs, so I'm just going to reiterate that populist candidates in America in 2016 almost uniformly lost congressional primaries in both parties and were fairly weak in both the presidential primaries and general election. The fact that Trump was buoyed by the system is what history will record, of course. Cruz ran a campaign "criticizing Washington", sure, but by that definition so did literally every candidate, including Hillary Clinton; Cruz's campaign did not at all reflect populist/Trumpist ideology. How much weight you want to give the former and how much weight you want to give the latter is up to you. I'll note that the last three open Republican primaries (2008/2012/2016) have all had very different ideological seams; we'll see if this difference is even a relevant one in a few years. I'm out.