The Meaning, Consequences and Lessons of Trump‘s Victory: Chapter I. The Election Outcome

Note of the Editorial Board: The following document is an extensive study of the consequences of Trump's victory. It contains 12 figures and 5 tables. The figures can only be viewed in the pdf version of the document here for technical reasons.


* * * * *




The outcome of the US presidential election has been a surprise and shock to many. The most right-wing and reactionary candidate for several decades – probably since Barry Goldwater ran in 1964 – defeated an opposition composed of the organized workers’ movement, the Afro-American and Latino mass organizations, and even the majority of the ruling class (as was reflected in the opposition to Trump not only in the Democratic Party, of course, but also within the Republican Party’s establishment).


Naturally, such an outcome needs to be explained in its own right, but this is also crucial in order to elaborate an analysis of the character of the future Trump administration and new attacks on the US working class as well as on the international working class which we can expect.




1.             Trumps Elected President despite Losing the Popular Vote




The first statement which we have to make relates to the fact the Clinton and not Trump won the largest plurality of the votes! While all the votes still have not been counted (in itself a testimony about the backward character of US “democracy”), Clinton currently leads Trump by more than 2 million votes (64,223,958 to 62,206,395 million votes or 48.1% to 46.6%)! [1]


David Wasserman, the editor of Cook Political Report who is closely monitoring the counting at the polls, has commented that, as those states which still have not been fully counted are states with a strong lead for Clinton, it is possible that, when the final results are attained, Clinton may have an even bigger lead.


This is, in fact, a powerful example how undemocratic America’s praised “democracy” is. This anomaly is the result of the reactionary “Electoral College” system which gives very different weight to the votes of people in different states. Concretely, small and rurally-dominated states have proportionally more weight than bigger and more urban states.


Characteristically, when the “founding fathers” devised the Electoral College system and wrote it into the Constitution of 1787, they justified it by arguing that the purpose was “to prevent mob rule”!


As a side note we call attention to the fact that this is not the first time that the winning candidate received fewer votes than the runner up. In the 2000 presidential elections, the Democratic candidate Al Gore received more votes than the elected President George W. Bush.


Furthermore, nearly 100 million eligible voters stayed away from the polls on Election Day, i.e., about 43% of the eligible voters. This means that Trump was elected by receiving only 26.8% of the eligible voters.


Not only does this demonstrate the undemocratic nature of the institution of the US presidential election but it potentially could also prove to be a factor in that it could potentially undermine the democratic legitimacy of Trump’s election in the eyes of large sectors of the people, and might encourage protests against his administration in the future.




2.             An Important Lesson: Bourgeois Democracy is Essentially Undemocratic




In addition, we shouldn’t forget another aspect of the undemocratic character of US democracy. At least 11 million undocumented migrants – who are not US citizens, of course -- had no chance of participating in the vote. But neither could those millions who are victims of the "felony disenfranchisement" – the reactionary law which bans prisoners and ex-felons from participating in elections. As a consequence of this draconian law, about 6.1 million US citizens are not allowed to vote. [2] Among them the share of black people is particularly high, as they are a primary target of state repression. As a result, 13% of the adult black male population does not have the right to vote! [3]


Finally, there is a massive disparity in the rate of voting based on class and ethnicity. While participation in the elections was high among the wealthy, it was much lower among the lower strata of the working class (See Figure 1 and 2).


Sean McElwee, a social scientist who published a number of studies on the relation of income and voting, reports: “After studying 30 years of data at the state level, William Franko, Nathan Kelly and Christopher Witko could not find any year in which low-income voter turnout was higher than high-income voter turnout. Recent research by Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels, and Martin Gilens suggests that the super-rich members of the top 1 and .1 percent turned out to vote in 2008 at a whopping 99 percent. This compares to only 49 percent turnout for citizens earning less than $10,000. In midterm elections, the voting gap is even more pronounced. In 2010, only 26.7 percent of citizens earning less than $10,000 voted, while 61.6 percent of those making $150,000 voted. Voter turnout is heavily biased towards high-income voters. [4] Concerning the presidential election in 2012, McElwee found out that 80.2% of those making more than $150,000 a year voted, while only 46.9% of those making less than $10,000 voted. [5]




Figure 1. Voters Turnout, by Household Income, 2008-2012 [6]





Figure 2. Share of Voters and Share of Population, by Household Income, 2014 [7]







Likewise, voting participation is much higher among the white population than among Afro-Americans and Latinos. In Figure 3, which compares voting rates in congressional elections from 1978 to 2014, we can see that whites’ participation was always higher than that of other groups. In 2014, 45.8% of the whites voted, but only 40.6% of the blacks and 27% of the Latinos. [8]




Figure 3. Voting Rates in Congressional Elections by Race and Ethnicity: 1978 to 2014 [9]





The reason for this gross inequality is that the share of middle class and wealthy people is much higher among whites than among Afro-Americans and Latinos, and for middle class and wealthy people it is much easier to be registered to vote.


It is therefore unsurprisingly that, in general, non-voters have a more progressive outlook than voters. A number of reports show that voters are more likely to oppose unions, government-sponsored health insurance and federal assistance for schools than non-voters. [10]


In short, the US presidential election is a powerful demonstration that bourgeois democracy – even in the so-called “motherland of democracy” – is undemocratic. It gives advantages to the dominating and wealthy classes and groups relative to the broad mass of the people, i.e., the working class and the oppressed.


Those who want to fight for authentic democracy must have no illusions about the nature of bourgeois democracy, which has always been and can only be undemocratic, as it grants privileges the wealthy and discriminates the poor and oppressed. Real democracy can only exist in society where the means of production as well as the media are not privately owned by small minority but are collectively owned and controlled by the laboring population.




3.             Why Did Trump Win? How did the Working Class and the Oppressed Vote?




There are clear differences in the voting behavior between the different classes and social layers as well as the different national/ethnical groups. According to US election exit data compiled by CNN, among white voters – who made up 70% of the total election votes – 58% voted for Trump, while 37% cast their ballot for Hillary Clinton. By gender, among white men, 63% voted for Trump and 31% for Clinton. Among white women, 53% cast their ballot for Trump and, perhaps surprisingly, only 43% for Clinton.


African-Americans, who made up 12% of the vote, overwhelmingly supported Clinton (88%; 8% voted for Trump). Latino voters, who made up 11% of the vote, largely supported the Democratic candidate too (65%; 29% voted for Trump). [11]


When we classify voters by income, we see that among those who earn less than $30,000 a year Clinton led by 53%-41% and among those with an income of $30,000 – $49,999 by 51%-42%. These two groups represent nearly half of the total population (but not the voters!), and the majority of the lower and middle strata of the working class, as we showed above in Figure 2. However, Trump received a majority of the votes – albeit here the race was relatively close – among the middle and higher income groups, i.e., the upper layer of the working class, the middle class and the bourgeoisie (see Table 1).




Table 1. Voting Preferences by Income Groups, Presidential Election 2016 [12]


                                                                Clinton                                  Trump


Less than $30,000                             53%                                        41%


$30,000 – $49,999                              51%                                        42%


$50,000 – $99,999                              46%                                        50%


$100,000 – $199,999                         47%                                        48%


$200,000 – $249,999                         48%                                        49%


$249,999 and more                           46%                                        48%




Liberal journalists around the world attributed Trump’s victory to support he received from “uneducated” workers. We will deal with the voting behavior of the white working class more in detail below. For now we only want to refute the myth that education level in itself was a decisive factor in favor of Trump. It is true, as is seen in Table 2, that white voters without a college degree voted overwhelmingly for Trump (67% to 28% for Clinton). A smaller majority among white college graduates also voted for Trump (49% to 45% for Clinton). However, among the non-white college graduates Clinton won decisively (71% to 23% for Trump) and among non-whites without a college degree her lead was even greater (75% to 20%) – despite the so-called “lack of education” of the latter.




Table 2. Voting Preferences by Education, Presidential Election 2016 [13]


                                                                                                                Clinton                                  Trump


White College Graduates                                                                45%                                        49%


White without a College Degree                                                   28%                                        67%


Non-White College Graduates                                                      71%                                        23%


Non-White without a College Degree                                         75%                                        20%




These statistics show that the most important factors in voting preferences were not education but class and national/ethnic background.




Millions of Workers and Oppressed Deserted the Democratic Party (But Didn’t Vote for Trump)




Since the elections the liberal intelligentsia tends to accuse the white male working class as being responsible for Trump’s triumph. This is, of course, nothing else but an attempt to deflect attention from the real culprit of the electoral outcome: Clinton and the Wall Street-connected Democratic Party establishment.


First, the major shift in this election was not a rise in votes for the Republican Party’s candidate but rather the collapse in support for the Democratic Party’s contender. Look at the numbers: the Republican candidate in 2008, John McCain received 59.9 million votes (or 26.5% of the electorate). Mitt Romney got 60.9 (25.9% of the electorate) in 2012. And Donald Trump received, as we showed above, 62.2 million votes or 26.8% of the electorate. So we see that the Republican contender garnered, more or less, the same number of votes in the presidential elections of 2008, 2012 and 2016!


On the Democratic side, the picture was very different. Barack Obama received 69.4 million votes in 2008 and 65.9 million votes in 2012. However, Hillary Clinton got only 64.2 million votes on 9 November – 5.2 million less than Obama in 2008 despite a growing number of potential voters!


The explanation for this rapid decline is very simple. The Obama administration disappointed many of workers and ethnic minorities. During the 8 years of the Obama administration, employment declined to unprecedented levels (i.e., unemployment rose dramatically, something which the official figures hide). Nearly all of the new jobs which have been created since the Great Recession in 2008/09 – 11.5 million out of 11.6 million jobs – have gone to the minority of employees with some college education. [14]


At the same time, real wages declined for most people. American working and middle-class households experienced a serious decline in income from 1999 to 2014. Nationally, the median income of middle-income households decreased from $77,898 in 1999 to $72,919 in 2014, a loss of 6%. The median incomes of lower-income households even fell by 10% – from $26,373 to $23,811 – over this period. [15]


During the Obama presidency, the situation of black people didn’t improve at all – despite having a “black” president. For example, the official unemployment rate for blacks averaged 8.7% in the first six months of 2016 compared with an unemployment rate of 4.3% for whites. This 2-1 ratio is still the same as 10 or 20 years ago. [16] Another indicator is the ongoing massive incarceration of black people (as well as the Latino minority) which has not lessened at all under the Obama administration. A recent study reports: “If current trends continue, one of every three black American males born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as can one of every six Latino males—compared to one of every seventeen white males. [17] This national oppression is also manifested in the widespread killing of Afro-Americans by the police that continued during the Obama administration and which resulted in mass uprisings in Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities, as well as in the emergence of the #BlackLivesMatters movement.


Likewise, mass deportations of undocumented migrants rose to record levels under the Obama administration. Since 2009, when Obama took office, about 2.5 million immigrants have been deported according to newly released Department of Homeland Security data – a figure similar to the one Trump has announced (see Figure 4). [18] As a result, it’s hardly surprising that many Latinos feel betrayed by the Democratic Party.




Figure 4. Deportations by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2001-2014 [19]





Figure 5 provides a more long-term view and shows that mass deportations started in 1990s with the taking of power by the Democrat Bill Clinton and have risen uninterruptedly since then, irrespective of the president's’ party affiliation.


Figure 5. Total deportation of non-U.S. citizens, 1925–2013 [20]





Furthermore, Trump’s plans for mass deportations will be assisted by the huge mass of personal information which the Obama administration has already collected from young migrants – yet more proof that workers and oppressed must not trust the state! [21]


Bruce A. Dixon, the managing editor of the Black Agenda Report, has pointedly remarked:


But Hillary’s decades-long record as a tool of banksters, billionaires and one-percenters was so well established in the public mind that Imaginary Hillary was a difficult sell, not credible. (…) All in all, Democrats were the authors of their own defeat this presidential election. Hillary couldn’t campaign against the one percent because her party is a party of the one percent. Hillary Democrats including Bernie himself after the convention could no longer acknowledge joblessness, low wages, lack of housing, permanent war or the high cost of medical care or they’d be campaigning against themselves. Donald Trump didn’t win because of some mysterious upsurge of racism and nativism. He won because Hillary Clinton’s campaign was even less inspiring and less competent than his own, and worked hard to snatch its own defeat from the jaws of victory. America might not deserve President Donald Trump. But Hillary Clinton didn’t deserve to win. [22]


In addition, the Obama administration didn’t rescue millions of people – including many of the white middle class – from the consequences of the financial collapse in 2008/09. Instead, Obama helped to bail out the banks which massively increased public debt.


In short, the main reason for Trump's victory is not a growth of support for the Republican Party or for Trump, but rather the substantial loss of support for the Democratic Party and its contender, Hillary Clinton. Millions of workers and oppressed are repelled by this party and view them as inextricably linked with the super-rich elite – as Clinton’s leaked speeches to Goldman Sachs demonstrated. Consequently they either didn’t go to the polls or they voted for a third party.




Reactionary Support for Trump among Sectors of the White Working Class




However, all these facts should not divert our attention from the fact that Trump – as an extreme right-wing populist candidate of the Republican Party – managed to receive substantial support among sectors of the white working class, as his high share of white voters (67%) without a college degree indicates (see Table 2). It’s vital for Marxists to understand this in order to effectively fight the reactionary cancer of racism inside our class.


It is crucial to take a number of factors into account. First, a substantial portion of white workers and poor does not live in the big cities but rather in smaller cities. Hence, the big cities have a substantially higher share of black and Latinos than the country-wide average. It is therefore hardly surprising that Trump was decisively defeated in all big metropolises like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco or Chicago. As we can see in Table 3 Trump received only 35% of the vote in cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants. At the same time he dominated in the more rural areas where white workers are more strongly represented.




Table 3. Voting Preferences by Residence, Presidential Election 2016 [23]


                                                                Clinton                                  Trump


City over 50,000                                 59%                                        35%


Suburbs                                                45%                                        50%


Small City of Rural                           34%                                        62%




So the absence of a multi-national composition of the working class and the backward, rural character of these areas certainly was one important factor in explaining why such a right-wing demagogue like Trump could win so much support among sectors of the white workers.


Furthermore, these areas have often depended on jobs provided by a single or only a few corporations. So when the capitalists closed such enterprises and moved their production to the semi-colonial countries of the South where they could exploit workers with lower wages, this had devastating effects on the workers in these regions as in many cases they were unable to find another job.


Trump tried to address the hopes of many workers by advocating protectionism as a means of creating new jobs. He became famous in addressing the shift of jobs from the US to Mexico and the water crisis in Flint by saying: "It used to be, cars were made in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now, the cars are made in Mexico and you cannot drink the water in Flint. That’s not good," he said. "We shouldn’t allow it to happen," he said. "They’ll make their cars, they’ll employ thousands and thousands of people, not from this country … and we’ll have nothing but more unemployment in Flint." [24]


Clinton, on the other hand, didn’t show any concern for the fate of these workers and, worse, even went on record as characterizing the coal workers of West Virginia as “deplorable. [25]


As a result, Trump managed to get massive support from white workers in several states in the Midwest and Pennsylvania. In Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota, Trump succeeded in winning over the support of many white workers without college educations, allowing him to win all these states (except for Minnesota). This is remarkable considering that all these states voted Democrat in the previous six presidential elections. Figure 6 and Table 4 depict the massive swing of voters without college educations in favor of Trump in this last election compared with the previous presidential election of 2012.




Figure 6. Voters without College Degrees in the Industrial North Swing to Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election[26]







Table 4. Voters without a College Degree in Industrial North, Share of the Total Electorate and Voting [27]






2012: 53% of electorate, 52-46 Obama


2016: 44% of electorate, 55-38 Trump (net gain: Republicans +23)




2012: 58% of electorate, 51-47 Obama


2016: 55% of electorate, 56-40 Trump (net gain: Republicans +20)




2012: 57% of electorate, 52-46 Obama


2016: 57% of electorate, 54-40 Trump (net gain: Republicans +20)




2012: 54% of electorate, 56-43 Obama


2016: 58% of electorate, 49-45 Trump (net gain: Republicans +17)




2012: 60% of electorate, 53-46 Obama


2016: 56% of electorate, 51-45 Trump (net gain: Republicans +13)




2012: 52% of electorate, 57-42 Obama


2016: 52% of electorate, 52-45 Trump (net gain: Republicans +12)




Therefore, we see that the rise in unemployment and wage losses resulting from the Great Recession of 2008/09 against which Obama’s Democratic administration didn’t do anything was another major factor that led white workers in these states to put their hopes in the demagogic promises of Donald Trump. This is a phenomenon which we have also witnessed in many other countries in Europe, where right-wing populists like Le Pen or Strache have managed to win over huge support from white workers.


Thus, it’s not surprising that the Democratic Party, with its close connection to Wall Street and the corporations, and with all the broken promises of the past 8 years, did not appeal to these workers.


However, there is also a third crucial factor explaining white, working class support for Trump which must not be overlooked: This is the deep-seated chauvinism among white workers against blacks, Latinos and migrants in general. Trump’s slogan about car production in Mexico and dirty water in Flint quoted above is not merely a protest about the closure of production sites and the water crisis in a former auto-manufacturing city in Michigan. It is also a glorification of the “good old times” when “we” (i.e., the US-Americans) had a vital car industry and clean water and “they” (i.e., the Mexicans) had no industry and dirty water. In other words, Trump appeals to white workers by praising the times when the US was still “great,” indeed “greater” than “backward” Mexico. In short, Trump’s inroads into sectors of the white working class demonstrate the aristocratism among these layers – an aristocratism which, in the case of many impoverished white industrial workers, is less a material factor than an ideological remnant of the past, when they were part of the well-paid US labor aristocracy.


This deep-seated reactionary, aristocratic sentiment among sectors of the white working class is also reflected in the fact that Trump’s triumph is not a sudden development, but is the result of what has been cultivated during the past two decades. While the Democrats managed to achieve a slight lead (of 1%) among whites without a college degree in 1992 and 1996, subsequently the Republicans have received a solid majority of this electorate (2000: +17%, 2004: +23%, 2008: +18%, 2012: +26%, 2016: +39%) [28]. In other words, in these states there has been a long-term advance of reactionary right-wing forces among white workers, one which reached its apex in the 2016 presidential election.


In order to fight reactionary Trumpism among these layers of white workers, socialist must advance an economic offensive which fights for the nationalization of industry under worker control, massive public works programs to create jobs, alongside unambiguous solidarity with the nationally oppressed minorities (which, by the way, are on their way to becoming the majority of the US working class, as we shall show below!). It is clear that the main bearer of such a socialist message will have to be the multinational working class – with its dominant black and Latino sectors – in the large metropolises of the country. While Maoists may believe that villages encircle the cities, Marxists know that it is the other way round. It is the multi-national, heavy battalions of the large metropolises which must take the lead in the struggle for liberation and carry along with them the more backward, mostly white sectors of their class living in the smaller cities and rural areas.


Yet another backward characteristic among large sectors of the white working class in these states is their strong corporatist sentiment. The trade union United Mine Workers of America has helped to create a culture in which the coal workers in West Virginia identify their interest with Donald Leon "Don" Blankenship, the millionaire and long-time boss of Massey Energy Company — the sixth largest coal company in the United States. Blankenship is a long-time donor to the Republican Party who, as a typical American reactionary, denies the existence of climate change and who, decades ago, associated President Jimmy Carter's support for energy conservation in the 1970s with the first stage of communism! Blankenship was recently sentenced to a year in prison for conspiring to violate federal mine safety standards – a late consequence of a mine accident in Massey’s Upper Big Branch mine which killed 29 men, the deadliest coal mining accident in American in about 40 years. Characteristically, Blankenship supported Trump during the recent election campaign. [29]


Furthermore, the election also demonstrated the horrendous state of the US trade unions. Traditionally, these have been subordinate to the bourgeoisie and, in particular, the Democratic Party. Consequently, the political values of the American bourgeoisie are well-rooted among many union members. As a result, Trump did pretty well among many trade union members. According to a CNN poll, Clinton had an 8-point lead among union households nationally. However, this means that 43% of those union members (or, to be more precise, of the households of union members) who went to the polls voted for the most reactionary, chauvinistic candidate which the US has seen for decades! [30]


However, something which in fact points to the potential for addressing workers even in more rurally-dominated states are the results of the various referendums which took place in many states on November 8 in parallel with the presidential election. In nearly all such referenda in states which held them, there has been a positive outcome regarding the issue of raising the minimum wage as well as about decriminalizing the use of marijuana. As a result, workers in Arizona (where Trump won a majority of votes), Colorado, and Maine will see their hourly wages rise to $12 an hour—all gains of more than $3.75 an hour—while the state of Washington’s minimum wage will rise to $13.50 by 2020, an increase of $4.03 an hour. A referendum that would lower minimum wages for workers under the age of 18 was roundly defeated in South Dakota (where Trump also won a majority of votes). In addition to these wage hikes, voters in Arizona and Washington also voted in favor of the introduction of mandatory sick-leave measures, a boon for the nearly 45 percent of the American workforce without such paid protection. [31]


Referenda about the decriminalization of marijuana use were held in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, and North Dakota. In all these states, except Arizona, the electorate voted in favor of decriminalization. This is particularly important in light of the widespread use of the criminalization of marijuana as a tool of oppression against youth in general and, in particular, against young blacks and Latinos.


Without exaggerating the significance of these referenda, we believe they indicate the potential to fight for progressive issues even in the more conservative states.




An Aside on Liberal Academics who Consider the Ordinary People Too Stupid




A particular telling example of the liberal intelligentsia’s arrogance towards the working class is the proposal to limit the voting rights of people who are “uninformed.” This bourgeois elitist idea is currently advocated by various academics like Jason Brennan, author of the book with the telling title Against Democracy. In a recently published article about the outcome of the election, Brennan wrote:


The real worry, though, is that when we look at the policy platforms of the two major parties, we see that both the Republicans and Democrats push agendas that tend to appeal to the uniformed and disinterested. We can’t quite blame them for that. After all, politicians need to win elections, and to do so, they have to appeal to voters. In a modern democracy, the uninformed will always greatly outnumber the informed. (…) There is no real solution to the problem of political ignorance, unless we are willing to break with democratic politics. (…) In my recent book ‘Against Democracy’, I discuss how we might experiment with epistocracy — where political power is widespread, as in a democracy, but votes are in some way weighted according to basic political knowledge. (…) But each proposal at least takes seriously that universal suffrage and voter ignorance go hand in hand. Trump’s victory is the victory of the uninformed. But, to be fair, Clinton’s victory would also have been. Democracy is the rule of the people, but the people are in many ways unfit to rule. [32]


Brennan is at least honestly enough to admit that his elitist alternative to bourgeois democracy would be a system privileging the white male middle class and bourgeoisie:


If the United States were to start using a voter qualification exam right now, such as an exam that I got to design, I’d expect that the people who pass the exam would be disproportionately white, upper-middle- to upper-class, educated, employed males. [33]


We can expect a rise of such proposals and sentiments among the liberal bourgeoisie in the coming, highly politically instable period.


[1] See David Wasserman: 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker, November 16, 2016, Also see on this BBC: US Election 2016,

[2] Jean Chung: Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer, The Sentencing Project, October 2016

[3] Jonathan Purtle: Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States: A Health Equity Perspective, in: American Journal of Public Health, April 2013, Vol 103, No. 4, p 632

[4] Sean McElwee: Why the Voting Gap Matters, Dēmos Publication, 23 October 2014, p. 2

[5] Sean McElwee: The Income Gap at the Polls. The rich aren’t just megadonors. They’re also dominating the voting booth, Politico, January 07, 2015,

[6] Sean McElwee: How to Reduce the Voting Gap, October 30, 2014,

[7] Sean McElwee: Class Bias in the 2014 Midterms, November 5, 2014,

[8] Thom File: Who Votes? Congressional Elections and the American Electorate: 1978–2014Population Characteristics, July 2015, p.4

[9] Thom File: Who Votes? Congressional Elections and the American Electorate: 1978–2014Population Characteristics, July 2015, p.4

[10] See on this Sean McElwee: Why the Voting Gap Matters, Dēmos Publication, 23 October 2014, pp. 3-5

[11] See Jon Huang, Samuel Jacoby, K. K. Rebecca Lai And Michael Strickland: Election 2016: Exit Polls, CNN, 8 November 2016,

[12] See Jon Huang, Samuel Jacoby, K. K. Rebecca Lai And Michael Strickland: Election 2016: Exit Polls, CNN, 8 November 2016,

[13] See Jon Huang, Samuel Jacoby, K. K. Rebecca Lai And Michael Strickland: Election 2016: Exit Polls, CNN, 8 November 2016,

[14] Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, Artem Gulish: America’s Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots, Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016, p. 3

[15] Pew Research Center: America’s Shrinking Middle Class: A Close Look at Changes Within Metropolitan Areas, 11 May 2016, pp. 15-16

[16] Dean Baker: Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, D.C. 2016, pp. 26-27

[17] Report of The Sentencing Project to the United Nations Human Rights Committee Regarding Racial Disparities in the United States Criminal Justice System, August 2013, p. 1. The same study also reports the racial disparities within the justice system. From 1999 to 2005, African Americans constituted about 13% of drug users, but they made up 36% of those arrested for drug offenses and about 46% of those convicted for drug offenses (pp. 14-15).

[18] Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Julia Preston: What Donald Trump’s Vow to Deport Up to 3 Million Immigrants Would Mean, New York Times, Nov. 14, 2016,

[19] See Ana Gonzalez-Barrera and Jens Manuel Krogstad: U.S. immigrant deportations declined in 2014, but remain near record high, Pew Research, August 31, 2016,; Meg Wagner: President Obama deported record number of undocumented immigrants, despite what Donald Trump says, New York Daily News, September 1, 2016,

[20] Valerie Wilson: People of color will be a majority of the American working class in 2032. What this means for the effort to grow wages and reduce inequality, Economic Policy Institute, June 9, 2016, p. 19

[21] On this see e.g., Betsy Woodruff: Immigrants Gave Their Info to Obama, Now Trump Could Use It to Deport Them

Young undocumented immigrants trusted their government and offered up personal information to avoid deportation. The Trump administration may use that information to do just that., 11.11.16,

[22] Bruce A. Dixon: America Might Not Deserve Trump, But Dems and Hillary Deserved To Lose , 11/09/2016,

[23] See Jon Huang, Samuel Jacoby, K. K. Rebecca Lai And Michael Strickland: Election 2016: Exit Polls, CNN, 8 November 2016,

[24] Adam Kelsey: Trump Attacks Ford Motor for Outsourcing Car Production to Mexico, ABC News, Sep 15, 2016,

[25] Jonathan Swan: Clinton's coal gaffe likely hurt in West Virginia, The Hill, 10.05.2016,

[26] Domenico Montanaro: 7 Reasons Donald Trump Won The Presidential Election, November 12, 2016,

[27] Domenico Montanaro: 7 Reasons Donald Trump Won The Presidential Election, November 12, 2016,

[28] Domenico Montanaro: 7 Reasons Donald Trump Won The Presidential Election, November 12, 2016,

[29] A good coverage on the problem of corporatism is provided in the following article by Jen Yamato: ‘Blood on the Mountain’ Reveals How Hillary Clinton Lost the Rust Belt to Trump, 10.11.2016, A thoughtful commentary on the issue of white chauvinism in the US working class has been published by Lena Afridi: The working class Trump will suppress. Trump won't bring more jobs to the white working class, but he will undermine socioeconomic gains by workers of colour, Al Jazeera, 2016-11-13,

[30] Dave Jamieson: It Looks Like Donald Trump Did Really Well With Union Households. That’s A Bad Sign For Unions, The Huffington Post, Nov 11, 2016,

[31] On the ballot results see: 2016 ballot measures, as well as Adam Chandler: Minimum-Wage Increases: Another Big Winner on Election Night, Nov 9, 2016;

[32] Jason Brennan: Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally. Democracy is supposed to enact the will of the people. But what if the people have no clue what they’re doing? Foreign Policy, November 10, 2016,

[33] Jason Brennan: Against Democracy, Princeton University Press, Princeton 2016, p. 225