Abstract
Candidate Donald Trump won a surprise victory on November 8, 2016, by amassing support among a large swath of discontented working-class Americans. He fissured the Republican Party, disdained the establishment, and defied convention. Trump bypassed union leaders and exploited social media to carry his populist message directly to rank and file.
To a considerable extent, Trump preempted labor’s political agenda. He peeled off rank-and-file support and backing among the broader working class by speaking plain language on such issues as trade, jobs, law enforcement, regulation, and immigration. Trump promised fundamental change, pledging to “drain the swamp.” In his campaign, Trump also exposed weaknesses in labor’s political armor that raise serious questions about its future influence; a shrinking labor movement, particularly one with significant political cleavages, simply has less potential to deliver the vote.
On the surface, a Trump presidency, largely because of the president’s provocative nature, raises questions about the real scope of change contemplated. But the extent to which the 2016 elections actually portend a sea change in politics and policy is open to question. What happened in 2016? What role did labor play in the elections? How did union members and the working class vote? What does a Trump administration entail for labor? These are the questions behind this brief paper.
The 2016 Election in Perspective
Although elected president, Trump’s victory represented a mixed outcome. While he won based on the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by nearly three million. Such a result hardly lays claim to a clear mandate for change supported by the majority. Trump won in an extremely close race in which a shift of just 80,000 votes to Hilary Clinton in such key states as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would have made her president. One can only imagine the reaction if Richard Nixon had won the White House in 1968 with his 301 electoral votes but lost the popular vote to Hubert Humphrey by three million (rather than winning it by just about .7 of a percent as he did). Moreover, a survey of election results in 2016 in Congress and across the states suggests that Trump had virtually no coattails.
Table 1 breaks election results down by the presidency, Congress, governorships, and state legislatures. While Trump won 304 electoral votes compared with Romney’s 206, he actually received a smaller percentage of the popular vote than the former governor of Massachusetts did. In addition, Republicans lost seats in both the House and Senate, though they retained control of both bodies. With respect to gubernatorial races, the Republicans picked up two slots, bringing their total to thirty-three. They also picked up two state legislatures (to a total of thirty-two); Democrats picked up three. All in all, the elections maintained the status quo, with Republicans still marginally in control of the U.S. Congress and retaining lopsided majorities in the state legislatures and governorships.
Elections in Perspective.
R = Republican; D = Democrat; EV = Electoral Vote; PV= Popular Vote.
What Role Did Labor Play in the Elections?
Organized labor plays two primary roles in elections. One focuses on getting out the vote through voter registration, communications, and mobilizing members to the polls. The other is providing money—the lifeblood of politics. Both roles rather than just the latter require expenditures. Recent reports reveal that unions spent enormous sums in 2016 to elect Clinton and support worthy down-ballot candidates.
The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), an antiunion organization, has reported that organized labor spent more than US $1.7 billion dollars in the 2016 election cycle across the state and national levels (NILRR 2017, “Big Labor Political Spending Exceeds US $1.7 Billion,” available at NILRR.org). At least US $228 million was spent on state elections. This spending included contributions to candidates and parties (through political action committees [PACs] and soft-money channels), plus spending derived from the unions’ general treasury funds; it also includes spending on lobbying. According to the NILRR report, soft-money and PAC contributions at the federal level amounted to about US $193,000,000, which is close to the slightly more than US $194 million reported by the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org). Such union contributions include PAC donations and contributions from individual union members and officers, plus contributions to so-called “super PACs and outside spending groups” (“Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates . . .”; www.opensecrets.org).
As shown in Table 2, however, while labor nominally spends a lot, it hardly dominates campaign financing. Businesses donated nearly US $3.3 billion through PACs and individuals. Simply put, there is no way that organized labor can compete with the business community as a whole in terms of money donated to candidates and parties. They will always be outspent as long as the campaign-finance system remains as it is.
Business, Labor, Ideology, Other Contributions in Federal Elections.
Source. Center for Responsive Politics.
It is difficult to determine the impact of spending on election outcomes, regardless of the source. However, it is clear that such spending has put a few labor organizations into financial difficulty. For example, in part because of the large amount spent in the last election, the Service Employees International Union has implemented a 30 percent budget cut. Similarly, the AFL-CIO has had to make sizable cuts, resulting in significant layoffs.
How Did Union Members Vote?
Labor unions spend a reportedly large (but difficult to pinpoint) amount to get-out-the-vote among its members and the broader public. In 2016, most unions endorsed Clinton. However, as noted, Trump targeted selected groups of union members, such as building trades, coal miners, and law enforcement, for support and widened his appeal by railing against the “free trade” agreements and resulting loss of manufacturing jobs.
Exit polls revealed that Clinton won the vote among union households by an eight-point margin, which was the lowest on record since 1980 when Carter’s lead was just three points. However, union households include nonunion and well as union voters.
Table 3 reports the share of union-member voters going to the two major presidential candidates between 2008 and 2016. For purposes of comparison, it also shows the percentage of white working-class voters for each of the candidates. Clinton won the union vote by slightly more than 20 percentage points, which compares with Obama’s roughly 45 and 33 point margins in 2008 and 2012, respectively.
Presidential Vote by Union and Working-Class Groups, 2008-2016.
Source. American National Election Series, University of Michigan.
Sums do not total 100% due to third-party candidates.
Among the white working class, the decline in Democratic support for president is much steeper. Obama won nearly 47 percent of the vote in 2008 and 42 percent in 2012. In contrast, Clinton won less than 30 percent of this group while Trump garnered 64 percent (vis-à-vis Obama’s 51% and 55% in the prior two elections). Many attribute Clinton’s loss to the inroads Trump made among union rank and file and the large swath of white working-class voters that he captured. White working-class voters indicated their dissatisfaction with the nation’s current economic condition and trajectory and also revealed distrust of the political system, which appeared tilted against their interests.
What Does the Trump Administration Entail for Labor?
On the surface so far, the record has produced a mixed bag. On the one hand, Trump’s first nominee for Secretary of Labor, who had to withdraw his nomination, displayed opposition to some of labor’s core agenda, including raising the minimum wage. Trump’s Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has a long record of support of charter schools and school vouchers which are vehemently opposed by the teachers unions. In addition, Trump’s “repeal and replace” health care package, which passed the House of Representatives on its second try, is widely opposed by labor.
On the other hand, Trump withdrew (largely ceremonial) from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and stated his intent to renegotiate North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He has also pledged a US $1 trillion infrastructure program which would create thousands of potentially union jobs (unless congressional Republican go after prevailing wage). Again, Trump’s lack of any ideological gravitas or party loyalty makes it difficult to predict just what is in store.
But regardless of where Trump comes down on the issues—either consistent with or in opposition to labor—his agenda will face a difficult time getting passed through Congress. He faces a deeply fractured Republican House of Representatives, with center-moderates often lined up against the Freedom Caucus. Senate Republicans in the main seem even more independent-minded. No doubt, Trump will continue to rhetorically attack the status quo and the Washington insiders. And his railing against the “swamp” will most likely continue to hit a favorable chord. But Trump can do little on his own, especially as his opinion polls suffer and congressional investigations mount.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.