Clinton lost by failing to mobilize supporters, not by a rightward surge

Evidence

This paralysis cannot be attributed only to the complacency and insularity in the Clinton camp; it is instead a symptom of a broader pathology afflicting the “centre-left”. “Centre-left” has to be placed in inverted commas here because the malaise is in large part a consequence of this group’s failure to register that the “centre” to which it is attached and from which it takes all its bearings has disappeared. In addition to the parallels with Brexit, there are clear echoes of the last UK General Election. Rather like Ed Miliband, Clinton lost essentially because she was unable to mobilise her own supporters. It turns out that there wasn’t much of a surge to the right: as Gary Younge points out in an invaluable piece, Trump “may have led the charge to the right but comparatively few marched with him” (he ended up winning a lower proportion of the vote than losing candidates John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Gerald Ford). Instead, there was an evacuation of the centre. Like Boris Johnson, Trump is opportunistic; but it is this opportunism which enabled him to respond to transformed conditions and to be seen to respond to them — something which his own party’s ruling establishment, just as much as Clinton’s Democrats, were singularly unable to do. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 2024

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the broader capitalist-realism canon and to analyses of the hollowing out of center-left politics across Western democracies. — connects to: Clinton’s 2016 campaign offered continuity just as voters demanded change — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 2023; Low voter turnout may indicate absence of distrust rather than failure of support

Broader Connections