The litany of postmortem analyses following the 2016 U.S. presidential election produced the widely shared view that President Trump's success in the Rust Belt States — Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — fueled his victory.
There are two common arguments that political experts have presented to explain this outcome.
The first focuses on how Trump mobilized support from the Rust-Belt working class by appealing to frustrations of economic stagnation, and by calling out the status quo in Washington. In doing so, he not only garnered support from previously disaffected white voters in the region, but also flipped a significant number of Obama voters.
The second argument focuses more on what Hillary Clinton and the Democrats failed to do, and her flaws as a candidate. Advocates of this theory contend that Clinton took the region for granted, and assumed her victory was secure in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — states which Democrats had carried in six consecutive elections from 1992 to 2012. Moreover, her campaign didn't tap into the struggles of working-class Americans. And she didn't do enough to quell voters' perceptions of her as untrustworthy, elitist and representative of politics as usual in Washington.
Survey analysis of Rust Belt voters lends support to both arguments. Understanding the underlying factors at play is important for establishing winning strategies in this region moving forward.
What we Learned about the Rust Belt in 2016
The President won Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio by a combined 80,000 votes. In total, one-third of the Rust Belt counties that voted twice for President Obama voted for Trump in 2016. His surge was evident in places such as Belmont County, the heart of "coal country" along the Ohio River. The county voted for Obama in 2008, but in 2016 Trump won almost 70 percent of the vote.
But the outcome in the Rust Belt was also influenced by who didn't vote. According to the Elections Project, an information source for the U.S. electoral system, the three counties in the region with the biggest drop-offs in raw votes from 2012 to 2016 were ones that had been traditional strongholds for the Democrats. In Wisconsin, a state that Mr. Trump won by fewer than 23,000 votes, the biggest decline in voter turnout was in Milwaukee County, where more than 52,000 fewer people voted in 2016 than in 2012. In Wayne County in Detroit, 38,000 fewer votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012; Trump won Michigan by fewer than 11,000 votes.
The decline in voter turnout was particularly prevalent among working class democrats. Between 2012 and 2016, voter turnout among Rust Belt democrats earning under $50,000 per year fell 22 percent.
Shift in absolute votes cast by income and party from 2012 to 2016 in the Rust Belt 5 — which includes Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (Sources: CNN, NYT, US Election Project)
In states that narrowly delivered the presidency to Trump, depressed turnout, particularly among low-income Democrats, along with Trump's ability to flip a sizable Obama contingent, were both significant factors.
What should not get lost in the exit poll analysis and data crunching is that the election results provided the latest in a long line of examples illustrating the political fluidity of the region.
Macomb County in Michigan is in many ways a microcosm of the Rust Belt. It is a predominantly white, socially conservative, working-class community. The county voted enthusiastically for Kennedy in 1960, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984. It voted for Obama twice. Trump won Macomb by 9 points.
"Political Revolution" vs. "Win Back Trump Voters"
There are two competing arguments within the Democratic field about the best strategy to re-claim the Rust Belt.
The first looks at the 2016 election and sees Democrats losing persuadable working-class white votes — and therefore the key Rust Belt states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Those who agree with the "Trump Voters" theory contend that staking the party's flag in the middle of the political aisle and appealing to moderates is the clearest path to success in the region.
Governor Tony Evers of Wisconsin said the party would do best in his state with a pragmatic candidate who recognized that dramatic policy proposals — like free college and "Medicare for all" — were aspirational goals rather than do-or-die demands.
"I think Wisconsin is very winnable. But it has to be someone that speaks to the issues but also is viewed as rational." — Governor Tony Evers of Wisconsin
Candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg are pursuing this strategy to win back voters in regions like the Rust Belt.
By contrast, another view in the party holds that the best way to mobilize enough support to defeat Trump is to put forward an ambitious agenda. Proponents of the "Political Revolution" theory argue that an insurgent, liberal candidate, like Senator Elizabeth Warren or Senator Bernie Sanders, with a strong economic message could counter Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric with their own, breaking off some of his working-class support while also re-energizing an increasingly progressive Democratic base.
Why a Political Revolution may be the Best Strategy for Democrats
Following the 2016 election, NPR conducted a series of interviews with Rust Belt voters. Their analysis illuminated a few common trends. Many Trump voters admitted to not agreeing with all of his policy proposals, and even much of what the Republican Party stands for. But they were looking for someone who spoke to their concerns about economic stagnation. They believed that the current system inhibited both their security and advancement; they were dissatisfied with the status quo.
The anecdotes shared in the interview series reaffirmed the deep economic frustration and desire for change that has underlied the issue prioritization and political decision-making for voters in this region for more than four decades.
The political leanings of the region are often characterized as "Moderate" due to the closely contested nature of elections and the frequency with which voters swing between electing Democrats and Republicans. But in my view this characterization is misleading. If anything, voter attitudes in this region align more closely with the Labour party in the UK than with either of the two parties in the United States. A candidate that can defend labor and speak out against corporate greed has a chance to win.
President Obama's 2012 campaign effectively tapped into voters' frustrations with ads that portrayed Republican Mitt Romney as the embodiment of the corporate decisions that have resulted in decades of deindustrialization in places like Youngstown and Flint.
Senator Sanders, before conceding defeat to Clinton in the 2016 Democratic Primary, won Wisconsin and Michigan on a platform that Sanders himself proudly dubbed a "political revolution".
Pundits on both sides of the political aisle often suggest that a candidate that supports policies like Medicare-For-All has no chance to win in the Rust Belt. But polling confirms that the public is more receptive to a single-payer health care system than media outlets typically suggest.
Public polling on Medicare-for-all by Kaiser Family Foundation
National polling on Medicare-For-All fluctuates drastically — from as high as 70% to less than a majority support. The results are largely dependent on the way the survey question is posed. "Are you in favor of socialized medicine?" receives less approval than "Are you in favor of universal health care coverage that gives people more choice?" Framed correctly and delivered by the right messenger, policies like Medicare-For-All, a wealth tax, and a nationwide ban on right-to-work laws are precisely the type of proposals that can appeal to low-income workers in the Rust Belt, and re-energize the non-voting bloc that delivered such a blow to Democrat's hopes in 2016.
While a Progressive candidate may feel like the riskier choice to win back the Rust Belt in 2020, recent history suggests that an establishment candidate, and a message rooted in stability, is a recipe for failure in the region. Clinton's association with NAFTA, advocacy for TPP, and defense of Wall Street revealed a soft spot for free trade and big business. Her years of experience in Washington was not seen as an asset, but instead tied her to the political establishment that the Rust Belt has come to mistrust. While Biden has earned the nickname "Middle-Class Joe" for his longstanding support of organized labor during a more than 40-year career in Washington, he too is susceptible to the criticisms that inhibited Clinton's success in the region.
The results of the 2018 midterms, a resounding Democrat victory in key races in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, should provide comfort to Democrats: 2016 did not represent a decisive political realignment of the region. But it means nothing for 2020 if the right strategy is not employed to flip working-class Trump voters, and increase voter turnout.