Brian Klaas on the 2016 US Presidential Election and Implications of a Trump Presidency

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Podcast: LSE: Public Lectures and Events
Episode: Brian Klaas on the 2016 US Presidential Election and Implications of a Trump Presidency
Date: November 30, 2016
Host: LSE Film and Audio Team
Guest: Brian Klaas
Duration of Content: ~09:39

---

Main Theme

This episode features Brian Klaas discussing the surprising outcome of the 2016 US Presidential Election and the anticipated policy and global implications of Donald Trump’s presidency. Klaas provides a data-backed analysis of why and how Trump won, expectations versus reality regarding Trump’s campaign promises, and the potential ripple effects on American and global politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Shock Result Explained

• Electoral Outcome vs. Public Expectations

  • Klaas emphasizes that while Trump’s win shocked many, the national polls were relatively accurate for the popular vote.
  • The misunderstanding lay in certain states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania—the "Rust Belt"), where Trump outperformed and Clinton underperformed.

  “There’s about 107,000 votes in those three states that would have flipped the election result in the Electoral College. So even though Clinton won by a very large margin, 2 million votes, she lost because the distribution of those votes was not advantageous to her.” — Brian Klaas [00:49]

  • The episode discusses the decisive nature of the US Electoral College system and its detachment from the popular vote.

2. Demographic Voting Patterns

• Key Groups & Historic Shifts

  • Clinton won African American, Latino, and women voters as traditionally expected, but performed poorly with white voters.
  • White men without a college degree voted for Trump “in numbers that are historic.”
  • Record turnout among rural white voters proved crucial, especially in Rust Belt and rural areas, countering expectations set by high Hispanic early turnout in places like Florida.

  “Suburban, white, uneducated vote really, really came out for Donald Trump. And particularly rural Americans… turnout in rural white areas was extremely high.” — Brian Klaas [02:24]

3. Trump’s Campaign Promises vs. Likely Policy Realities

• Promise Retractions and Political Tensions

  • Just a week after the election, many of Trump’s most controversial promises were already being scaled back:
    • “Lock her up”: Dropped.
    • Building the wall: Downgraded from a wall to “fence,” may not be built at all.
    • Repealing Obamacare: Now planning to keep key elements.
  • Klaas identifies a core tension: Trump must balance the expectations of his anti-establishment base with the reality of governing through establishment Republicans.

  “The Trump transition is full of Washington insiders, corporate lobbyists, and most troublingly, Trump's own family.” — Brian Klaas [04:41]

  • Many promises, such as reviving coal and steel jobs, were “policy fantasy,” doomed from the start due to economic realities.
  • The episode foreshadows potential erosion of Trump’s support if such voters realize their expectations were unrealistic.

4. Implications for American Foreign Policy & Democratic Institutions

• Foreign Policy Uncertainty

  • Klaas outlines two problematic traits in Trump:
    • He is “learning on the job” but unwilling to accept criticism or feedback.
  • Trump’s “America First”—a quasi-isolationist approach—could disrupt the international order, with particular concern about NATO and boosting Russian interests.

  “The threat that Trump has given to withdraw from NATO or to backtrack on Article 5 ... is a huge boost for Russia. The splintering of Western alliances is precisely what Vladimir Putin has been hoping for.” — Brian Klaas [07:29]

• Erosion of Democratic Norms Worldwide

  • The campaign’s dysfunction effectively served as negative advertising for democracy itself.
  • Trump’s admiration for strongmen and willingness to overlook human rights abuses signals “a dangerous precedent” to regimes worldwide.

  “...when you have an America first foreign policy and somebody who speaks cavalierly about despotism ... this sends an important and critical signal to regimes around the world that Donald Trump doesn’t really care that much if you violate human rights or undermine democracy...” — Brian Klaas [08:24]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Electoral College:

  “…the way the Electoral College is set up in this arcane system where state by state results matter much more than the national poll count.” — Brian Klaas [01:13]

• On Economic Anxiety vs. Policy Reality:

  “Trump told coal miners in West Virginia and steel workers in Pennsylvania that their industries would be coming back if he won. And it just fundamentally misunderstands the global economy.” — Brian Klaas [05:34]

• On Foreign Policy Danger:

  “The foreign policy of the United States is going to be a potentially very, very difficult path to navigate, and one that could really wreak havoc on the global order.” — Brian Klaas [06:53]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:31] — Explaining the shock result and role of the Electoral College
• [01:31] — Breakdown of demographic voting patterns
• [03:20] — Examining Trump’s campaign promises vs. likely policy actions
• [06:26] — The challenge and risk of Trump’s foreign policy approach
• [08:24] — Implications for democracy and autocratic regimes globally

---

Tone and Language

Brian Klaas speaks in a clear, measured, and analytical tone, mixing careful data-driven analysis with pointed critique and concern about potential future implications. The host facilitates a concise, focused discussion throughout.

---

This episode is recommended for those seeking a post-election debrief with thoughtful insights into both the mechanics and broader meaningful consequences of the 2016 US Presidential result.

Transcript

[A]

Hello and welcome to the hot seat today. We're here with Brian Klass to discuss the results of the U.S. presidential election. Thanks for joining us today, Brian.

[B]

My pleasure.

[A]

Many people are saying this was a shock result. Where was the battle won and lost on election night?

[B]

So it was a shock result in the outcome and who won. But the polls actually were reasonably close nationally. The final poll tally, the average, was around 2.5% lead for Hillary Clinton and she won by about 1.7%, something in that vicinity, around 2 million votes. As soon as everything's tallied. There's still votes being counted now, but what we really got wrong was some of the states, particularly states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the so called Rust Belt, where Hillary Clinton underperformed relative to other Democrat candidates in the past and Donald Trump overperformed. And when it comes down to it, there's about 107,000 votes in those three states that would have flipped the election result in the Electoral College. So even though Clinton won by a very large margin, 2 million votes, she lost because the distribution of those votes was not advantageous to her. And in the way the Electoral College is set up in this arcane system where state by state results matter much more than the national poll count.

[A]

And what do you think are the key drivers behind the pattern of voting we saw from the American electorate?

[B]

Well, we saw a lot of the same in some ways. So in terms of the breakdown between African Americans and Latino voters, Democrats overwhelmingly won those groups. Democrats, Hillary Clinton also won among women, but she continued to do what previous presidential candidates have done with white women and white men in the sense that she lost white women. And in historic levels, she lost white men. And white men without a college degree split for Donald Trump in numbers that are historic. And this is where the race was really lost, because in the Rust Belt states that I mentioned previously, there are a lot of people that are like this. The non college educated people who do not have transferable skills tend to be extremely worried about their economic future. And also some of the racism that came through in the Trump candidacy and the sexism I think resonated most with that group if I had to pick one. So in terms of the groups that she won and lost, some of it was historical patterns held up. Other ones were these sort of suburban, white, you know, uneducated vote really, really came out For Donald Trump. And particularly rural Americans, where this divide is even more pronounced than in the past, turnout in rural white areas was extremely high. And in Florida, for example, this was the narrative that I think took everyone by surprise is that we saw in early vote returns, very high numbers of Hispanics voting for the first time. And people thought, well, Clinton has this. She's going to win.

[A]

And.

[B]

And we didn't anticipate that. The numbers of rural white voters would also be historic. And that's where Donald Trump won the race.

[A]

Donald Trump made some quite specific and controversial promises on the campaign trail, such as promising to build a wall on the Mexican border. Do you think he'll be able to follow through on these policies once he's actually in office?

[B]

So we are a week on from the presidential election, and already most of the core claims that got the largest chance and the largest applause at his rallies have been walked back. The interesting thing about this is that Donald Trump is in a catch 22 with his supporters and with his. With the political establishment. Most of the claims that he has that got, as I said, the most applause, Lock her up. Right? Jailing Hillary Clinton, that's been taken off the table. And Trump has said he doesn't want to do that, thankfully. Right. That's a very good thing. The idea that he would build this wall, it has now been downgraded in some places to a fence, and it may not get built at all. Other aspects, repealing and replacing Obamacare. Again, this has been walked back. And now Trump says he likes some of the core pillars of Obamacare and plans to keep them intact. So the problem is that on the one hand, he's walked back these claims, which is a good thing for policy reasons, but his base is going to feel duped because a lot of the people who voted for him, who believed this was a new kind of movement were really excited about these proposals. And so when you see the tea leaves, when you read the tea leaves and the transition that he's putting together now, I think you're seeing a lot of signs that the establishment Republicans he railed against are actually coming home to roost in the White House. And what I mean by that is that people who are being touted for or tapped potentially for jobs like the Commerce Secretary are financiers from Goldman Sachs who made their money on the foreclosure crisis. And that, to a Rust Belt voter who was energized by the Trump candidacy is exactly the thing that they were hoping to expose and undermine in Washington. And the rhetoric of the last two weeks of the Trump campaign, you know, oriented around the draintheswamp, this idea that we're gonna get rid of Washington insiders and corporate lobbyists, and yet The Trump transition is full of Washington insiders, corporate lobbyists, and most troublingly, Trump's own family. And so I think that there's going to be this inherent tension between navigating the establishment Republican view of the world and navigating the anti establishment view of Trump's base that got him to the White House. And that's going to mean breaking a lot of promises. And the question is, how long do those people who carried him to the White House stick with him when he does not deliver those promises? The other thing I'd like to say is that some of the promises were never going to happen. From the beginning, Trump told coal miners in West Virginia and steel workers in Pennsylvania that their industries would be coming back if he won. And it just fundamentally misunderstands the global economy. This is not going to happen. And so the question is, do those people stick with him in spite of the fact that he made a signature issue of his campaign, something that was policy fantasy? And when that becomes clear, I think he might find some erosion of support among those bases, the white, uneducated men who did decisively carry him to victory.

[A]

What is Donald Trump's foreign policy likely to look like, and how might it change the landscape and stability of global politics?

[B]

This is the really big unknown and the one that's the most dangerous unknown. Trump has a track record of disagreeing with or being upset when other people disagree with his own opinions. But at the same time, he also has a personality trait where he doesn't have very strong ideological opinions on foreign policy. And that's why we haven't gotten a coherent picture of his ideology. I always say, you know, with politics, there are two types of flaws that are embodied in Donald Trump, where you could have one or the other, but not both. And those are learning on the job, which Donald Trump is certainly going to have to do with foreign policy, because he is completely an amateur on this subject. And the other is not being willing to take on board feedback or criticism that ends up disagreeing with your innate instincts. And Donald Trump, unfortunately, seems to have both of those traits, and he can really only survive one. And so this is where I think the foreign policy of the United States is going to be a potentially very, very difficult path to navigate, and one that could really wreak havoc on the global order. Specifically, what I'm talking about is the hints that Donald Trump has given us about his foreign policy is this idea of America. First, it's a quasi isolationist idea that America wants to no longer lead the world Necessarily, but count on its allies to contribute more and demand that they contribute more for NATO, for example, or in trade policy when he talks about Mexico. But unfortunately, I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the global order functions. And the threat that Trump has given to withdraw from NATO or to backtrack on Article 5 of NATO that says the United States will come to the rescue of any NATO member if they're attacked, that is a huge boost for Russia. The splintering of Western alliances is precisely what Vladimir Putin has been hoping for. And I think between the Trump victory and Brexit, with the European Union having some cracks, this is a very good year for Russia. The other aspect of this that I've written about extensively and is the focus of my book is the idea of democracy around the world. And I think the Trump presidency is going to be extremely toxic for democracy globally for two reasons. One is that the presidential campaign between Trump and Clinton was an 18 month long advertisement for why democracy is broken. Right. Trying to sell democracy around the world while we have this dysfunctional political system in the west is not going to be helpful. The second aspect is that when you have an America first foreign policy and somebody who speaks cavalierly about despotism and sort of acts as an apologist for people like Saddam Hussein and says, well, he was great at dealing with terrorists, this sends an important and critical signal to regimes around the world that Donald Trump doesn't really care that much if you violate human rights or undermine democracy, so long as you're on our side with security threats. And that's a really dangerous precedent to set because it means that from Africa to the Middle east to Southeast Asia to Latin America would be despots or existing despots. Now, understand that under a Trump presidency, they have much more of a free pass. And that, I think, is going to be something that has ramifications well beyond the next four years.

[A]

Great. Thanks very much for joining us, Brian.

[B]

Thank you for having me.

[A]

Thank you.