Clinton lost US election because Democrats were too inclusive—study

political party
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Hillary Clinton may have lost out to Donald Trump in the battle for the US Presidency because the Democrats were too willing to welcome others with differing views to theirs into their political party, a new study reveals.

Research suggests that, with their tightly-knit sense of belonging and core values based around security, Republicans viewed Trump as strongly representing what they stand for—creating party unity and success in the 2016 election.

However, Democrats' greater inclusiveness and willingness to integrate members of other groups as part of their own meant that they identified more with non-Clinton supporters—weakening party cohesion and leading to election defeat.

Researchers from the University of Birmingham, University of Kent and Claremont McKenna College, USA published their study in Leadership.

Dr. Julie Christian, from the University of Birmingham, commented: "Political group processes had a major influence on the election. The Democrats' approach valued inclusion and welcoming divergent views, whereas the Republicans were much more tightly-knit.

"One of the keys to Trump's unexpected campaign success was that Republicans viewed him as truly representative of their group. By contrast, the Democrats' greater inclusiveness meant that they struggled to view Hillary Clinton as representative of the group."

The study reveals that Republicans displayed solidarity only with their own group and held more negative attitudes toward those not supporting their group's values. This greater solidarity was a factor that may have enabled them to act more as a single entity.

Inclusiveness meant that, rather than members drawing a sense of distinctiveness from their Democrat party affiliation, they gained esteem by integrating others into their . This emphasis on the collective approach worked against Clinton by hampering Democrat supporters' ability to perceive her as delivering on and embodying the group's values.

This outcome occurred because the group became too flexible with the inclusion of the opposition. In turn, the absence of endorsement for the leader and the use of this integration strategy worked to undermine the chance of a Democrat win.

"When groups must share a common environment after an election, the Democrats' inclusive approach would probably help to pull competing parties together," added Dr. Christian and her colleagues. "However, a more inclusive approach looking for co-operation before the competition is won results in too much integration and loss of momentum for the group."

The researchers note that the strategy of the Republican group to win the election is not necessarily suited to holding leadership after the . Their view is that the strongest option for the Republicans, post-victory, would have been to embrace as many Democrat 'out-group' members as possible to grow their 'in-'.


Explore further

Study shows that electoral outcomes affect the way we treat other people

More information: Julie Christian et al, Them and us: Did Democrat inclusiveness and Republican solidarity lead to the 2016 US presidential election outcome?, Leadership (2018). DOI: 10.1177/1742715018793733
Citation: Clinton lost US election because Democrats were too inclusive—study (2018, September 7) retrieved 21 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-09-clinton-lost-election-democrats-inclusivestudy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
73 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 07, 2018
Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate

Sep 07, 2018
This paper represents mental illness

Sep 07, 2018
...aaaand they're still buttsplaining why Clinton lost. First "Russian collusion" now "Democrat party is too inclusive". Sounds a lot like John Kerry's obnoxious humblebragging. "We're so great that people just don't understand how awesome we are."

It couldn't be as simple as having lousy candidates and lousy issues.

Democrats lost a thousand seats in state and federal governments between 2009 and 2017.

https://ballotped...esidency

Too inclusive? What "too inclusive" really means is "embracing every socialist and 'social justice' cause, no matter how ridiculous or minuscule". When you frame it right, the reasons become clear. The Democratic Party's accelerating charge to the left is alienating voters as they promote ideas and values that are increasingly incoherent to mainstream Americans.

Sep 07, 2018
There is no natural solidarity between small groups of "special pleading" advocates; in fact, there has historically been competition between the groups over an always limited amount of goodies.

So I agree with the paper, in a way.

Sep 07, 2018
The voter turnout was abysmal, which leads to the conclusion that Clinton was just a horrible candidate that lead to another marginally less unpopular candidate to win.

The Democratic Party's accelerating charge to the left is alienating voters as they promote ideas and values that are increasingly incoherent to mainstream Americans.


Well, they tossed out Bernie who was a self-declared socialist, so there's that.

Sep 07, 2018
Ignoring the center half of the country didn't help either. Wasn't anyone checking that electoral map during the campaign?

Sep 07, 2018
Inclusive eh!!! How inclusive was it to call 1/2 of the voters "Deplorables" ?

She had no message or plan other than vote for me I'm a woman.

Sep 08, 2018
she lost the election (and others before her) because the electoral college is an outdated and unfair/undemocratic construct, that happens to favor conservative candidates

Sep 08, 2018
she lost the election (and others before her) because the electoral college is an outdated and unfair/undemocratic construct, that happens to favor conservative candidates


Cry me a river. A combination of weak immigration enforcement and birthright citizenship is also undemocratic, as it provides a way to import future voters instead of winning elections fairly. Electoral college helps to partially offset that. I am usually in favor of popular vote, but the US has exactly the voting system it deserves.

Sep 08, 2018
TOTAL BS Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 MILLION votes. In addition the Russians interfered in the election unless you haven't been paying attention.

Sep 08, 2018
TOTAL BS Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 MILLION votes.


That's a lame excuse. You're complaining about a marginal point when the total voter turnout for Trump vs. Clinton was only 51.4% with 1.7% voting for Johnson, meaning that the winner got elected by little more than 25.7% of the eligible voters. Even if you had overturned the system and Clinton had won, she would still be the most unpopular elected president in history. Only 1.4% lower, and you could question whether the election was legitimate with less than half the voters preferring either candidate.

as it provides a way to import future voters instead of winning elections fairly


You can't import enough immigrants fast enough, and make them all vote for you to make much of a difference. That would be something completely unprecedented and if you somehow pulled it off, it would cause a civil war.

Sep 08, 2018
Correction: 46.9% of eligible voters didn't vote. 25.6% went for Clinton, 25.5% went for Trump, 1.7% for Johnson, 0.3% of votes were rejected.

That 3 million for Clinton is within the margin of error/rejects, so it's a moot point. If you went with a recount, it could easily turn either way. Trump won because the Democrats simply couldn't put out a reasonable candidate and alienated potential allies by playing chicanery with Bernie.

With such unpopular candidates, it would have been EASY to beat Trump. My cynical guess is that both democrats and republicans actually wanted to lose, so the next guy would take the fall after Obama failed to set the economy onto a healthy course.

Sep 08, 2018
Then again, if the dems hadn't played Bernie out of the game, he would have simply split the democrat vote and caused the party to lose anyhow. One jockey can't ride two horses, and Bernie was too left wing to attract half the democrat voters - as judged by how many people actually did vote for Clinton.

Sep 09, 2018
You can't import enough immigrants fast enough, and make them all vote for you to make much of a difference. That would be something completely unprecedented and if you somehow pulled it off, it would cause a civil war.


Who says it is fast? Such demographic changes take many decades. But when it comes to election results, it is just as important a factor as electoral college, probably more so.

Sep 09, 2018
Antifa is very inclusive. They bash anyone over the head who doesn't agree with them.

Sep 10, 2018
Someone in the Democratic Party "leadership" needs to learn that "Our Wall Street-sponsored corporate shill is slightly better than a poo-throwing orangutan" isn't a slogan that is going to get out the vote. On the other hand, by running Clinton they ensured that millions of people who would normally have sat the election out got off the couch to vote against her.

The Republicans didn't really win so much as the Democrats lost.

Sep 10, 2018
TOTAL BS Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 MILLION votes


0.5% larger than the margin of error? Landslide! It's immaterial, she lost the Electoral College, badly.

Know how she could have won? Campaign in the purple 'battleground' states and spend money there on a 'get out the vote' campaign. Instead she ignored them and spent all her time in New York and California, states she couldn't possibly lose, because that's where the corporate donations were. She spent a billion dollars to lose, and sometimes I wonder if it wasn't deliberate.

Sep 10, 2018
Szore the fact that you got 2 down votes for your valid criticism of Antifa highlights the hate that the Left has for the US constitution and the freedoms that it recognizes. To them the constitution starts off poorly because it states the freedoms are granted by God, A God whose existence a true intellectual Progressive does not even believe.

Sep 10, 2018
Sanders would have won if she stepped down. He was at least 3 times as good of a candidate. Not only was her reputation in question, and reinforced by scandals, but her how she raced was simply stupid, and she had no idea. Trump was more relatable, understood the economy, ran an intelligent campaign "make America great/strong again". It is trump in fact that was more inclusive because everyone can relate to more jobs and better America, but not everyone can relate to inclusiveness and women's rights. Great job Hillary you lose half the demographics in an instant. She is a poor strategist and for that reason alone she lost.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more