Abstract
Hillary Rodham Clinton was heralded by news outlets and political pundits as the clear frontrunner and expected winner of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Her election loss to Republican Donald Trump was not only surprising, for many voters, it was devastating. Guided by the death studies literature about meaning-making after a loss, the purpose of this study was to explore how voters who were disappointed by the results of the election made sense of the experience. Two hundred participants completed an online open-ended questionnaire about their feelings and coping methods for the loss. Participants framed Clinton’s loss as similar to the death of a loved one or the ending of a relationship. Participants utilized various coping strategies to deal with their grief, ranging from engaging in political activism to completely shutting themselves off from others. These findings have a number of implications for communication scholars and grief practitioners.
In the early morning hours of November 9, 2016, news outlets around the world called the U.S. Presidential election for Republican nominee Donald J. Trump. Although Trump lost the popular vote (62,984,825 votes to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 65,853,516 votes), he received 304 Electoral College votes, besting Clinton’s 227 electoral votes (State Elections Offices, 2017). The 2016 Presidential election was one of firsts—first woman at the top of a major party ticket, first nonpolitician to receive a major party nomination—and one marred by extreme rhetoric about immigration, health care, and security (Beauchamp, 2016; Bump, 2017; Dann, 2016; Darcy, 2016). Trump’s (2015) campaign itself began with a 2015 candidacy speech where he stated, When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
For more than 65 million people who voted for Clinton, however, the wounds would need more than victory speech rhetoric. News coverage right after the election was peppered with loss and trauma talk—people were talking about the election the same way they would talk about the death of a loved one (Faust, 2016). There were increased reports of calls to suicide hotlines and individuals sought out grief counselors and therapists (Beck, 2016; Ravitz, 2016; Strauss, 2016); the Gephardt Institute for Civic and Community Engagement at Washington University in St. Louis even released a press release about how to grieve the loss of the election (Gephardt Institute, 2016). Psych Central reported a 210% increase in traffic to their grief and loss page the day after the election (Grohol, 2016). Atoji Keene (2016) called it PET—Post-Election Trauma, where individuals experience anxiety, anger, and depression, loss of energy and productivity, and disorientation and withdrawal from daily life all due to Clinton’s loss (Gregoire, 2016; Martin, 2016; Waters, 2016).
The authors witnessed some of this grief firsthand as we traveled to our national communication conference the day after the election; we (one coming from Washington, DC; one coming from the Midwest) noted people dressed in black, openly crying in the airport, talking about Clinton’s loss. As death communication scholars, we were intrigued by people’s use of loss and grief language to make sense of Clinton’s loss and communicate their feelings of grief to others. Scholars have long accepted that people socially construct meaning through their interactions with others (e.g., Berger & Luckman, 1966; Galanes & Leeds-Hurwitz, 2009). Communication scholars have explored the social constructed nature of loss, mostly through examinations of grief after the loss of a child, spouse, or sibling (e.g., Golish & Powell, 2003; Halliwell & Franken, 2016; Powell & Matthys, 2013; Titus & de Souza, 2011; Toller, 2011; Toller & McBride, 2013). This rhetorical situation, however, is unique—Clinton did not die, and yet, individuals are experiencing the physiological and psychological effects of loss and grief.
Americans have a well-known history of mourning the loss of political officials. When the nation faced a physical death in politics, the most widely covered being the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, people openly grieved the loss and feelings of grief were acknowledged as legitimate (Associated Press, 2013; Brown, 2017). Jacqueline Kennedy received millions of condolence letters from people across the country after President Kennedy’s death (Mulvaney & De Angelis, 2010). Popular media outlets aired countless hours of news stories, specials, and documentaries to commemorate the anniversary of Kennedy’s death, which Vande Berg (1995) likened to taking a pilgrimage to receive therapeutic supplication. Scholarly explorations of how the public makes sense of and grieves these losses provides a window into how Americans understand not only the deceased individual but also the role of politics in American life (Sheatsley & Feldman, 1964). Mourning these losses allows the public to craft a public memory about the deceased and what they represented to democracy (Kitch, 2002; Zelizer, 1992). In this way, the deceased becomes an icon, representing American values (Kitch, 2002).
We are not equating President Kennedy’s death and the country’s loss of a sitting president with Hillary Clinton’s electoral loss; however, there is no mistaking that people have experienced aspects of grief as a result (see Beck, 2016; Gregoire, 2016; Martin, 2016; Ravitz, 2016; Strauss, 2016; Waters, 2016). The purpose of this study is to examine how voters who supported Hillary Rodham Clinton made sense of and coped with the loss of their candidate. We begin by examining the social constructive nature of loss and coping, theoretically moving the literature away from traditional understandings of loss to think about loss in the context of the election. After discussing the study methods, we present the findings, which underscore the ways Clinton voters constructed her loss as a death. Clinton voters engaged in a variety of coping strategies, some helpful and some destructive. We end the article by discussing the implications of this study on the study of loss and coping.
Making-Meaning After a Loss
At their cores, meaning-making about death, loss, and grief are socially constructed forms of discourse; in fact, in the death studies literature, death is called the “ultimate social construction of reality” (Brabant, 2010–2011). From a communication perspective, humans create and share their social worlds through their communication with others, responding, strengthening, and sometimes changing how they communicate based on those interactions (Bartesaghi & Castor, 2009). Identities, language, everyday action, and even senses of self are socially constructed through communication (e.g., Allen & Waks, 1990; Arrington, 2008; Bisel, Zanin, Rozzell, Risely-Baird, & Rygaard, 2016; Carmack & Galanes, 2013; Docan-Morgan, 2017; Jung & Lee, 2004; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2009; Richardson, 2013), meaning they can be challenged and reshaped in the face of a disruption, what Burke (1954) called trouble with a capital T. Individuals grieving a loss, especially the loss of someone close to them, must not only deal with the loss but also the trauma the loss plays in the disruption of their lives (Neimeyer, 2001). Schmale (1958) argued that losses can be either concrete or symbolic, and feelings of bereavement can follow any type of loss (Kastenbaum, 1977). Loss of a job, relationship, health, or life could certainly result in a bereaved state and grief-related reactions. Although “loss” is conventionally synonymous with a person’s death, researchers have expanded the traditional definition of grief to include any form of distress that is a response to a loss (Bonanno, 2001; Harvey, 1998; Miller & Omarzu, 1998).
There are several socially constructed approaches to grief and loss, all focusing on the emotions and mental processing required to grief a loss and come to a “new normal” (Attig, 2001). Sanders (1999) posited a five-phase integrative theory of bereavement that outlines the psychological forces that transpire during the actual grieving process. In the first phase of shock, the bereaved individual numbly operates in a confused state of disbelief that the loss has occurred. As the shock diminishes, the bereaved becomes aware of the loss (Phase 2) both physically and mentally. This can lead to feelings of separation anxiety, increased stress, and feelings of yearning (described by Bowlby, 1961). Anger, crying, guilt, and frustration are some of the physical symptoms in this phase. The third phase is termed conservation withdrawal. Here, the bereaved elects to do whatever is necessary to save the little energy that he or she has left, as severe feelings of helplessness cause intense fatigue. Phase 4, healing, includes aspects of identity restructuring and increases in energy. Hopefulness and a motivation to make decisions about the future occur as well. Finally, Phase 5 is referred to as the renewal phase. The bereaved is learning to live with the loss, yet he or she might still have pangs of sadness when triggered by a memory or anniversary. Although many researchers, including Sanders, suggest a stage- or phase-based model for understanding grief (Bowlby, 1980; Shuchter & Zisook, 1993; Weiss, 1993), it is not a linear process; people often revisit previous stages or experience them concurrently (Parkes, 1972).
An important part of grieving a loss is making sense of that loss (Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Larson, 1998). There are two key ways of approaching meaning-making and loss: finding the “silver lining” with the loss and or “sense-making” the loss (Davis et al., 1998). The silver-lining approach to loss meaning-making calls on individuals during their grieving process to reevaluate their life purpose and goals and to craft new life goals and purpose. The silver lining comes from individuals finding the positive amidst the pain of loss, reframing the loss as meaning-as-significant (Janoff-Bulman & Frantz, 1997). In the case of Clinton’s election loss, the silver-lining approach would focus on how it was the spark for many women to decide to run for office. Conversely, the “sense-making” approach to loss uses individuals’ existing worldviews to make sense of the loss. This approach is considered a more benign approach because it does not challenge and reshape individuals’ worldviews, framing it more as meaning-as-comprehensible (Janoff-Bulman & Frantz, 1997). For example, framing the loss as “God’s will” helps to put the loss into a perspective which individuals with similar religious beliefs can identify (Davis et al., 1998).
Although news coverage of Clinton supporters’ feelings after the election highlighted the impact of her loss, little is known about how they socially constructed the loss. Based on this, we posited the first research question: Research Question 1. How do Clinton supporters make sense of their feelings about Clinton’s loss to Trump in the 2016 Presidential election?
Coping
Individuals’ reactions following a loss differ on a continuum of intensity from nonexistent, apathetic behaviors to chronic and intense emotions accompanied by physical ailments (Bowlby, 1980). These responses to a loss vary depending on demographic factors, baseline mental health, attitude toward death, social support, religiosity, closeness with the deceased, and type of death, among other mediators (Bonanno, Boerner, & Wortman, 2008; Bowlby, 1980; Sanders, 1999). Due to these variations, strategies for coping with a loss are unique to individuals as well.
Numerous coping inventories have been developed as a means to identify and describe the various coping strategies employed following a stressful event (see Carver, Scheier, & Weintrab, 1989; Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989; Wortman, Silver, & Kessler, 1993). We chose to focus on Tobin et al.’s (1989) multidimensional coping inventory, the coping strategies inventory (CSI), as it is a comprehensive directory of the various coping strategies utilized. This inventory is a 72-item self-report questionnaire that assesses participants’ coping thoughts and behaviors in response to a stressful event or situation.
Tobin et al.’s (1989) coping inventory divides coping strategies broadly into engagement strategies and disengagement strategies, depending on how the person generally manages the stressor. Each classification is then divided based on the coping person’s focus: problem centered or emotion centered. Problem engagement strategies include problem solving and cognitive restructuring. Actively attempting to eliminate a problem by changing the situation reveals a problem-solving strategy, and mentally reframing the problem is an example of cognitive restructuring. Expressing emotions and seeking social support are types of emotion engagement strategies. Releasing or expressing emotions and seeking emotional support from others represent these strategies, respectively. Problem avoidance and wishful thinking are examples of problem disengagement. Problem avoidance involves denying that the problem exists or eluding any conditions related to solving or thinking about the disturbance at hand. Wishful thinking is simply “hoping” or “wishing” that things would be better. Finally, emotion-focused disengagement includes self-criticism and social withdrawal. Blaming oneself for the situation and refusing to talk with others about the issue reflect these strategies. To explore how people who were upset with the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election coped with Clinton’s loss, we posed the following research question: Research Question 2. What coping strategies were utilized as people attempted to manage their feelings of loss following the 2016 Presidential election?
Method
Recruitment
We posted calls for participants on various social media sites. We also posted in Facebook groups that were specifically created in support of Clinton’s presidential run (e.g., regional Pantsuit Nation groups). The call included eligibility requirements for the study: Participants must be at least 18 years old and be eligible to vote in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. We explicitly stated that we were “examining individuals’ emotional disappointment with Hillary Clinton's Presidential election loss.” We were not interested in the general population’s reaction to the election results; rather, we wanted to focus on the reaction of Clinton supporters who were disappointed or saddened by the election results. A link to the online questionnaire hosted by Qualtrics was included in the participation call.
After agreeing to the consent form conditions and indicating eligibility for the study, participants completed a section to provide demographic information and their voting activities in the 2016 Presidential election (i.e., if they voted, who they voted for, who they would have voted for if they had not voted). Because we were interested in Clinton supporters, the question asking who participants voted for in the general election served as a security check. The next section focused on the participant’s reaction to Clinton’s election loss. We asked people to describe their feelings about Clinton’s election loss. We also asked how they are currently coping with their feelings of loss (if any) after the election and how they anticipate continuing to cope with those feelings.
Participants
Initially, a total of 583 people completed the survey; however, many were not eligible for participation. Although the participant call and eligibility requirements on the consent form specifically requested participants who were Clinton supporters upset with the 2016 Presidential election results, two thirds of the respondents were Trump supporters who appeared to complete the survey to obfuscate our data. To avoid analyzing disingenuous responses, we sorted participants’ answers to the question “Who did you vote for in the 2016 Presidential election?” and removed Trump-enthusiasts from the data set. We also removed records of those whose responses did not appear to be congruent with the intention of the study (e.g., “You are whiny snowflakes protesting the outcome of the election.”). After removing those responses, 200 were retained for analysis, based on their eligibility for the study. Of the 200 participants, 159 (79.5%) were female and 41 (20.5%) were male. They ranged in age from 18 years to 69 years (M = 40.7, SD = 12.96). Participants were predominantly Caucasian (n = 177, 88.5%) and heterosexual (n = 155, 77.5%). Most (67%) were married or in a domestic partnership, some were single (23.5%), and the remainder were separated, divorced, or widowed. Our participants were well educated. Twenty-nine percent hold a 4-year college degree, 22% have a master’s degree, 19% have a doctorate or professional degree, 11% completed some graduate school, and 9% completed some college. Only three participants (1.5%) indicated that a high school degree was their highest level of education. Finally, the majority of our sample did not appear to be religious: 21.5% identified as atheists, 14.5% were agnostic, and 11% were spiritual but not religious. Catholics (17.5%) and Christians (13%) also comprised a moderate portion of our sample.
Analysis
Thematic analysis (described by Braun & Clarke, 2006) was utilized to organize, analyze, and report the data collected. Because we wanted to focus on negative emotional responses, we defined the data set (Braun & Clarke) for Research Question 1 as any meaning-making related to that topic and coded-related instances in the data corpus for this study in an inductive approach. We individually read through the participants’ comments and used NVivo qualitative coding software to assign a first-level code. The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was employed, as we compared each unit of analysis to the previous units. We then compared our initial codes and resolved any discrepancies. Next, we, again individually, identified commonalities among the initial codes in order to organized them into themes. At this point, we compared and finalized our themes.
To respond to Research Question 2, we then explored participant responses regarding coping strategies. Again, we individually completed the first-level coding and compared our findings. At this point, we determined that the strategies would best be represented by Tobin et al.’s (1989) CSI. We then engaged in a theoretical thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) for coping, using Tobin et al.’s (1989) CSI as a framework for organizing the coping strategies. We were able to organize the codes identified earlier into the coping strategies identified by Tobin et al., which serve as our themes presented later. We present exemplary participant comments as written in the questionnaire; we chose to not edit for language and profanity.
Results
Not surprising, the idea of “loss” was paramount; however, participants had numerous ways of describing that loss. Some described it as a death, while others likened it to a romantic relationship ending. Participants also described the loss as a betrayal, and they endured emotional and physical reactions to the loss. Finally, participants were able to articulate their strategies for coping with what they viewed as a very negative event. This was a significant loss for many people. It was the loss of hope, the country’s future, and a historical first woman president.
Loss
To many of our participants, Clinton’s election loss was personal, and they described their own feelings of loss by comparing it to the death of a loved one or a breakup. In some cases, people described the loss as the death of something abstract, such as hope or the country’s future.
Death and dying
Overwhelmingly, people explicitly linked to death to describe their postelection experiences. This included describing the loss as facing their own death, the death of another, or the death of the country.
For some participants, Clinton’s loss was just the beginning of the dying process. One person wrote, “I feel a bit like I’ve just been given a terminal diagnosis with an ill-defined end-date. I feel this astoundingly deep sense of inner dread and fear that I have not yet been able to shake off.”
Others described the loss as experiencing the death of someone close to them. For example, “I was heartbroken. Clinton’s loss was so personal to me I felt like my mother had died and a horrible stepdad was stepping in to take her place.” Another explained, I would say that this election was like watching my mother slowly dying in a hospital while being surrounded by white male doctors shrugging their shoulders and saying “there’s nothing we can do” and refusing to treat her, then rushing off on an emergency call to help out some foul-mouthed redneck who shot himself in the foot. It was now clear to me that the country was not what I thought it was—that the people (including some I know who voted for Trump/hate) were not who I thought they were. It was as if an idea had died.
Relationship loss
“Heartbreak” was a term used frequently to describe the feelings people had after the election. Many participants revealed that Clinton’s loss felt to them like the loss of a relationship. One woman explained, This is how I felt last year when my husband asked for a divorce. I felt like he told me I was worthless and on election night it seemed like my government was set up to confirm that I'm worthless. I feel as though America is having a torrid affair outside of our marriage. With a hooker. And sharing it on social media, unashamed. I choose that because I still love my country and wish I could have it back. But there is an utter betrayal of what I thought were shared values, and now I see that I was just too optimistic and trusting.
Intangible loss
Many people were concerned with a loss on a larger, more abstract scale. They experienced the loss of the country’s future, hope, and trust in the political system. One wrote, “It felt like my future had evaporated. I lost all hope.” Another felt like “a deflated balloon. I had a lot of hope for the first female president and then it was gone.” Participants believed the future of the United States was now at risk with Trump in charge: “I think Trump/Pence winning is going to send the country (at least those of us not in the 1%) on a swift downward spiral that we might never recover from.” Another person explained, The ship went down and are captain went down with it. I would use this because I was a Clinton supporter, I felt that her losing was like we lost a purpose and the country and its citizens lost a lot of respect for each other. Almost like a ship sinking and the captain going down with it.
Betrayal
In addition to feeling disheartened by Clinton’s loss, many people also felt betrayed by their fellow voters and the Democratic National Party. One person wrote, “I felt as if someone had died. Maybe what really died was some of my faith in my fellow man . . . A lot of my ideas about progress and democracy in this country were shaken.” Another person described his perspective: It was like the ground crumbled beneath me. Everything that I had believed about this country and its values was challenged that day. I'm not naive. I'm the child of Chinese immigrants and I grew up in a very White area. I have no delusions that racism and other forms of prejudice and hate do not exist. But I didn't think that there was so much of it—racism, sexism, etc.—that a candidate as despicable as Trump could sail to victory on White voters’ prejudices. I was so very wrong. I thought my 3 young children would inherit a more just and tolerant America. I realize now that they won't.
Emotional and Physical Reactions
As a result of the feelings of loss or betrayal, numerous participants relayed their emotional and physical responses when reeling from the loss. Participants detailed aspects of their shock, disappointment, and physical reactions. Because of Clinton’s long-projected win prior to the election, people were understandably surprised and shocked by her loss. One participant admitted, “It hurt me on a more emotional level than I anticipated.”
Initial reactions to the election results included being vulnerable, nervous, gobsmacked, “walking in a fog,” and battered. One person explained feeling as thought he was “punched in the gut. I was emotionally devastated and took the next day off from work.” Another said the loss was “like waking up on Christmas morning and finding no presents under the tree as a child.” Others described their severe initial reactions: “Someone took a basket full of puppies and slaughtered them right in front of my face” and “Like being in a bad car accident that you didn’t cause that was part of a pileup. Devastation, hurt, and trying to identify blame in chaos. Worried about others.”
People had physical reactions to the loss as well. One man wrote, “Hillary Clinton’s loss is a kick in the teeth. I chose that metaphor because there was an almost physical pain about seeing DT’s apparently wide-spread success.” Another wrote, “The physical sensations I experienced when the race was called mirrored those I experienced when finding out about my father's death many years ago.” One participant described her physical response to the election: For many days after the election, I woke up in the middle of the night with my jaw aching (from clenching my teeth all night), and with my heart literally pounding, as if desperately trying to wake up from a nightmare.
Coping Strategies
Many of our participants actively utilized behaviors to cope with their feelings of loss. This involved engaging with the problem itself or with their emotions. Other participants preferred to disengage from the situation as a method of coping with the loss. These strategies linked to disengaging from the problem or disengaging emotionally.
Problem engagement: Problem solving
As people engaged in problem solving, they gathered information, provided information to others, or took political action. These closely align with Tobin et al.’s (1989) category of problem solving and make up one of the largest categories of coping strategies. It appeared that the people who gathered information did so as a means to make sense of what happened with the election and prepare for this president’s term. Participants increased their news consumption by watching more news, subscribing to “unbiased” newspapers, and listening to people on the other side of the political spectrum. One participant explained, After those first few days, I did a lot of reading and listened to several podcasts to try to gauge why this happened and what it means and how bad it could really get. I sought information to try to make sense of what had happened.
In addition to gathering information, providing information was another way people engaged in problem solving. Numerous educators and parents indicated they would use this election as a teaching point. Comments included the following: “I modified my high school curriculum to teach more about fake news. The dangers of dictators” and “As an educator, I intend to do what I can in the classroom to combat hate, prejudice, and the spreading of false news/information.” People also stressed the importance of assertive and corrective communication when people try to share wrong or inappropriate information. For example, “I try to call people out when I see/hear them being sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic/etc.” Another participant revealed, I never engage in political conversations on line with people but I began doing so after the election. I started to feel that it was my personal responsibility to make my voice heard, to correct people when they spout fake news, to question their assumptions and get them to think. I have become more involved with local politics and have done my share of letter writing since the election. I have to feel like I am doing SOMETHING or else I shall spend my days crying with every new decision and unpresidential thing that comes out of his mouth.
Problem engagement: Cognitive restructuring
In another manner of engaging with the problem, some people chose to reorganize how they viewed the situation as a means to lessen the anxiety they feel. Many people who used this coping strategy were “hopeful” and “remaining positive.” Examples of this tactic included: “I will focus on the power of democracy and hope that the people who voted for Trump did so with the best intentions,” “Trying to move forward. Hoping (against hope?) that maybe Trump will end up doing a good job,” and “I looked up some of the dire predictions that Republicans made about how the US would fall to pieces if Obama was elected. None of them came true, so this gives me a little hope.”
Emotion engagement: Expressing emotions
Some people actively dealt with their negative emotions toward the election results. Crying and seeing a therapist were common ways people expressed their emotions. People admitted, “The day after the election I cried all day” and “I believe I cried on the way to work that day as I thought about all of the negative setbacks our country will face with him as president.” Others commented, “I’m seeing a therapist and have medication again” and “I went to therapy to try and find a more productive and healthy outlet. But it's not working.”
Emotion engagement: Seeking social support
Seeking social support from people who share the same outlook on the situation was a common tactic used by people coping with Clinton’s presidential loss. Study participants reached out to like-minded people online and in person. One person described how he felt supported by joining an online Facebook group: “I did find the Pantsuit Nation groups on Facebook (national and local) to be really helpful. I didn't do much interaction on the pages, but reading about people's stories and emotions helped me to understand my own.” One woman explained that she coped “by commiserating with like-minded friends. Sharing my thoughts and feelings, crying with my friends, not looking at social media as much, and when I do, sharing stories about what a ‘disaster’ he is going to be.” Another person described her experience, “I reached out to like-minded friends and then on Sunday, hosted a Pity Party Potluck at my house.”
While half of our participants coped with the election results by engaging in activities to manage their feelings, the other half of our participants admitted to physically or mentally disengaging from situations related to the election.
Problem disengagement: Problem avoidance
Problem avoidance strategies included distracting oneself or simply accepting the electoral decision and “moving on.” People disclosed that they avoided thinking about the election results and what it could mean for the country’s future by focusing on other activities. Writing, listening to music, playing games, and working more hours were examples given by participants. Some participated in healthy activities such as exercising or yoga. Others divulged that they were partaking in unhealthy habits. One person summarized, “I drank. I overate. I cried. I started smoking occasionally.” Increased amounts of alcohol intake were identified frequently as a response to the election outcome.
Some people said they avoided their negative feelings toward the election by “accept[ing] the results and mov[ing] on.” Another articulated his position, “Just stop [thinking about] it. It happened. Trump is horrible and he’s the president. If he gets booted or murdered, then we’re stuck with Mike fucking Pence, God’s own personal crusader.” One person said he accepted Clinton’s loss and then continued living his life: “This is our new normal. This is our future.”
In some instances, people were considering fleeing the country to avoid the problem altogether. For example, one woman said she is, “considering moving to Canada [due to] the shit show that’s about to unfold.”
Problem disengagement: Wishful thinking
Some people were “hopeful” in the face of grief yet did not actively participate in ensuring that positive outcomes prevailed. A participant explained that she coped with the election results “by praying DT fucks one thing up and then decides to pay attention and listen to sound advice (outside his Cabinet).” Because people completed our survey prior to the electoral votes being cast, many participants acknowledged a hope that the electors would not vote for whom they pledged to vote (i.e., a faithless elector). Examples include “I feel a slight hope the electoral college will choose her. I guess thinking about that helps me but I don’t know what I will do after next Monday” and “I don't know that I will fully accept the outcome until the electoral college votes. Then I may wait until inauguration. Then may wait for the impeachment.” These instances of what Tobin et al. (1989) would term as “wishful thinking” are wildly optimistic and meant to detract attention from the potential issues at hand that could result with Trump as president.
Emotion disengagement: Self-criticism
Emotion-focused disengagement refers to people blocking or compartmentalizing emotions related to the stressful event. Self-criticism and being unable to cope with the results are examples of this type of emotional disengagement. An inability to cope was commonly identified as an immediate response to the election and in the week that followed. Participants explained their reactions: “I had a very difficult day after election day and was fairly non-functional at work,” “Not well—I burst into tears at random moments, had bouts of sleeplessness, etc.,” and “I cried a lot. I went into a depression and was in bed for a few days. I’m still in a panic.”
Other people were still failing to cope weeks after the election. “It’s been over a month and I’m still numb,” “Still trying to figure it out,” and “I do not think I’ve coped yet. So, essentially, I’ve got my head stuck in the sand,” are a few examples of people not addressing their negative feelings.
Emotion disengagement: Social withdrawal
Finally, a large group of people chose to withdraw socially in order to avoid discussions about the election. These strategies are related to Tobin et al.’s (1989) emotion-focused disengagement strategy of social withdrawal, which comprises this study’s second largest categories of coping strategies.
People utilizing this coping strategy avoided conversations about the election both on and offline. Participants remarked, “I kept quiet for a few days and refused to talk about the election on Facebook and in public” and “I purposely avoid discussing my disapproval with those I know who support Trump. I have found that there is no changing their minds.”
Many of our participants specifically wanted to avoid talking with Trump supporters about the presidency so soon after the election. Examples include “I avoid Trump supporters. If avoidance is impossible, I refuse to engage in political discussions,” “Avoided everyone I suspected voted for Trump until I could handle myself,” and “I refuse to discuss the election with anyone who voted for Trump. I can barely speak to them at all. And this includes many members of my family.”
In some instances, people purposely avoided, “unfriended,” or blocked Trump supporters completely. A participant explained, The few [Trump supporters] that are critical, I either ignore or have shut out of my life. I have no acceptance for racism or any of the other things that Trump supports, and excluding family members I just don't deal with the Trump supporters any more. I deleted all of my contacts from my old FB page and started a new one, inviting only people who shared my political beliefs. I seriously have no time in my life and no inclination to try to understand and find common ground. This has been an election of values and people I called my friend are not who I thought they were. I posted a status two days after the election: I have unfriended dozens of People in the last few days who voted for Trump. If you voted for Trump please unfriend me. This has nothing to do with politics but your support of a Racist, Bigot, and Misogynistic supporter of Rape Culture.
Discussion
Participants in this study mourned the loss of Hillary Rodham Clinton as president as well as the loss of what her win would have represented for women and marginalized populations. This study uniquely uses death literature to understand how participants socially constructed and made sense of this loss. The findings from this study suggest participants framed this loss as a death—a death of a loved one, of a relationship, of a future. Participants also engaged in a number of coping strategies, ranging from positive behaviors (e.g., running for office) to destructive behaviors (e.g., drug and alcohol abuse).
Although participants reported feeling similar negative emotions and engaging in griefwork, where they are in their bereavement process appears to be connected to how they cope with the loss. Part of this is dependent on how they conceptualized their response to the loss. Participants toggled between hope and despair. The tension between the problem-solving strategies (a strategy of engagement) and social withdrawal (a disengagement strategy) is telling. If they viewed it as something that should (and could) be prevented, they were more likely to problem solve and participate in various activities to voice their opinion and do what they could to help keep America on the “right track.” These individuals, then, are meaning-making in the fourth stage of bereavement: healing (Sanders, 1999). These individuals frame the loss as one of responsibility and (in)action, meaning it is their responsibility to make changes if they are unhappy with the 2016 election results (i.e., getting more Democrats elected in 2018). This hopeful motivation is a driving force to get involved, changing their life goals, reshaping their identity, and rebuilding their sense of self (Gillies & Neimeyer, 2006; Neimeyer, 2006). This move is important because it shows participants actively involved in shaping a “new normal,” (identified in death and dying literature by Attig, 2001) and even more importantly, underscores that participants believe they have control over how to construct this new normal.
Conversely, other participants appeared to interpret the election results as utter devastation and something that had no real solution. Participants here are more closely situated in Sanders’ (1999) third phase: conservation withdrawal. These participants were still so emotionally impacted by Clinton’s loss that they engaged in social isolation tactics (Oetzel, Duran, Jiang, & Lucero, 2007). They shunned friends who were Trump supporters, distracted themselves, and avoided any news coverage that reminded them of the current situation. Participants in this bereavement phase appear to be engaging in the more benign “sense-making,” where they use their already established worldviews to make sense of the loss. Whereas individuals in the fourth stage are able to transform their feelings and identity into action, participants in the third stage still struggle with how to define themselves in relation to the loss. Participants in this stage used a fatalistic framework to make sense of what their feelings. Fatalism can be a helpful sense-making strategy in the short term; fatalism as a communication strategy serves as a way to relief stress, manage uncertainty, and save face with communicating with others (Keeley, Wright, & Condit, 2009). However, if used as a long-term strategy, this fatalistic approach could create a cycle of grief, where individuals become stuck and believe they cannot address their feelings.
Participants clearly mourned Clinton’s loss, experiencing loss emotions, and engaging in griefwork to reconcile their feelings about the election. They attempted to cope with the loss in a variety of ways, consistent with coping and loss events (Carver et al., 1989; Stroebe & Schrut, 1999; Tobin et al., 1989). However, the findings from this study call into question the legitimacy of loss. Although many participants received social support, some reported people questioning the “realness” of their feelings. The authors also experienced this disenfranchisement as Trump supporters made unsolicited malicious and disturbing comments to us about our study. When loss and grief are not acknowledged by others, it becomes disenfranchised grief (Doka, 1989). Disenfranchised grief occurs when a loss cannot be “openly acknowledged, publicly mourned, or socially supported” (Doka, 1989, p. 4). Individuals whose grief is disenfranchised often experience anger and will end relationships with those who they do not believe support them (Corr, 1998–1999). In their discussion of online catfishing and loss, DeGroot and Carmack (2016) have previously established that a death does not have to be “real” in order for individuals’ grief to be real; however, that does not mean others will validate the griefwork of that loss. Questioning the “realness” of their feelings, telling them to “get over it,” or calling them names does not help voters mourning Clinton’s loss; rather, it serves to drive a wedge between people. If individuals are going to be able to engage in dialogue about the state of the country, their grief will have to be acknowledged and taken seriously.
Limitations and Future Research
This study provides a snapshot in time of people’s feelings about the election; as such, there are limitations with the study. The data were collected right before and after the inauguration, when feelings were still raw. Now that a year has passed, it is possible that how individuals make sense of and communicate their loss will be different. Although grief is not a linear process (Parkes, 1972), we would anticipate that people have experienced multiple phases in their griefwork (see Bowlby, 1961) during a year’s time. As such, participants’ feelings toward the election results (and subsequently, how they describe those feelings) would likely differ from feelings immediately after the loss.
Second, as indicated in the Methods section, many of our participants’ comments were not included in this analysis because they did not fit the requirements of the study. They were not upset with the election results. Rather, they were elated with the results. Because we were interested in loss-related feelings, we chose to remove the irrelevant data sets. We would like to think that Trump supporters were simply not paying attention to the research call and accidentally filled out the survey; however, it was clear from some participants’ comments that they were interested in purposefully skewing our results. This is even more problematic given that the study call was posted in Pantsuit Nation, a Clinton support Facebook page. In fact, shortly after our study collection was completed, Pantsuit Nation announced it had been “infiltrated” by Trump supporters who posted hate-filled and derogatory messages and shut down for a period of time to remove Trump supporters from the group.
The unique theoretical arguments of this article offer several directions for future research. Although many people appeared to be coping in a healthy manner and proceeding with their lives, figuring out how to live in a world where Clinton lost in the election, they were not immune to being triggered by something and reminded of their grief, resulting in what Parkes (1972) referred to as “pangs” (p. 39). How do individuals negotiate these grief pangs? Future studies identifying triggers of grief pangs and how individuals try to avoid those or face them directly would provide further insight. In addition, it would be useful to conduct the same study at the halfway point of Trump’s term to explore how people currently view Clinton’s election loss and how people are coping. We hypothesize that the people who actively avoided acknowledging the situation are now more engaged (physically, emotionally, and politically) as their grief ebbs over time.
As we finish writing this article, Trump is preparing to deliver his first State of the Union address. Newspapers report on the increases of women running for office in a “blue wave” designed to challenge Trump’s policies. Voters are using Clinton’s loss as a meaning-as-significant moment, refocusing their feelings of loss into a silver lining—this was the catalyst they needed to decide to run for political office, to stop the divisive rhetoric, to change the conversation. Time will tell if they succeed.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.