Don Lemon Revisits Hillary Clinton’s “Deplorables” Comment Amid Renewed Political Division

A Controversial Remark Resurfaces

Former CNN anchor Don Lemon has reignited debate over one of the most polarizing moments of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, reaffirming Hillary Clinton’s description of some supporters of Donald Trump as belonging to a “basket of deplorables.” Speaking in a recent interview, Lemon echoed Clinton’s characterization, stating that her assessment of certain segments of Trump’s voter base — as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic” — was, in his view, accurate then and remains accurate today.

Lemon emphasized that Clinton had distinguished between these so-called deplorables and other Americans who felt economically or politically abandoned by the establishment. “Clinton’s remark was not a blanket condemnation,” he argued. “It was a reflection of an uncomfortable truth about a portion of the electorate that embraced intolerance.” His reaffirmation has once again stirred public debate on the boundaries between political critique and voter alienation at a time when national unity remains fragile.

Historical Roots of the “Deplorables” Controversy

The “basket of deplorables” comment originated during a September 2016 campaign fundraiser. Clinton’s statement quickly dominateds and social media, igniting outrage among Trump supporters and energizing the opposing campaign. The remark was seized upon as emblematic of elite disdain for working-class Americans in the so-called “flyover states.”

In the political aftermath, analysts widely agreed that the comment may have cost Clinton support in key battleground states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump’s campaign leveraged the phrase as a rallying cry. His supporters embraced the term “deplorable” as a badge of honor, emblazoning it across T-shirts and online profiles, transforming what was intended as a critique into a symbol of defiant political identity.

Lemon’s Renewed Assertion and Public Reaction

Lemon’s defense of Clinton’s assessment arrives at a moment when rhetoric surrounding race, culture, and political allegiance continues to dominate national discourse. His comments gained traction across social media platforms, reigniting long-standing divisions over how public figures classify voters and what constitutes legitimate critique versus elitist dismissal.

Responses were sharply divided. Supporters of Lemon’s stance praised him for “speaking the truth,” pointing to extremist rhetoric, hate crimes, and conspiracy theories that have circulated within parts of the political right since 2016. Others condemned his remarks as “elitist and divisive,” arguing that rehashing the “deplorables” comment reinforces stereotypes and widens partisan rifts rather than addressing underlying grievances over jobs, globalization, and cultural change.

The Enduring Legacy of the 2016 Election

The 2016 election left an indelible mark on U.S. political identity. Hillary Clinton’s comment has persisted as shorthand for the deep cultural divide between urban and rural voters, college-educated liberals and working-class conservatives. The phrase remains a flashpoint in discussions about class resentment, media bias, and political condescension.

Political historians note that similar divides existed in earlier elections — from Richard Nixon’s “silent majority” rhetoric in 1968 to Ronald Reagan’s appeal to “Reagan Democrats” in the 1980s. Yet the “deplorables” controversy embodied the modern social media era, where a single phrase could reverberate globally within minutes, shaping voter sentiment far beyond the original event.

Economic Discontent and the “Left Behind” Voter

At the heart of this enduring debate lies the economic anxiety that fueled Trump’s rise in 2016 and contributed to his reelection in 2024. Many Americans, particularly in former industrial regions, felt abandoned by an economy that had shifted toward technology and services while hollowing out manufacturing and blue-collar jobs.

Lemon acknowledged this distinction during his remarks, reflecting Clinton’s own attempt to separate those motivated by hate from those driven by hardship. However, critics argue that such nuance was lost in the emotional aftermath of the 2016 campaign. By the time analysts clarified Clinton’s intent, the “deplorables” label had hardened into political mythology.

In that sense, Lemon’s revival of the comment reopens questions about how media figures and political leaders articulate complex social realities without alienating millions of voters who perceive derision in elite discourse.

A Broader Reflection on American Identity

The reemergence of the “deplorables” debate underscores the nation’s ongoing struggle to reconcile differing visions of patriotism, morality, and civility. For many who felt targeted by Clinton’s and now Lemon’s remarks, the phrase represented more than criticism — it symbolized a moral judgment passed down by cultural gatekeepers.

Sociologists view this controversy through a broader lens. Studies of voter sentiment suggest that when individuals feel morally or socially excluded, they gravitate toward candidates who promise recognition, even at the expense of political norms. Trump's success in mobilizing those Americans who felt labeled "deplorable" illustrates how negative characterization can paradoxically strengthen political identity rather than weaken it.

Comparisons with Other Nations’ Political Divides

This dynamic is not unique to the United States. Across Europe, populist movements have risen on similar waves of resentment against perceived elite disdain. In the United Kingdom, debates over “Remainers” and “Leavers” after the Brexit referendum mirrored the cultural entrenchment witnessed in U.S. politics. In France, frustration between urban professionals and rural voters has fueled the rise of populist parties that echo similar grievances — the fear of being dismissed by cultural and political elites.

In each case, language plays a crucial role. A single phrase or label — whether “deplorables,” “left behinds,” or “forgotten men” — often crystallizes broader societal tensions. Lemon’s recent comments, therefore, resonate far beyond American borders as democracies wrestle with polarization fueled by both economic disruption and media fragmentation.

Media Responsibility and the Power of Words

The renewed controversy highlights the immense power of language in shaping political perception. Lemon, a veteran journalist, has long commented on the intersection of race, politics, and social change. His decision to revisit Clinton’s remark may reflect a desire to confront what many progressives see as an erosion of democratic norms and empathy. Yet it also serves as a reminder that journalists themselves shape narratives that can either bridge or widen divides.

Media analysts note that in the post-2020 landscape, traditional news outlets compete with fragmented online ecosystems where algorithms reward outrage over nuance. The reemergence of historically charged phrases such as “deplorables” functions as a form of cultural shorthand in an era when attention is fleeting but emotional reactions are amplified.

The Political Cost of Controversy

While Lemon’s remarks are unlikely to alter the current political balance, they underscore how unresolved wounds from the 2016 election still shape national conversation nearly a decade later. Politicians have largely avoided reusing overtly divisive language, aware of the risks such terminology carries. Even so, polarization remains embedded in voter identity, policy debates, and digital discourse.

For Clinton, the “deplorables” comment remains both a political misstep and a cultural milestone. For Lemon, reaffirming it is a statement of conviction — but also a gamble in a volatile information environment where intentions are quickly reframed through partisan lenses.

Looking Ahead

As the United States continues grappling with questions of equality, nationalism, and belonging, the persistence of the “deplorables” debate reflects the nation’s unfinished reckoning with its own divisions. Economic inequalities, demographic shifts, and competing visions of morality continue to shape how Americans see themselves and one another.

Lemon’s return to this flashpoint — nearly a decade after it first shook the political landscape — speaks to a deeper continuity in U.S. public life. The vocabulary of contempt, class, and moral judgment remains potent, and in some ways more entrenched than ever. Whether such rhetoric will push the nation toward deeper understanding or further fragmentation remains an open question.

For now, it is clear that both Hillary Clinton’s 2016 remark and Don Lemon’s renewed defense of it remain symbols of a broader struggle — one that reflects not just who Americans support, but how they define decency, belonging, and the character of their country itself.