Things Clinton Democrats don't seem to get

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

-- The Democrats are never going to win on racial issues alone because minorities are still a minority of the electorate.

-- The Democrats' base is the working class, and the vast majority of that is working class whites. That has never changed, nor should it ever change, given the positions of the parties.

-- Trump has made a strong red meat appeal to working class whites on immigration and trade. He positions himself as making a business proposition (which he certainly understands): their vote in exchange for promising to look out for their 'interests'.

-- The Democrats have traditionally made this exact same kind of appeal on economic issues, but are letting themselves get outflanked.

-- There are a lot of people out there who aren't thrilled about Trump, but all they're hearing from the Democrats is, "shame on you for being a racist". Human nature suggests this doesn't work.

Beet, I love you, you and I have been on Atlas since the start, but this is getting out of hand. 

The only reason the Democrats look like a "minority issues party" is because the Republicans have turned into the party of seething white male outrage.  Trump's economic message is not the same as the Democrats.  "We're losing to the world, I'll get you what you deserve and has been stolen by [hated group]," is not the message the Democrats want to run with.  Trump may have stolen the "rigged economy" narrative from Bernie, but the huge difference is who is doing the rigging.  Trump isn't going to fool anyone apart from the Bros who were never going to vote for Hillary anyway.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Beet, I agree with many of your points about Democratic failures to communicate effectively with the white working class in particular. However, our country is changing and we simply cannot abide by the demands of so many of Trump's supporters. The direction the party is moving in is necessary and right IMO.

Let's see how the communication problem looks after this week's convention.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

So tell me:  How'd you feel if at age 50, your job was eliminated, moved to Mexico, and you were qualified for your old job, but for nothing else available?  If you were receiving long term "support" but no job, and no dignity, enduring the comments you'd be certain to hear?  Is that the existence you would want for yourself?  All with the knowledge that you did what you were raised to do; you worked, worked faithfully, and put forth an effort with the idea that your faithfulness would be rewarded, at a minimum, by adherence to the Social Contract; is that OK?

I don't know of a kind way to say this, but what is the difference between raising tariffs to protect jobs that can be done for less elsewhere, and just simply raising taxes and giving those people a paycheck and allowing them to do something new?  I mean seriously, what is protectionism but welfare for obsolete jobs?

Give people a chance to do something that the economy needs, rather than artificially preserving jobs.