Will Trump get working class voters & Hillary college educated voters?

[Senator-elect Spark]

Like Obama vs Romney in 2012? Wouldn't Trump win because of that?

[RINO Tom]

Romney won WWC voters and White college graduates by similar margins.  And he lost.

Good luck replicating that second margin, Trumpy.

[LLR]

Minorities exist too, in case you had forgotten

[RINO Tom]

Minorities exist too, in case you had forgotten

I hope you're not talking to me...

Romney got crushed with minority voters of all social statuses, whereas he won Whites of all social statuses; Trump is doing horribly with educated Whites, and I doubt his bounce among WCWs is going to even come close to counteracting that, which is what this topic is about.  No one thought he'd make any inroads with any minorities.

[BlueSwan]

Minorities exist too, in case you had forgotten

I hope you're not talking to me...

He's clearly not.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

interesting options in the question. I think you'll find them less mutually exclusive than you think.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Hillary will probably win both, because Trump's lead among working-class white voters will be offset by Hillary's lead among working-class non-white voters.

[Phony Moderate]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

[Rocky Rockefeller]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

Yes they do exist, I'm one of them.

[IceSpear]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

How does this forum even define "WWC Democrats"? I'm pretty sure I'd fit this definition, yet multiple people here call me an elitist latte liberal because I bash racist hicks.

According to many people here, you can only be a "white male working class Democrat" if you're a Santander clone...either his past or present incarnation.

[RINO Tom]

Minorities exist too, in case you had forgotten

I hope you're not talking to me...

He's clearly not.

He responded right after me and I mentioned Whites specifically, it wouldn't take a moron to pose my question...

[White Trash]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

How does this forum even define "WWC Democrats"? I'm pretty sure I'd fit this definition, yet multiple people here call me an elitist latte liberal because I bash racist hicks.

According to many people here, you can only be a "white male working class Democrat" if you're a Santander clone...either his past or present incarnation.

It's based on income level, occupation, and family or cultural background. Either one or a combination of the three.

[WVdemocrat]

Hillary will probably win both, because Trump's lead among working-class white voters will be offset by Hillary's lead among working-class non-white voters.

[IceSpear]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

How does this forum even define "WWC Democrats"? I'm pretty sure I'd fit this definition, yet multiple people here call me an elitist latte liberal because I bash racist hicks.

According to many people here, you can only be a "white male working class Democrat" if you're a Santander clone...either his past or present incarnation.

It's based on income level, occupation, and family or cultural background. Either one or a combination of the three.

I make $11/hour doing manual labor in the backroom at Target, my mother is a secretary, and my stepdad is a security guard. So yeah, I'm fairly sure I'd fit this definition.

Of course, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that most Atlasians from their ivory towers think all the little people are equivalent to racist hicks, and that if you bash them, you MUST implicitly be a classist elitist who hates all working class whites. "Bashing racist hicks vs. bashing the white working class? What's the difference?!" says Marie Antonionette and Thomas XVI of Illinois.

The irony is thick and the projection is real.

[White Trash]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

How does this forum even define "WWC Democrats"? I'm pretty sure I'd fit this definition, yet multiple people here call me an elitist latte liberal because I bash racist hicks.

According to many people here, you can only be a "white male working class Democrat" if you're a Santander clone...either his past or present incarnation.

It's based on income level, occupation, and family or cultural background. Either one or a combination of the three.

I make $11/hour doing manual labor in the backroom at Target, my mother is a secretary, and my stepdad is a security guard. So yeah, I'm fairly sure I'd fit this definition.

Of course, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that most Atlasians from their ivory towers think all the little people are equivalent to racist hicks, and that if you bash them, you MUST implicitly be a classist elitist who hates all working class whites. "Bashing racist hicks vs. bashing the white working class? What's the difference?!" says Marie Antonionette and Thomas XVI of Illinois.

The irony is thick and the projection is real.

I'd certainly consider you to be working class then. You just hold political beliefs that tend to be common in other elements of society. If your comment was directed at some of the things I've said in reference to you, then I apologize.

[Xing]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

How does this forum even define "WWC Democrats"? I'm pretty sure I'd fit this definition, yet multiple people here call me an elitist latte liberal because I bash racist hicks.

According to many people here, you can only be a "white male working class Democrat" if you're a Santander clone...either his past or present incarnation.

You're only a real WCW if you're a...


Wait for it...


(trigger warning)


R**gan D***crat

[IceSpear]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

How does this forum even define "WWC Democrats"? I'm pretty sure I'd fit this definition, yet multiple people here call me an elitist latte liberal because I bash racist hicks.

According to many people here, you can only be a "white male working class Democrat" if you're a Santander clone...either his past or present incarnation.

It's based on income level, occupation, and family or cultural background. Either one or a combination of the three.

I make $11/hour doing manual labor in the backroom at Target, my mother is a secretary, and my stepdad is a security guard. So yeah, I'm fairly sure I'd fit this definition.

Of course, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that most Atlasians from their ivory towers think all the little people are equivalent to racist hicks, and that if you bash them, you MUST implicitly be a classist elitist who hates all working class whites. "Bashing racist hicks vs. bashing the white working class? What's the difference?!" says Marie Antonionette and Thomas XVI of Illinois.

The irony is thick and the projection is real.

I'd certainly consider you to be working class then. You just hold political beliefs that tend to be common in other elements of society. If your comment was directed at some of the things I've said in reference to you, then I apologize.

Nah, I wasn't referring to you at all. Just the two posters I threw shade at, among many others.

[RINO Tom]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

How does this forum even define "WWC Democrats"? I'm pretty sure I'd fit this definition, yet multiple people here call me an elitist latte liberal because I bash racist hicks.

According to many people here, you can only be a "white male working class Democrat" if you're a Santander clone...either his past or present incarnation.

It's based on income level, occupation, and family or cultural background. Either one or a combination of the three.

I make $11/hour doing manual labor in the backroom at Target, my mother is a secretary, and my stepdad is a security guard. So yeah, I'm fairly sure I'd fit this definition.

Of course, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that most Atlasians from their ivory towers think all the little people are equivalent to racist hicks, and that if you bash them, you MUST implicitly be a classist elitist who hates all working class whites. "Bashing racist hicks vs. bashing the white working class? What's the difference?!" says Marie Antonionette and Thomas XVI of Illinois.

The irony is thick and the projection is real.

How dare you.  I'm the first of my name.

[IceSpear]

WWC Democrats still very much exist, but they are probably the most silent of any voting group.

How does this forum even define "WWC Democrats"? I'm pretty sure I'd fit this definition, yet multiple people here call me an elitist latte liberal because I bash racist hicks.

According to many people here, you can only be a "white male working class Democrat" if you're a Santander clone...either his past or present incarnation.

It's based on income level, occupation, and family or cultural background. Either one or a combination of the three.

I make $11/hour doing manual labor in the backroom at Target, my mother is a secretary, and my stepdad is a security guard. So yeah, I'm fairly sure I'd fit this definition.

Of course, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that most Atlasians from their ivory towers think all the little people are equivalent to racist hicks, and that if you bash them, you MUST implicitly be a classist elitist who hates all working class whites. "Bashing racist hicks vs. bashing the white working class? What's the difference?!" says Marie Antonionette and Thomas XVI of Illinois.

The irony is thick and the projection is real.

How dare you.  I'm the first of my name.

LOL, nice, though I was hoping for a more substantive reply considering the caricature you had of me in your head.

[Ebowed]

It is rather annoying the implication that because one is white and working-class and/or uneducated, it gives them some kind of justifiable, understandable reason to be a racist idiot that votes to screw over themselves and the entire country in the process.

As a minimum wage Democrat (and yes, white and no college degree) it would be a cold day in Hell before I felt it appropriate to reward the dinosaurs of the Republican party with any modicum of support.  Good news is, the asteroid is coming.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I made $35k last year. How am I not a working class white?

[Maxwell]

Trump will get non-college educated whites to vote for him by about the same numbers as Romney if not a little more with a marginal increase in turnout for them, while losing college educated whites in a stunning display, losing hispanics not only in record margins but with record turnout (they didn't make Romney pinatas, folks!), and continuing to lose blacks by a lot because shouting INNER CITIES at the top of your lungs while continuing to advocate for horrifying police policies is not going to appeal to any blacks.

[IceSpear]

It is rather annoying the implication that because one is white and working-class and/or uneducated, it gives them some kind of justifiable, understandable reason to be a racist idiot that votes to screw over themselves and the entire country in the process.

As a minimum wage Democrat (and yes, white and no college degree) it would be a cold day in Hell before I felt it appropriate to reward the dinosaurs of the Republican party with any modicum of support.  Good news is, the asteroid is coming.

So damn true. I wouldn't really call it "voting against their own interests" though. After all, if your main interest is racial resentment/general bigotry, then voting against the Democrats wouldn't be voting against your interests at all. Every person has different priorities.

I just don't think Democrats should bother pandering to racists to try to get votes like many lefties on the forum. The main reason being that it is morally abhorrent to do so. But secondly because it almost certainly wouldn't work anyway, particularly since those that seek to do so would apply it in the most condescending way imaginable. "Oh, you're a poor racist? If only you weren't such an uneducated poor moron you wouldn't feel that way. Don't worry though, it's not your fault, as you're basically a helpless baby! It's society's fault that you're such a stupid uneducated dimwit, but we'll make up for it with this new government program! How would you like to give up that coal mining job for working in the granola factory? Our diverse family of employees will re-educate you in no time!"

Then again, many of these are the same people who think if you sentence mass murderers and terrorists to a year at a Norwegian spa retreat (i.e. prison) that they'd emerge "cured." Nearly as delusional as Dubya thinking dropping bombs on Iraq would turn it into a first world paradise. I guess it's just not popular on the left these days to have people be responsible for their own actions rather than blaming some nebulous and abstract societal concept that they were merely the puppet of. It's time to accept that some people are just naturally terrible and can't be helped. I'm not denying that societal factors play a major role, but the fact of the matter is that even in a perfect utopia terrible and evil people would still exist.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yep. More and more, I think that the realignment we will see over the next ten years will fall cleanly into the two camps of smart and dumb. I don't apologize for painting it that way, either. The scary thing is, it means dumb will win half the time on average. What happens then?

[RINO Tom]

Yep. More and more, I think that the realignment we will see over the next ten years will fall cleanly into the two camps of smart and dumb. I don't apologize for painting it that way, either. The scary thing is, it means dumb will win half the time on average. What happens then?

You don't have to apologize, I just think you're wrong.