Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy)

[Lyin' Steve]

Thank you for writing this. Some great points, some things I'm nkt totally there with you on, but well done overall

What do you disagree with?

regarding the gay thing:

it is surely true that a gay person can't understand how "classical conservative" voters feel about this change.

but the question is two-sided....since.....many of those classical conservatives also never asked how the gay person feels.

i understand that in terms of raw vote, the cultural conservatives are of bigger concern than gay americans but regarding respect, this runs both ways.

That's why you have to come at it from a perspective of understanding.  Engage in a productive dialogue, do your best to help them understand the perspective of your policy, and don't demonize them if they disagree.  Maybe they'll come around in a few years.  What I've seen happen with gay rights is that immediately after the victory, the lgbt community decided they were done building understanding and that anyone left who disagreed was a hateful bigot.  And at the same time they have been trying to push society even further.  There are people who are comfortable with the status quo of gay marriage being legal, but when they see their uncomfortable peers attacked, demonized, even forced out of their jobs like the JavaScript CEO, they're very hesitant to join forces with a group that is now pushing to put them themselves in that same position, where they expect they'll be treated the exact same way.

[KingSweden]

Thank you for writing this. Some great points, some things I'm nkt totally there with you on, but well done overall

What do you disagree with?

regarding the gay thing:

it is surely true that a gay person can't understand how "classical conservative" voters feel about this change.

but the question is two-sided....since.....many of those classical conservatives also never asked how the gay person feels.

i understand that in terms of raw vote, the cultural conservatives are of bigger concern than gay americans but regarding respect, this runs both ways.

That's why you have to come at it from a perspective of understanding.  Engage in a productive dialogue, do your best to help them understand the perspective of your policy, and don't demonize them if they disagree.  Maybe they'll come around in a few years.  What I've seen happen with gay rights is that immediately after the victory, the lgbt community decided they were done building understanding and that anyone left who disagreed was a hateful bigot.  And at the same time they have been trying to push society even further.  There are people who are comfortable with the status quo of gay marriage being legal, but when they see their uncomfortable peers attacked, demonized, even forced out of their jobs like the JavaScript CEO, they're very hesitant to join forces with a group that is now pushing to put them themselves in that same position, where they expect they'll be treated the exact same way.

I'm just skeptical that, culturally, as an urban party today, changing messaging is how Democrats get back in rural communities. Maybe I'm just bummed, even though I think your points on identity politics are valid

[ApatheticAustrian]

on the long run, this thing is gonna cancelling out itself.

question is if dems are able to withold till the "normalization".

[Lyin' Steve]

on the long run, this thing is gonna cancelling out itself.

question is if dems are able to withold till the "normalization".

How so?  If you're talking about demographic changes, I pointed out that Trump improved with many of those groups despite the Democrats doubling down in this strategy.  Trump repeatedly claimed that, for instance, not all Latinos or immigrants supported amnesty for illegals.  Many of them gave him a chance and found that he wasn't the racist monster Hillary claimed he was.  The Democrats can not rely on winning elections in the future with 80-90% in each of a select set of demographic groups, because it leaves them extremely vulnerable to appeals that take away even the furthest right 5-10% of those groups, or disagreements on policy between the groups.

[ApatheticAustrian]

How so? 

losing by about 40-50 points with a group about the size of 10% of the electorate is something else than losing the same group by 40-50 points if it standa for 15 or even 20 points of the electorate.

and i don't think that they democrats were unfair regarding theit description of trump - he really is THAT awful - but you (as the common voter) are entitled to interpret things yourself however you want.

and i obviously agree that hoping for such lopsided margins on the long run could be unhealthy but i still pray that a really clear defeat will finally "break the fever" of the GOP. otherwise i can't imagine close-center-politics working again anyway.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

That's why you have to come at it from a perspective of understanding.  Engage in a productive dialogue, do your best to help them understand the perspective of your policy, and don't demonize them if they disagree.  Maybe they'll come around in a few years.  What I've seen happen with gay rights is that immediately after the victory, the lgbt community decided they were done building understanding and that anyone left who disagreed was a hateful bigot.  And at the same time they have been trying to push society even further.  There are people who are comfortable with the status quo of gay marriage being legal, but when they see their uncomfortable peers attacked, demonized, even forced out of their jobs like the JavaScript CEO, they're very hesitant to join forces with a group that is now pushing to put them themselves in that same position, where they expect they'll be treated the exact same way.

This is also a huge reason as to why Evangelicals turned out for Trump.  The religious liberty issue was the main thing driving them to the polls.

[ApatheticAustrian]

let me tall you that this definition of "religious liberty" seems as weird for an european as the claim, citizen united is about "free speech".

[Lyin' Steve]

That's why you have to come at it from a perspective of understanding.  Engage in a productive dialogue, do your best to help them understand the perspective of your policy, and don't demonize them if they disagree.  Maybe they'll come around in a few years.  What I've seen happen with gay rights is that immediately after the victory, the lgbt community decided they were done building understanding and that anyone left who disagreed was a hateful bigot.  And at the same time they have been trying to push society even further.  There are people who are comfortable with the status quo of gay marriage being legal, but when they see their uncomfortable peers attacked, demonized, even forced out of their jobs like the JavaScript CEO, they're very hesitant to join forces with a group that is now pushing to put them themselves in that same position, where they expect they'll be treated the exact same way.

This is also a huge reason as to why Evangelicals turned out for Trump.  The religious liberty issue was the main thing driving them to the polls.

Honestly I never heard much about the religious liberty issue, it was more just anger at perceived outrages like being punished for not doing business with someone, from a fairness rather than a moral perspective.

[Shadows]

Please shut this thread - One of the reasons are online trolls who have made this an echo chamber, creating a Clinton fanclub & attacking everyone else!

[Lyin' Steve]

Please shut this thread - One of the reasons are online trolls who have made this an echo chamber, creating a Clinton fanclub & attacking everyone else!

Jesus man

[RI]

That's why you have to come at it from a perspective of understanding.  Engage in a productive dialogue, do your best to help them understand the perspective of your policy, and don't demonize them if they disagree.  Maybe they'll come around in a few years.  What I've seen happen with gay rights is that immediately after the victory, the lgbt community decided they were done building understanding and that anyone left who disagreed was a hateful bigot.  And at the same time they have been trying to push society even further.  There are people who are comfortable with the status quo of gay marriage being legal, but when they see their uncomfortable peers attacked, demonized, even forced out of their jobs like the JavaScript CEO, they're very hesitant to join forces with a group that is now pushing to put them themselves in that same position, where they expect they'll be treated the exact same way.

This is also a huge reason as to why Evangelicals turned out for Trump.  The religious liberty issue was the main thing driving them to the polls.

Honestly I never heard much about the religious liberty issue, it was more just anger at perceived outrages like being punished for not doing business with someone, from a fairness rather than a moral perspective.

I've heard plenty of religious liberty talk in Mormon and traditional Catholic circles. Religious liberty is essentially the last bulwark again a society that's rapidly pushing from claiming the legal ability for gays to marry/abortions to be provided into you-must-provide-these-things-or-else-you're-a-bigot-and-a-criminal territory, which is simply a bridge too far (and don't tell me this isn't a thing-- the left is certainly pushing for this with things like forcing contraception coverage. If they win there, they'll only press further like they always do; that's "progress" after all). It's a hill many are willing to die on because it's against an existential threat; if religious liberty falls, then many good religious people will be in jail or bankrupted for their beliefs.

[Blair]

Well I disagree on identity politics- democrats don't wake up and think 'oh yeah I really think it would be nice, and divisive to drum up support for LGBT rights'.

On the whole Democrats support it, and fight for it because it's a civil rights issue. When you jump around the issue you end up having what happened in the 1980's when the entire country was oblivious to the fact that HIV was killing thousands of gay people. We've got a Vice-President who thinks that the gay can be cured from you- you don't back down from that, you stand up to it.

I hate the idea that it's shoved at 'middle America'; they're are gay people in middle America as well

[ApatheticAustrian]

well, religious liberty can also be described as the right live free of religion, but i doubt the US become france anytime soon.

[DC Al Fine]

That's why you have to come at it from a perspective of understanding.  Engage in a productive dialogue, do your best to help them understand the perspective of your policy, and don't demonize them if they disagree.  Maybe they'll come around in a few years.  What I've seen happen with gay rights is that immediately after the victory, the lgbt community decided they were done building understanding and that anyone left who disagreed was a hateful bigot.  And at the same time they have been trying to push society even further.  There are people who are comfortable with the status quo of gay marriage being legal, but when they see their uncomfortable peers attacked, demonized, even forced out of their jobs like the JavaScript CEO, they're very hesitant to join forces with a group that is now pushing to put them themselves in that same position, where they expect they'll be treated the exact same way.

This is also a huge reason as to why Evangelicals turned out for Trump.  The religious liberty issue was the main thing driving them to the polls.

Honestly I never heard much about the religious liberty issue, it was more just anger at perceived outrages like being punished for not doing business with someone, from a fairness rather than a moral perspective.

I've heard plenty of religious liberty talk in Mormon and traditional Catholic circles.

I've heard the same from Evangelicals. It's largely a question of what circles you run in. Lyin Steve not hearing about it isn't his fault. It's just a reflection of how America has become more atomized.

Well I disagree on identity politics- democrats don't wake up and think 'oh yeah I really think it would be nice, and divisive to drum up support for LGBT rights'.

On the whole Democrats support it, and fight for it because it's a civil rights issue. When you jump around the issue you end up having what happened in the 1980's when the entire country was oblivious to the fact that HIV was killing thousands of gay people. We've got a Vice-President who thinks that the gay can be cured from you- you don't back down from that, you stand up to it.

I hate the idea that it's shoved at 'middle America'; they're are gay people in middle America as well

That's not really the issue that realisticidealist is getting at. It's broader than gay rights and deeper than civil rights.

As Michael Brendan Dougherty put it, there's an unspoken assumption in much of progressive politics right now that when there's a conflict between rights claims, the claim with the religious aspect should lose. The problem is that if such a process is carried to its logical conclusion, it would be a blatant hypocrisy when compared to liberal/progressive principles.

e.g. No one would agree that Evangelicals should be prohibited from practicing medicine or opening their own universities, but that is the effect of some debates in Canada right now.

[Oak Hills]

Good analysis, and much better than I expected, but in this paragraph I think you're way off base:

She adopted the $15 minimum wage

Minimum wage increases are incredibly popular as the results for ballot measures even in red states and national polling both prove pretty conclusively.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this is a popular position. While I don't think going to Sanders's plan of completely tuition-free public universities is a good idea politically or policy-wise, I'm confident most Americans would love for college to be more affordable. I mean, my deep red home state of Tennessee is already providing almost all high school graduates with tuition-free community college and providing government aid for people going back to school for job retraining and it's extremely popular. And by the way, Clinton only supported tuition-free college for those whose families make less than $125,000 a year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are extremely out of touch if you believe any of that. Almost all Americans believe the economy is rigged in favor of the rich (and truth be told, it's impossible for any system that has rich people not to be "rigged" to some extent), and the majority of people are angry at the rich, and a large minority even hate them as a group. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people with annual incomes under $100,000 who don't want taxes on the rich increased. And scientific polling has consistently shown that Americans support increasing the minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich by two-to-one margins. And Hillary supported raising the minimum wage to $12/hour, not $15, and her proposed tax increases on the rich were not all that large, unless I'm badly misremembering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But you did get it right there. The reason those policies didn't resonate coming from Hillary was not because they're unpopular (on the contrary, they're wildly popular), but because people didn't believe they were sincere. If Democrats are to win next time, they absolutely must maintain those positions, and nominate someone charismatic who can articulate them credibly. Democrats will never, ever win by backing off of economic populism.

[PaperKooper]

Great read.  I'm glad you took the time to write it all out. 

[Classic Conservative]

well, religious liberty can also be described as the right live free of religion, but i doubt the US become france anytime soon.

That's freedom of religion, religious liberty is an entirely different subject as it deals with religious objections.

[pbrower2a]

This election was decided by people who accept great human suffering as a virtue. They are political sadists as the super-rich (no human suffering is in excess so long as it creates or indulges a profit) and might even re-establish slavery if they could get away with it, and religious fundamentalists who will vote against their economic interests to vote for anyone who promises to abolish abortion and same-sex marriage, impose school prayer and devotions  (fundamentalist variety of course !) and creationism in public schools. For them the ultimate purpose in their lives is to bring the world to Jesus as they understand Him -- and any failure , such as voting for someone who denies that abortion and same-sex are legally set in stone is headed to Hell with Judas Iscariot for unspeakable torture in eternity. So they understand their brutal image of God.   

Liberals will need to win them back -- and if the Right manages to impose bans on abortion and same-sex marriage and the imposition of fundamentalist Christianity and creationism in public schools, then we dare not return it.

The alternative is a New Feudalism of debt-bondage, torture chambers, and concentration camps in America.  Take your choice -- no abortion, or no freedom... a right-wing version of the Soviet Union or a Christian state.

[henster]

The Ds don't need to change anything beyond never nominating Hillary Clinton again.

[JJC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Liberals will need to win them back -- and if the Right manages to impose bans on abortion and same-sex marriage and the imposition of fundamentalist Christianity and creationism in public schools, then we dare not return it.

The alternative is a New Feudalism of debt-bondage, torture chambers, and concentration camps in America.  Take your choice -- no abortion, or no freedom... a right-wing version of the Soviet Union or a Christian state.

The religious right is dead.  There is more threat of prohibition coming back than a Christian Thoecracy in America.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

well, religious liberty can also be described as the right live free of religion, but i doubt the US become france anytime soon.

That's freedom of religion, religious liberty is an entirely different subject as it deals with religious objections.

If you object to the Constitution on religious grounds, go move to Poland

[ApatheticAustrian]

as a moderate but solid liberal, the hardest thing for me to realize has been this cycle, that the grievances of "my" own side and the insults thrown against it aren't as damaging for the "other side" politically than counter-punching is or gaffes from liberals are.

the biggest voting bloc and the biggest single group, uneducated white voters, still are far more likely to "avenge" real or imagined faults than other groups.

"unfair" in terms of debating but otherwise simple math and general willingsness to vote.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is in the top five Atlas threads of all time. I'm really, really hoping you'll stick around. I'm not even close to finishing and I'm already hooked. This is the groundwork for a pretty good book.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

A few points of disagreement from the perspective of a Trump supporter that you might find of interest.

1A: Yes, yes, yes. I agree almost 100%. I do take a slightly different view on the effectiveness of the Clinton attacks. The problem with Hillary’s attacks wasn’t the content-she had some very strong and very damning things to hurl. I did tune out most of the Trump attacks because most were hilariously stupid (in the last days of election I was hearing people on Facebook float the whole Epstein connection/13 year old girl’s rape allegation) or simply not that convincing (is Trump U a scam? Hell yes. Is it worth throwing out everything else? Hell no).

The one story that almost made me change my vote was the Billy Bush tapes. Those were disgusting comments and they dampened my enthusiasm. But it came too late. The FBI investigation was a bigger matter than some lewd, repulsive comments and a barrage of unproven allegations that seemed nakedly opportunistic. Where was Jessica Leeds when he took on the role as host of “The Apprentice?” Clinton had good ammunition, but she sprayed it indiscriminately and it lost its lethal power. A Biden vs. Trump, Bernie vs. Trump, Warren vs. Trump, or Gillibrand vs. Trump race involving that tape would be dramatically different. And so would have been my vote.

When I heard “Make America Great Again” or “Stronger Together,” I heard tacky slogans. But one held weight and the other was meaningless. When has Hillary “Republicans are my enemies” Clinton ever been a uniter? She’s always been, through the entirety of my short life, the most divisive and polarizing political figure I know of. I remember as early as 2003 hearing older people say “She’ll be President someday” followed by “hopefully” or “Heaven help us all” in every single case. Only my Grandmother predicted both Obama and Trump being President of the United States when they started their campaigns-in fact, I was with her the night of the 2004 Obama keynote and I heard her say it aloud. My Uncle’s response: “a black guy with a name like that? Good luck. Probably a good guy too, but he has no chance.” My Uncle’s same response to Trump coming down the elevator was equally dismissive. Yet, in both races, Hillary Clinton was involved, and in both races, my Uncle voted for the men that defeated her. My whole life I’ve been raised to believe that everything Hillary Clinton said was a lie and when I became old enough to think for myself, it became apparent.

Simply put, while Trump’s character flaws were fair game, it was painful to hear them coming from her of all people. When I heard “Stronger Together,” I heard a woman desperately trying to make the race a referendum on her opponent, not putting forward a vision that the country could follow.

1B: This is dead on, 100% correct. When posters here said I was voting for a racist, I thought I was voting for a guy who was offering a more or less coherent idea of the kind of direction he wanted to take us. Was Clinton a pragmatic Obama style progressive? Was she a Bernie barnstormer ready to lead the forces of acceptance into a changing battleground of social issues that is less about marriage and more about who can and who can’t use the same bathrooms? Or was she a decidedly third way style Clinton democrat who believed in that “the bridge to the 21st century” was still worth crossing? I still don’t know, but in each variation, she still managed to be transparent.

“A family wage,” “an affordable education,” “universal access to quality child care” are Democratic buzzwords. I never once thought she was talking about my family when she spoke of them, and I most definitely do believe Obama, Biden, and Bernie when I hear them promising the same rhetoric. Hillary Clinton’s concerns were about issues that were very important to her base, but not so much to the rest of the country. I was, depending on what social program she was offering, picturing programs that either benefit people like my father’s sister and her husband and son (upper-middle class white collar professionals who are decidedly liberal and also as racist as anyone from my mother’s mostly blue collar Appalachian family) or people in inner-cities. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against either of these demographics receiving some of these promised programs. But I am one hundred percent convinced that the programs in question-at least the ones envisioned and put forward by her-would result in my mom having to face another bureaucrat in relation to my autistic brother who would surely turn her down just like they did when we tried to get him into the group home he currently lives in (which was done after the state of Florida threatened to remove him from her care period).

1C: The online aspect was an interesting part. Something that frustrated me was the hypocrisy and dismissive approach taken by traditional media. Listening to Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward (two major hypocritical POS's who ruined their reputations this year IMO) "psychologize" Hillary Clinton on CNN night after night with Anderson Cooper was like listening to two aged academics congratulating each other devising on theories that are either useless or hold no practical virtue.

Meanwhile, Scott Adams, when invited once or twice by Jake Tapper to offer his analysis, was denounced and dismissed as being "just a cartoonist" when most Americans, pro and anti-Trump, were very much interested in what he had to say about the man and his methods. Some downright agreed with Scott Adams. But nobody allowed him to speak. Trump supporters felt, and many still are feeling, a pressure from our opposition that we aren't allowed to dissent period. You address that in the next section.