How Clinton lost Michigan - and blew the election

[136or142]

The election wasn't a referendum on the American Jobs Act or the Miners Protection Act. It was between Clinton and Trump. Clinton's case was that Trump shouldn't be president because he called a Hispanic lady fat. Maybe she should have campaigned more on jobs and health care for miners.

Post hoc.

Maybe that was your perception at the time, but it wasn't mine.  She campaigned on 'stronger together' which is an economic message of "America does best when everyone does well."

My perception of Trump's message was one of either "Because I'm so uniquely great I, and I alone, can fix your problems all by myself" which only a moron can believe or "You white working class people, unlike all other disaffected people, you're not to blame for your economic problems, but these scapegoats: Chinese workers, illegal aliens... are."  which only a genuinely deplorable person can support.

I get your point.  These hardworking people are suffering...   My point is you can't promise all things to all people and that those who do are lying.  And that these people, many of whom frequently said "at least Trump tells it like it is" were really saying "he tells me what I want to hear,  and even though, deep down, I know it's probably nonsense, I'm going to vote for it anyway."

And that was even quite a number of them recognized that he was completely unfit to be President and was almost certainly only running to further his own interests.

So, it was hardly a case of as bad as Trump is, I think Hillary Clinton will be even worse, it was a case of "Donald Trump is as bad as a person can be, but I'll still vote for him."

[DrScholl]

The election wasn't a referendum on the American Jobs Act or the Miners Protection Act. It was between Clinton and Trump. Clinton's case was that Trump shouldn't be president because he called a Hispanic lady fat. Maybe she should have campaigned more on jobs and health care for miners.

You are really a trip. Clinton had a plans to create jobs all over the country and very specifically mentioned all areas, including Appalachia. That aside, Trump's behavior towards women was definitely a big issue. Why should anyone who gropes, harasses and humiliates women be President? That's a huge character issue and character counts for a lot when running for President. Newsflash, groping and harassing women is not okay. Those are not some constitutional rights that politically correct liberals have stripped men of, so let's get that straight.

You are one of those folks who think that Hillary should have run a racist campaign in order to win. Running a racist campaign would have caused her to lose by even more, because fewer minorities and women would have shown up to vote. For the record, Hillary did the right thing and it's better to lose doing the right thing that is to win doing the wrong thing.

[136or142]

The election wasn't a referendum on the American Jobs Act or the Miners Protection Act. It was between Clinton and Trump. Clinton's case was that Trump shouldn't be president because he called a Hispanic lady fat. Maybe she should have campaigned more on jobs and health care for miners.

You are really a trip. Clinton had a plans to create jobs all over the country and very specifically mentioned all areas, including Appalachia. That aside, Trump's behavior towards women was definitely a big issue. Why should anyone who gropes, harasses and humiliates women be President? That's a huge character issue and character counts for a lot when running for President. Newsflash, groping and harassing women is not okay. Those are not some constitutional rights that politically correct liberals have stripped men of, so let's get that straight.

You are one of those folks who think that Hillary should have run a racist campaign in order to win. Running a racist campaign would have caused her to lose by even more, because fewer minorities and women would have shown up to vote. For the record, Hillary did the right thing and it's better to lose doing the right thing that is to win doing the wrong thing.

I don't think Beet wanted Hillary Clinton to run a racist campaign, I don't see that at all.  I think he effectively wanted her to pander to these people by speaking 'in their language'  and by making a lot of dishonest promises to them.

I'd like to agree with your last point, but,  to me, in a binary race like this, part of doing the right thing includes defeating the person who is doing the wrong things.

[Inmate Trump]

The election wasn't a referendum on the American Jobs Act or the Miners Protection Act. It was between Clinton and Trump. Clinton's case was that Trump shouldn't be president because he called a Hispanic lady fat. Maybe she should have campaigned more on jobs and health care for miners.

That was Clinton's case? Um, no.

Did you pay attention at all during the campaign?

[Nym90]

These people, like people everyone, vote in their self interest. They vote for guys who speak their language. Trump did that, Hillary didn't, as simple as that. Hillary's poll-tested politician speak mumbo jumbo was so condescending.

You know what the most pathetic thing about all this is? These working class whites in MI, and PA, and WI were the last ones who stayed loyal to you. When the working class whites in the South and the West and in Appalachia left, the ones in the Upper Midwest stayed. They were your firewall, or tried to be, in the last 4 cycles. They faithfully pulled the party lever, even when you guys were doing nothing for them, for 20 years. And now they get to be the deplorables for not being dutiful little soldiers, ha ha.

The idea that the Democrats haven't done anything for the white working class is preposterous. I agree that there was a massive marketing failure on the part of the Democratic party in this election (with plenty of other blame to go around, but the party and its candidates deserve a healthy share), but Democratic policies have clearly been much better for the economic well being of these voters for 80 years now as compared to Republican policies.

[Pandaguineapig]

I remember back in 2015 when several atlas posters claimed that Clinton couldn't run a bad campaign because she had the Obama team

[136or142]

These people, like people everyone, vote in their self interest. They vote for guys who speak their language. Trump did that, Hillary didn't, as simple as that. Hillary's poll-tested politician speak mumbo jumbo was so condescending.

You know what the most pathetic thing about all this is? These working class whites in MI, and PA, and WI were the last ones who stayed loyal to you. When the working class whites in the South and the West and in Appalachia left, the ones in the Upper Midwest stayed. They were your firewall, or tried to be, in the last 4 cycles. They faithfully pulled the party lever, even when you guys were doing nothing for them, for 20 years. And now they get to be the deplorables for not being dutiful little soldiers, ha ha.

The idea that the Democrats haven't done anything for the white working class is preposterous. I agree that there was a massive marketing failure on the part of the Democratic party in this election (with plenty of other blame to go around, but the party and its candidates deserve a healthy share), but Democratic policies have clearly been much better for the economic well being of these voters for 80 years now as compared to Republican policies.

There is more than a marketing failure here.  While I think it's important to not stereotype all people, I sadly think there is a lot of truth to the idea that many working class whites would rather that nobody receives any assistance if it means that 'the others' also will receive assistance aside from themselves.

The theory as it was explained to me, is that many working class whites don't mind as much being poor and having no hope for improvement as long as they can take comfort knowing that there are people worse off than them.

I think that is a horrible thing to think and I think it's horrible to think that about other people, but when the debate came up, there were many articles that backed up Hillary Clinton's claim that many Trump supporters are, in fact, deplorable.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

These people, like people everyone, vote in their self interest. They vote for guys who speak their language. Trump did that, Hillary didn't, as simple as that. Hillary's poll-tested politician speak mumbo jumbo was so condescending.

You know what the most pathetic thing about all this is? These working class whites in MI, and PA, and WI were the last ones who stayed loyal to you. When the working class whites in the South and the West and in Appalachia left, the ones in the Upper Midwest stayed. They were your firewall, or tried to be, in the last 4 cycles. They faithfully pulled the party lever, even when you guys were doing nothing for them, for 20 years. And now they get to be the deplorables for not being dutiful little soldiers, ha ha.

The idea that the Democrats haven't done anything for the white working class is preposterous. I agree that there was a massive marketing failure on the part of the Democratic party in this election (with plenty of other blame to go around, but the party and its candidates deserve a healthy share), but Democratic policies have clearly been much better for the economic well being of these voters for 80 years now as compared to Republican policies.

There is more than a marketing failure here.  While I think it's important to not stereotype all people, I sadly think there is a lot of truth to the idea that many working class whites would rather that nobody receives any assistance if it means that 'the others' also will receive assistance aside from themselves.

The theory as it was explained to me, is that many working class whites don't mind as much being poor and having no hope for improvement as long as they can take comfort knowing that there are people worse off than them.

I think that is a horrible thing to think and I think it's horrible to think that about other people, but when the debate came up, there were many articles that backed up Hillary Clinton's claim that many Trump supporters are, in fact, deplorable.

Really makes sense when you consider just how many many decades they voted Democrat!

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Looking back at it, the turning point of the election was Bernie Sanders' comeback win in Michigan.

Clinton had a 20+ point lead in the polls. And only one person predicted he would win Michigan based on social media trends. It showed Clinton had MASSIVE problems in the midwest and that the anti-trade message was catching on.

Sanders would never get a win as crazy as that one, but the message was clear. The war to 270 wouldn't be fought in Colorado, Nevada, or Virginia like the Democrats thought. The war to 270 would would be fought in the midwest.

Neat fact: Senator Sessions endorsed Trump because he thought he'd have the best chance to win the midwest, and thought Cruz had no chance to win the midwest.

Walker and Santorum knew the election would be won in the midwest. Bush and Rubio on the other hand wanted to try and get 270 the same way Dubya did - through Virginia/New Mexico/Colorado/Nevada, etc. etc.

[Beet]

These people, like people everyone, vote in their self interest. They vote for guys who speak their language. Trump did that, Hillary didn't, as simple as that. Hillary's poll-tested politician speak mumbo jumbo was so condescending.

You know what the most pathetic thing about all this is? These working class whites in MI, and PA, and WI were the last ones who stayed loyal to you. When the working class whites in the South and the West and in Appalachia left, the ones in the Upper Midwest stayed. They were your firewall, or tried to be, in the last 4 cycles. They faithfully pulled the party lever, even when you guys were doing nothing for them, for 20 years. And now they get to be the deplorables for not being dutiful little soldiers, ha ha.

The idea that the Democrats haven't done anything for the white working class is preposterous. I agree that there was a massive marketing failure on the part of the Democratic party in this election (with plenty of other blame to go around, but the party and its candidates deserve a healthy share), but Democratic policies have clearly been much better for the economic well being of these voters for 80 years now as compared to Republican policies.

We were doing things on the margins sure, a little health care here, a little overtime pay there, but the core of good paying jobs in a lot of these communities were getting devastated. Marginal benefits don't matter when your livelihood has been downgraded.



^^^

These people sensed, not without reason, that voting for a conventional president would be more of the same. Really, they know the jobs aren't coming back though. They know sh**t is broken that can't be fixed.

But what was worse then that, they sensed that the coastal elites don't care... this attitude Adam T has. They sensed Democrats talking about demographic-driven majorities of Hispanics and other minorities... think about it from their perspective. It's sort of like you're getting replaced, right? Your town built this country, won WWII, there would be nothing without the sacrifices of your community. But now, not only is all that gone, but you're getting replaced by someone whose parents came here illegally. Not just your job, but as a voter. The Democrats were saying "We don't want you any more, we've got our Texas, we've got our Florida, we've got our new coalition. We've got our new America. You're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a xenophobe. Our enlightenment is over here in Arizona..." Oh, and by the way, think about your white privilege. Black Lives Matter, but if you say Blue Live Matter or All Lives Matter you're a racist. Think about your whiteness, think about it hard. But don't be proud of it, because then you're playing identity politics.

It doesn't take someone who hates Mexicans or anyone else to feel put off by that. And then on the other side you have this guy Trump, he's a jerk, he's an asshole, and you don't like him. Heck, he's almost certainly lying. But boy, does he piss those people off! Boy, does he know at least how to blow up the system. And he at least sees things from your viewpoint. With him, someone is finally, finally paying attention to you. Saying you're important. Acknowledging your role in this country. Acknowledging that you didn't come here illegally, that you work hard and play by the rules. Trump is the one who got it. No one else from either party got it, but Trump did. And heck, maybe he's just crazy enough to change something, no?

[Thunderbird is the word]

These people, like people everyone, vote in their self interest. They vote for guys who speak their language. Trump did that, Hillary didn't, as simple as that. Hillary's poll-tested politician speak mumbo jumbo was so condescending.

You know what the most pathetic thing about all this is? These working class whites in MI, and PA, and WI were the last ones who stayed loyal to you. When the working class whites in the South and the West and in Appalachia left, the ones in the Upper Midwest stayed. They were your firewall, or tried to be, in the last 4 cycles. They faithfully pulled the party lever, even when you guys were doing nothing for them, for 20 years. And now they get to be the deplorables for not being dutiful little soldiers, ha ha.

The idea that the Democrats haven't done anything for the white working class is preposterous. I agree that there was a massive marketing failure on the part of the Democratic party in this election (with plenty of other blame to go around, but the party and its candidates deserve a healthy share), but Democratic policies have clearly been much better for the economic well being of these voters for 80 years now as compared to Republican policies.

We were doing things on the margins sure, a little health care here, a little overtime pay there, but the core of good paying jobs in a lot of these communities were getting devastated. Marginal benefits don't matter when your livelihood has been downgraded.



^^^

These people sensed, not without reason, that voting for a conventional president would be more of the same. Really, they know the jobs aren't coming back though. They know sh**t is broken that can't be fixed.

But what was worse then that, they sensed that the coastal elites don't care... this attitude Adam T has. They sensed Democrats talking about demographic-driven majorities of Hispanics and other minorities... think about it from their perspective. It's sort of like you're getting replaced, right? Your town built this country, won WWII, there would be nothing without the sacrifices of your community. But now, not only is all that gone, but you're getting replaced by someone whose parents came here illegally. Not just your job, but as a voter. The Democrats were saying "We don't want you any more, we've got our Texas, we've got our Florida, we've got our new coalition. We've got our new America. You're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a xenophobe. Our enlightenment is over here in Arizona..." Oh, and by the way, think about your white privilege. Black Lives Matter, but if you say Blue Live Matter or All Lives Matter you're a racist. Think about your whiteness, think about it hard. But don't be proud of it, because then you're playing identity politics.

It doesn't take someone who hates Mexicans or anyone else to feel put off by that. And then on the other side you have this guy Trump, he's a jerk, he's an asshole, and you don't like him. Heck, he's almost certainly lying. But boy, does he piss those people off! Boy, does he know at least how to blow up the system. And he at least sees things from your viewpoint. With him, someone is finally, finally paying attention to you. Saying you're important. Acknowledging your role in this country. Acknowledging that you didn't come here illegally, that you work hard and play by the rules. Trump is the one who got it. No one else from either party got it, but Trump did. And heck, maybe he's just crazy enough to change something, no?

I don't like the dismissal of Black Lives Matter. If you look at policing in this country it's absolutely a necessary movement. I do think that Hillary ran a horrible out of touch campaign and I really can't stand the smug style in liberalism but I don't think we have to abandon racial justice. That's the kind of binary thinking that allowed Clintonites to cynically portray anyone slightly to the left as insensitive to race or non-intersectional when they're the ones that race baited their entire career up to 2008. No, what you really need is a candidate that empathized with people, that didn't run on the horribly out of touch slogan of "America is already great" and one that countered Trump's racist populism with a more inclusive one that called out him for what a fraud he was.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The picture that emerges from state after state is similar in terms of the mentality described, which is telling. I think the suggestion that there was an actual focus on trying to win the nationwide PV figure (!!?!?!) deserves some attention in the game of Incompetence Bingo though...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is more than a marketing failure here.  While I think it's important to not stereotype all people, I sadly think there is a lot of truth to the idea that many working class whites would rather that nobody receives any assistance if it means that 'the others' also will receive assistance aside from themselves.

A lot of snobby white liberals have made this argument since the Great November Electoral Fiasco. It makes intuitive sense to them, I suppose; if you are raised to believe in your own superiority then you tend to believe in it still when you grow up. But though American society is riven by ethnic tensions and can't be understood without reference to them, this is an argument without any basis in observable reality whatsoever. Federal government support has been particularly associated with minorities (and especially with the most unpopular of minorities) for half a century, and yet this massive collapse in support has come about only now...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 'theory' explained to you by who, exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes that's a great way to win elections: everyone who votes for the other guy is a ****. Well so long as you're secure in your own sense of moral superiority, eh? Better than winning.

[Beet]

I didn't dismiss black lives matter. A guy whose salary is paid by taxpayers was caught on tape shooting a fleeing unarmed man in the back, and still couldn't get convicted. Clearly, there's a problem. And I applaud Clinton for recognizing that and putting BLM front and center of the campaign and talking systemic racism even though it probably cost her votes.

But then you have the fact that when Jennifer Lopez put AllLivesMatter on her Instagram it generated so much outrage that HuffPo wrote an article on it. I mean if J Lo is some vicious racist, what chance do the rest of us have? And you're blind of you didn't notice that BLM had a radical element to it, either. One that is okay with indiscriminate cop killing. Which is not dismissing it but if the tables were turned, libs would be acting like the most radical element defined the movement.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I didn't dismiss black lives matter. A guy whose salary is paid by taxpayers was caught on tape shooting a fleeing unarmed man in the back, and still couldn't get convicted. Clearly, there's a problem. And I applaud Clinton for recognizing that and putting BLM front and center of the campaign and talking systemic racism even though it probably cost her votes.

But then you have the fact that when Jennifer Lopez put AllLivesMatter on her Instagram it generated so much outrage that HuffPo wrote an article on it. I mean if J Lo is some vicious racist, what chance do the rest of us have? And you're blind of you didn't notice that BLM had a radical element to it, either. One that is okay with indiscriminate cop killing. Which is not dismissing it but if the tables were turned, libs would be acting like the most radical element defined the movement.

I'm sure the movement has fringe elements and the left has some knee-jerk elements in general that I don't like but honestly I can understand and empathize with what drives even the more fringe elements of BLM because I see examples of how racist the cops are in person on a regular basis. Bottom line though is I really don't think that was the deciding factor in the election.

[PregnantChad]

No, what you really need is a candidate that empathized with people, that didn't run on the horribly out of touch slogan of "America is already great" and one that countered Trump's racist populism with a more inclusive one that called out him for what a fraud he was.

Bernie Sanders - but Wasserman-Schultz, Brazile and company took care of that.  Or, Joe Biden -- it's such a tragedy losing a child (his 2nd time dealing with something so awful) and campaign-wise, the timing couldn't have been much worse.  Biden, for whatever his faults, "gets" the Rust Belt situation and calls a BSer out when he sees one.

There's some excellent analysis in this thread, even if the viewpoints are divergent.  So strategically - in the autopsy of 2016 as well as going forward - what is optimal?  I think it could be:
(1) Hold onto the blue and barely blue 2016 states and try to regain PA/WI/MI, which were all so painfully close.  That alone would win back the White House, but I'd fight as hard for FL/AZ.  I wouldn't let go of OH/IA just yet, but I'd prioritize them just ahead of NC.  GA still seems iffy at best and TX is still a pipedream.  It's almost laughable that they tried to run up the score thinking about TX and then a few weeks later tried to "fool" people into thinking that IA was still in play.

(2) Actually show up in the states whose electoral votes you need, or have well-liked surrogates do so.  Show up outside the cities of said states.  I don't think most of us "coastal elitists" truly believe that the heartland doesn't matter or that its people are deplorable.  Their problems are real, and their problems are our problems.  But that wasn't the message they got.  What they saw was that they were being ignored, at least in HRC's itinerary, and what they heard was that they were deplorable (even if HRC accurately described just a fraction of Trump's supporters as such - although she callously originally said that that fraction was 1/2, IIRC).

(3) Have a clear, economic-centered message that can be distilled to a few soundbites.  People don't do nuance.  This doesn't necessarily mean ignoring important issues of social equality and justice, but creating a coalition sort of like what FDR had (only in different states now) seems most important.

(4) Fight harder for votes and against attacks (the latter is all the more important in this era of fake news, and it's hard to believe Democrats still haven't learned from how Dukakis and Kerry were pigeonholed).  Thinking people will show up just b/c your opponent is worse, even if most people think he really is that awful, is counterproductive.

Trump blew up much of the rulebook this time around, and who knows what 2020 will bring, but do you think the above strategy would've worked - even w/ as unlikeable a candidate as HRC? Any thoughts?

[136or142]

These people, like people everyone, vote in their self interest. They vote for guys who speak their language. Trump did that, Hillary didn't, as simple as that. Hillary's poll-tested politician speak mumbo jumbo was so condescending.

You know what the most pathetic thing about all this is? These working class whites in MI, and PA, and WI were the last ones who stayed loyal to you. When the working class whites in the South and the West and in Appalachia left, the ones in the Upper Midwest stayed. They were your firewall, or tried to be, in the last 4 cycles. They faithfully pulled the party lever, even when you guys were doing nothing for them, for 20 years. And now they get to be the deplorables for not being dutiful little soldiers, ha ha.

The idea that the Democrats haven't done anything for the white working class is preposterous. I agree that there was a massive marketing failure on the part of the Democratic party in this election (with plenty of other blame to go around, but the party and its candidates deserve a healthy share), but Democratic policies have clearly been much better for the economic well being of these voters for 80 years now as compared to Republican policies.

There is more than a marketing failure here.  While I think it's important to not stereotype all people, I sadly think there is a lot of truth to the idea that many working class whites would rather that nobody receives any assistance if it means that 'the others' also will receive assistance aside from themselves.

The theory as it was explained to me, is that many working class whites don't mind as much being poor and having no hope for improvement as long as they can take comfort knowing that there are people worse off than them.

I think that is a horrible thing to think and I think it's horrible to think that about other people, but when the debate came up, there were many articles that backed up Hillary Clinton's claim that many Trump supporters are, in fact, deplorable.

Really makes sense when you consider just how many many decades they voted Democrat!

Only some of those in the Northern Midwest.  Not those in the South, Southwest or Southern Midwest.  They've been voting solidly Republican at the Presidential level since 1980 or so.

[136or142]

These people, like people everyone, vote in their self interest. They vote for guys who speak their language. Trump did that, Hillary didn't, as simple as that. Hillary's poll-tested politician speak mumbo jumbo was so condescending.

You know what the most pathetic thing about all this is? These working class whites in MI, and PA, and WI were the last ones who stayed loyal to you. When the working class whites in the South and the West and in Appalachia left, the ones in the Upper Midwest stayed. They were your firewall, or tried to be, in the last 4 cycles. They faithfully pulled the party lever, even when you guys were doing nothing for them, for 20 years. And now they get to be the deplorables for not being dutiful little soldiers, ha ha.

The idea that the Democrats haven't done anything for the white working class is preposterous. I agree that there was a massive marketing failure on the part of the Democratic party in this election (with plenty of other blame to go around, but the party and its candidates deserve a healthy share), but Democratic policies have clearly been much better for the economic well being of these voters for 80 years now as compared to Republican policies.

We were doing things on the margins sure, a little health care here, a little overtime pay there, but the core of good paying jobs in a lot of these communities were getting devastated. Marginal benefits don't matter when your livelihood has been downgraded.



^^^

These people sensed, not without reason, that voting for a conventional president would be more of the same. Really, they know the jobs aren't coming back though. They know sh**t is broken that can't be fixed.

But what was worse then that, they sensed that the coastal elites don't care... this attitude Adam T has. They sensed Democrats talking about demographic-driven majorities of Hispanics and other minorities... think about it from their perspective. It's sort of like you're getting replaced, right? Your town built this country, won WWII, there would be nothing without the sacrifices of your community. But now, not only is all that gone, but you're getting replaced by someone whose parents came here illegally. Not just your job, but as a voter. The Democrats were saying "We don't want you any more, we've got our Texas, we've got our Florida, we've got our new coalition. We've got our new America. You're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a xenophobe. Our enlightenment is over here in Arizona..." Oh, and by the way, think about your white privilege. Black Lives Matter, but if you say Blue Live Matter or All Lives Matter you're a racist. Think about your whiteness, think about it hard. But don't be proud of it, because then you're playing identity politics.

It doesn't take someone who hates Mexicans or anyone else to feel put off by that. And then on the other side you have this guy Trump, he's a jerk, he's an asshole, and you don't like him. Heck, he's almost certainly lying. But boy, does he piss those people off! Boy, does he know at least how to blow up the system. And he at least sees things from your viewpoint. With him, someone is finally, finally paying attention to you. Saying you're important. Acknowledging your role in this country. Acknowledging that you didn't come here illegally, that you work hard and play by the rules. Trump is the one who got it. No one else from either party got it, but Trump did. And heck, maybe he's just crazy enough to change something, no?

First of all, even though I live on the Coast I'm neither wealthy, nor even American, so I'm not a Coastal Elitist.  And your suggestion that somehow living on the Coasts makes anybody who lives their automatically part of some elite is completely idiotic given that Donald Trump and most of this cabinet nominees are part of the real elite.

I agree with what you write here, but what you don't realize is what I think is the clear implications of your writings.  The National Democratic Party wrote off these voters, to the degree that they did right them off, I think because as you wrote
1.They want help for themselves but have disdain for other disenfranchised people and don't want these 'others' to receive any assistance.

2.They know they're being lied to by a con artist but he'll blow up the system and that's better than the alternative.  I don't see any way that you can appeal to people like that on any sort of rational level.  They voted for Trump based on gut emotions and not logic, to the degree that they have the ability to actually think logically.

As I wrote previously, it's impossible to be all things to all people.  

I'm sure Trump is crazy enough to try to change a lot of things, and we'll probably succeed at changing some of them.  But, whatever changes he makes will be to his benefit and nobody else's.

[136or142]

These people, like people everyone, vote in their self interest. They vote for guys who speak their language. Trump did that, Hillary didn't, as simple as that. Hillary's poll-tested politician speak mumbo jumbo was so condescending.

You know what the most pathetic thing about all this is? These working class whites in MI, and PA, and WI were the last ones who stayed loyal to you. When the working class whites in the South and the West and in Appalachia left, the ones in the Upper Midwest stayed. They were your firewall, or tried to be, in the last 4 cycles. They faithfully pulled the party lever, even when you guys were doing nothing for them, for 20 years. And now they get to be the deplorables for not being dutiful little soldiers, ha ha.

The idea that the Democrats haven't done anything for the white working class is preposterous. I agree that there was a massive marketing failure on the part of the Democratic party in this election (with plenty of other blame to go around, but the party and its candidates deserve a healthy share), but Democratic policies have clearly been much better for the economic well being of these voters for 80 years now as compared to Republican policies.

We were doing things on the margins sure, a little health care here, a little overtime pay there, but the core of good paying jobs in a lot of these communities were getting devastated. Marginal benefits don't matter when your livelihood has been downgraded.



^^^

These people sensed, not without reason, that voting for a conventional president would be more of the same. Really, they know the jobs aren't coming back though. They know sh**t is broken that can't be fixed.

But what was worse then that, they sensed that the coastal elites don't care... this attitude Adam T has. They sensed Democrats talking about demographic-driven majorities of Hispanics and other minorities... think about it from their perspective. It's sort of like you're getting replaced, right? Your town built this country, won WWII, there would be nothing without the sacrifices of your community. But now, not only is all that gone, but you're getting replaced by someone whose parents came here illegally. Not just your job, but as a voter. The Democrats were saying "We don't want you any more, we've got our Texas, we've got our Florida, we've got our new coalition. We've got our new America. You're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a xenophobe. Our enlightenment is over here in Arizona..." Oh, and by the way, think about your white privilege. Black Lives Matter, but if you say Blue Live Matter or All Lives Matter you're a racist. Think about your whiteness, think about it hard. But don't be proud of it, because then you're playing identity politics.

It doesn't take someone who hates Mexicans or anyone else to feel put off by that. And then on the other side you have this guy Trump, he's a jerk, he's an asshole, and you don't like him. Heck, he's almost certainly lying. But boy, does he piss those people off! Boy, does he know at least how to blow up the system. And he at least sees things from your viewpoint. With him, someone is finally, finally paying attention to you. Saying you're important. Acknowledging your role in this country. Acknowledging that you didn't come here illegally, that you work hard and play by the rules. Trump is the one who got it. No one else from either party got it, but Trump did. And heck, maybe he's just crazy enough to change something, no?

I don't like the dismissal of Black Lives Matter. If you look at policing in this country it's absolutely a necessary movement. I do think that Hillary ran a horrible out of touch campaign and I really can't stand the smug style in liberalism but I don't think we have to abandon racial justice. That's the kind of binary thinking that allowed Clintonites to cynically portray anyone slightly to the left as insensitive to race or non-intersectional when they're the ones that race baited their entire career up to 2008. No, what you really need is a candidate that empathized with people, that didn't run on the horribly out of touch slogan of "America is already great" and one that countered Trump's racist populism with a more inclusive one that called out him for what a fraud he was.

Smug style of liberalism.  As opposed to the populist appeals of conservatism?

"Barack Obama is unqualified to be President because he's just a community organizer."

"All the concerns of disenfranchisement from minority groups are just the whining of Social Justice Warriors."

"It's wrong for the Democrats or the Courts to mandate Gay Marriage on us little people in the United States.  As a little person I should have the right to tell other people who they can and can't marry and no elitist Democrat should be able to take that away from me."

I think this whole thing about smug liberals and populist conservatives is a messaging bullsh**t that unfortunately more than just conservatives now actually believe.

[136or142]

There is more than a marketing failure here.  While I think it's important to not stereotype all people, I sadly think there is a lot of truth to the idea that many working class whites would rather that nobody receives any assistance if it means that 'the others' also will receive assistance aside from themselves.

A lot of snobby white liberals have made this argument since the Great November Electoral Fiasco. It makes intuitive sense to them, I suppose; if you are raised to believe in your own superiority then you tend to believe in it still when you grow up. But though American society is riven by ethnic tensions and can't be understood without reference to them, this is an argument without any basis in observable reality whatsoever. Federal government support has been particularly associated with minorities (and especially with the most unpopular of minorities) for half a century, and yet this massive collapse in support has come about only now...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 'theory' explained to you by who, exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes that's a great way to win elections: everyone who votes for the other guy is a ****. Well so long as you're secure in your own sense of moral superiority, eh? Better than winning.

1.Only now since the passage of Obamacare.  

Also, there seems to be a slow but final realization from many of these people that 'The American Dream' is no longer a reality for them.  It had been said for many years, with a great deal of polling to back it up, that especially poor whites believed they were future rich, so they didn't mind Supply Side economics that lowered taxes on the wealthy and that cut some social programs in order to finance them.

I think polling data already backs up that that was a recent change and would explain this recent switch.

2.This theory isn't new and although it obviously wasn't explained to me by this person, this person did succeed in becoming President of the United States and retained the office with the largest vote in history. So, I think he knows what he was talking about (especially if you believe that if Trump won it must have been because he realized something nobody else noticed):

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."


http://www.snopes.com/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/

This is a genuine quote.

3.And the disdain for the disenfranchisement of minorities by pejoratively referring to them as 'Social Justice Warriors' or referring to President Obama as the 'community organizer President" isn't the other side running on everybody that doesn't vote for our candidate is *********?

The thing is, contrary what I think you want to admit, Trump and the Republicans partly running on that very message succeeded.

So, I wouldn't mind seeing an election campaign from the Democrats based on demonizing white (male) working class voters, because many of these people are, in fact, stupid and many of them are, in fact, deplorable.

As to my sense of moral superiority, if you reread your post, I think you'll see you're just like me.  I hope you're satisfied.

[Shadows]

Obamacare - is an incredibly flawed system so I am glad they are over-turning it as long as they have a good plan. Trump was the only candidate who said he won't let people die while being attacked by Cruz for supporting socialized medicine, etc. Trump earlier supported Single payer & always focused on replaced when he repeals. Whether he does anything is different. But Obamacare is too flawed to save - Look at the premiums - You can give insurance to any number of people - If people can't afford it, it is meaningless.

Economic Message - What was Hillary's economic message despite her borrowing had a dozen proposals from Bernie? Nothing. Zilch. Or even if she had, she barely spoke about it & it was all Trump is disgusting. It is a matter of incredible shame that Trump, a right wing Republican, went to Hillary's left on Infrastructure, etc & promised to build roads, etc passionately multiple times in the debates while Hillary did nothing. Climate Change, Minimum Wage, etc etc - She barely spoke about it

Not Authentic & Scams- If Trump is a con man, then what better is Hillary? How on earth can someone have a server in her basement handling classified material? Or sell access for donations? I am not going into the pay to play accusations but she had some real baggage. She had no authenticity, she flip flopped on everything. She lied about everything. This is the same candidate who had a different private & public position.


If voting for Trump was bad, voting for Hillary wasn't great either - It was a a lesser of 2 evils & voting for 2 con people (Yes someone with her history & Private/Public position is a con woman)

Complete failure of Dem(Bill/Obama) & Hillary economics - If you want to blame Republicans in Congress, then Obama should take responsibility for destroying the party. He appointed a disaster in DSW, siphoned away resources to his own organization & under his watch the Dem party is on the verge of ruin. There has been no Minimum wage increase in almost 7 years.

People are seeing jobs shipped off. Finally TPP/NAFTA is a just litmus test kind of thing. In the mid-west, going forward that 1 issue alone will decide elections. Hillary supported NAFTA & TPP & you can't win the Mid-west with that record. In every logic, Hillary was a horrible candidate, as was Trump - So midwestern people went for Trump just to shake something up because the other person is a con too

[Shadows]

Lastly it is the other way around - Dems can't win the White House without the Mid-west, no chance. And the Dem party is on the verge of ruin, I fear it may become obsolete like the whigs - Look at the performance in state governor races.

Trump will not abandon his core voters as he is a smart person in 1 aspect - He wants to win in 2020, he will give the Midwestern people something or won't completely abandon then. I am confident he will be a failure, but I am pretty sure Trump will try to ensure not to make these people "suffer" as he has to win in 2020. There will be something for these folks.

Also it is pathetic to talk about letting people suffer & they deserve it because they didn't vote for your candidate. Especially when your candidate is an absolute fraud & a horrible candidate!

[136or142]

Lastly it is the other way around - Dems can't win the White House without the Mid-west, no chance. And the Dem party is on the verge of ruin, I fear it may become obsolete like the whigs - Look at the performance in state governor races.

Trump will not abandon his core voters as he is a smart person in 1 aspect - He wants to win in 2020, he will give the Midwestern people something or won't completely abandon then. I am confident he will be a failure, but I am pretty sure Trump will try to ensure not to make these people "suffer" as he has to win in 2020. There will be something for these folks.

Also it is pathetic to talk about letting people suffer & they deserve it because they didn't vote for your candidate. Especially when your candidate is an absolute fraud & a horrible candidate!

I didn't write that.  I wrote they deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions because they voted for a President and for a party even though they knew the re-elected Republicans would take away their health care.

So, why shouldn't I be happy that they are getting what they voted for?

I can't be bothered to comment on your assertions about Hillary Clinton.

[136or142]

I think this is about the most accurate thing that can be written

Jacob Levy: “An 80,000 vote margin in a 137 million vote election, about .05%, is susceptible of almost endless plausible explanations. The number of different factors that might well have moved that many votes is very large. So there are a lot of different true but-for explanations: but for Clinton’s failure to campaign in Wisconsin, but for the Comey letter, but for stricter voter ID laws and reductions in the numbers of polling places, but for Jill Stein, and so on, ad infinitum. A Democratic party strategist has good reason to take lots of them very seriously.”

“But anyone trying to generalize about popular beliefs or the electorate’s mood should be very wary of any of them. Grabbing a plausibly-true but-for explanation of 80,000 votes, as if it says something big and true about the whole electorate, will over-explain the outcome. An explanation that is one of the many valid ones for those 80,000 votes, and thus for the Electoral College outcome, but that implies some large shift in opinion or mood toward Trump, is a bad explanation overall.”

Jacob Levy

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/defense-liberty-cant-without-identity-politics/

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1.Only now since the passage of Obamacare.

Hardly a programme associated with giving benefits particularly to black people. Quite unlike basically the entire of the Great Society and large parts of the New Deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pop psychology nonsense, a vague allusion to 'THE POLLS' and questionable anecdotes. All of which point, isn't this absolutely remarkable?, to the reinforcement of a 'theory' that largely seems a lot like a doubling down of blatant class prejudice... classic!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So a cynical anecdote from a notorious cynic describing a political world that died long before most people on this forum were born? I am not impressed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Adopt that attitude further and the Democrats can look forward to losing many more elections to permatanned Reality TV Stars!

But this combination of Diversity Course Speak and actual Thatcherism is vomitous, although sadly typical on the American internet these days. This feels relevant...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

_{Richard Polenberg, One Nation Divisible: Class, Race and Ethnicity in the United States since 1938, (New York, 1980), pp. 226-7.}

The funny thing is that if you make it clear that you regard a certain section of society as being basically trash they tend not to vote for you in large numbers. Isn't that strange? Politics is about power, not patting yourself on the back.