Fear of diversity, not economic anxiety, caused Obama voters to switch to Trump

[Mr. Reactionary]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist, and only voted for him so as to not get called racist. 

-How does that make any sense?

It never does but thats not the point. Its like back in 2012 where so many dems tried to argue that mitt romney wanted the naacp to boo him on purpose so as to pander to the "racist" vote. Because apparently until then racists might have been tempted to vote for the black guy. Just remember, if you reduce all problems down to "the other side is icky" you automatically win any argument.

[Deblano]

Economic uncertainty can be correlated with a rise in racism, xenophobia, etc.

For example, anti-Semitism in Russia skyrocketed in the 1990s after the collapse of the USSR, especially during the 1998 Financial Crisis in Russia.

People are more tolerant when times are prosperous, as sad as it is.

[JerryArkansas]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist, and only voted for him so as to not get called racist. 

-How does that make any sense?

It never does but thats not the point. Its like back in 2012 where so many dems tried to argue that mitt romney wanted the naacp to boo him on purpose so as to pander to the "racist" vote. Because apparently until then racists might have been tempted to vote for the black guy. Just remember, if you reduce all problems down to "the other side is icky" you automatically win any argument.

You can be racist and vote for the Black person.  How is that a difficult concept to get.

[Xing]

Xenophobia was definitely one (of several) factors that contributed to Trump's win, but that doesn't mean Democrats shouldn't focus on economic factors, since voters who switched to Trump for those reasons could be swayed. Unfortunately, any discussion of race these days seems to involve people who are much to quick to call others racist, as well as those who will scream "STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD!" any time race is even mentioned.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

That's why Trump is so tough on Putin, eh?

What does Putin have to do with this?

It's not very nationalistic to allow a foreign country to attack Americans without punishment, to denigrate American intelligence agents who risk their lives for this country, or praise a dictator whose government is run contrary to the values of the US Constitution.

To Attack Americans-Putin didn't hit us with a nuclear bomb.

Praise a Dictator-Trump said Putin is a strong leader. Trump didn't exactly go into with wether he agreed with Putin on issues.

Hacking is a crime, that if an American did it he would go to jail; it is digital breaking and entering and theft, no different than the burglars who broke into the DNC in 1972, in this case carried out by an arm of the Russian military, the GRU. So it was literally an attack by a military arm of a foreign power against American civilians. Trump mocked a whole class of US civil servants who offered their opinion on the attack, and then went on to praise the attacker. Regardless of how reasonable you think what he did was, it was by no means anything resembling "nationalistic." To side with foreigners over fellow Americans is the opposite of nationalism.

-To side with foreigners against a nation-wrecking candidate is nationalism; try again. Also, are the Democrats the xenophobic party nowadays? Appears so.

Also, Jerry, as expected, did not answer my question, given how ridiculous his answer would show his views to be. What percent of HRC 2016 voters were racist? What percent of Trump 2016 voters?

[Beet]

EHarding, my ideal situation is a liberal, democratic and prosperous Russia with strong U.S. ties. Wanting one's own president not to hand a foreign military more rights in one's own country than our own citizens have hardly makes one a xenophobe, even moreso when said president claims to be a nationalist, as opposed to a white nationalist.

[DrScholl]

The fear is that people who do not look like them are taking their jobs. Jesse Helms' "Hands" played on this. Trump spoke directly to this sort of fear.

[Blue3]

This research actually proves why Democrats need to focus on economic anxiety issues... it's what we have in common with these people, and how we win them back.

We obviously can't take minority voters for granted, and we need to have racial justice policies in our platform, but becoming too focused on it will just drive more of these folks away... and we need enough of them to win.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The fear is that people who do not look like them are taking their jobs. Jesse Helms' "Hands" played on this. Trump spoke directly to this sort of fear.

     They wouldn't be any less afraid if the jobs were being outsourced to France. It is a matter of pure happenstance that the jobs are being outsourced to places like Mexico where the people "do not look like them".

[Technocracy Timmy]

Seriously you guys can't police what people are thinking. You'll never be able to fully tell just how many people are racist and to what degree. Focus on an economic agenda that helps working people and emphasize those parts of your platform to win over these WWC voters.


Now as for Generation Z, well...

[hopper]

Sad thruth is, if Dems threw out racist dog whistles on top of their working class policy positions...they would win elections in landslides

What the Dems are gonna win MS, AL, LA, and SC again if they do racist dog whistles? I just don't think that's gonna happen. I don't think Trump won PA, MI, and WI by calling Mexican Men rapists and drug dealers.

[DrScholl]

The fear is that people who do not look like them are taking their jobs. Jesse Helms' "Hands" played on this. Trump spoke directly to this sort of fear.

     They wouldn't be any less afraid if the jobs were being outsourced to France. It is a matter of pure happenstance that the jobs are being outsourced to places like Mexico where the people "do not look like them".

In the context of Trump's campaign, he used people who didn't look like his target constituency as the villain. If you have an issue with the word look, then one could say people who aren't likethem, but it all boils down to the same equation.

[ApatheticAustrian]

I don't think Trump won PA, MI, and WI by calling Mexican Men rapists and drug dealers.

he didn't but the messages connected to the racism thing didn't hurt him ...racism or more correctly "culturalism" isn't an end in itself ...at least today...it's just a way to achieve other goals.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

EHarding, my ideal situation is a liberal, democratic and prosperous Russia with strong U.S. ties. Wanting one's own president not to hand a foreign military more rights in one's own country than our own citizens have hardly makes one a xenophobe, even moreso when said president claims to be a nationalist, as opposed to a white nationalist.

-Check out the approval ratings for the Baltic governments sometime.

Again, why do you believe the intelligence agency claims regarding the origin of the hacking? They haven't exactly shown their trustworthiness over the years.

And nobody's talking about handing foreign militaries any rights in the U.S.; don't make stuff up.

The sooner you realize Russia did nothing wrong, the better.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Unfortunately, any discussion of race these days seems to involve people who are much to quick to call others racist, as well as those who will scream "STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD!" any time race is even mentioned.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The fear is that people who do not look like them are taking their jobs. Jesse Helms' "Hands" played on this. Trump spoke directly to this sort of fear.

     They wouldn't be any less afraid if the jobs were being outsourced to France. It is a matter of pure happenstance that the jobs are being outsourced to places like Mexico where the people "do not look like them".

In the context of Trump's campaign, he used people who didn't look like his target constituency as the villain. If you have an issue with the word look, then one could say people who aren't likethem, but it all boils down to the same equation.

     The equation is that jobs were being lost and Democrats weren't providing a solution, but instead insisting that the economy was doing great. I'd prefer Trump not make comments like "Mexico sends their criminals", but focusing so totally on this angle when the people worried about the economy were focusing on a different angle just wasn't persuasive.

[ApatheticAustrian]

the US economy is "doing great" as far as classical republican metrics are concerned.

it is true that the economy is doing not so good if you are following a democratic ideology but that a republican would complain about a lack of "fair pay" and more and better paid job opportunities for uneducated workers would be...newish.

[Storebought]

The fear is that people who do not look like them are taking their jobs. Jesse Helms' "Hands" played on this. Trump spoke directly to this sort of fear.

     They wouldn't be any less afraid if the jobs were being outsourced to France. It is a matter of pure happenstance that the jobs are being outsourced to places like Mexico where the people "do not look like them".

I say bullsh**t to that. No one bats an eyelid for the scads of auto plant jobs that have been outsourced to Ontario. I haven't heard about outsourcing to Canada mentioned once during the campaign.

[Associate Justice PiT]

the US economy is "doing great" as far as classical republican metrics are concerned.

it is true that the economy is doing not so good if you are following a democratic ideology but that a republican would complain about a lack of "fair pay" and more and better paid job opportunities for uneducated workers would be...newish.

     It's newish because Trump saw an opportunity due to Democrats not caring about this. Opportunity, opportunity.

The fear is that people who do not look like them are taking their jobs. Jesse Helms' "Hands" played on this. Trump spoke directly to this sort of fear.

     They wouldn't be any less afraid if the jobs were being outsourced to France. It is a matter of pure happenstance that the jobs are being outsourced to places like Mexico where the people "do not look like them".

I say bullsh**t to that. No one bats an eyelid for the scads of auto plant jobs that have been outsourced to Ontario. I haven't heard about outsourcing to Canada mentioned once during the campaign.

     Which was a decision by the people in the campaign, not the voters in the Rust Belt. Do you actually think that they would just be nonplussed if someone ran on pointing out the jobs being lost to Canada?

[Santander]

The fear is that people who do not look like them are taking their jobs. Jesse Helms' "Hands" played on this. Trump spoke directly to this sort of fear.

     They wouldn't be any less afraid if the jobs were being outsourced to France. It is a matter of pure happenstance that the jobs are being outsourced to places like Mexico where the people "do not look like them".

I say bullsh**t to that. No one bats an eyelid for the scads of auto plant jobs that have been outsourced to Ontario. I haven't heard about outsourcing to Canada mentioned once during the campaign.

The Canada-US integrated auto manufacturing supply chain as we know it today dates back to the 60s... nobody who is working today was working age at the time auto jobs moved to Ontario, where the production costs have been higher than in the US since at least the 90s. Canadian production by US auto manufacturers is set at about 1:1 to sales, so while there may have been some degree of geographical reconfiguration of the supply chain, what you're describing cannot really be described as "outsourcing".

[Storebought]

The fear is that people who do not look like them are taking their jobs. Jesse Helms' "Hands" played on this. Trump spoke directly to this sort of fear.

     They wouldn't be any less afraid if the jobs were being outsourced to France. It is a matter of pure happenstance that the jobs are being outsourced to places like Mexico where the people "do not look like them".

I say bullsh**t to that. No one bats an eyelid for the scads of auto plant jobs that have been outsourced to Ontario. I haven't heard about outsourcing to Canada mentioned once during the campaign.

The Canada-US integrated auto manufacturing supply chain as we know it today dates back to the 60s... nobody who is working today was working age at the time auto jobs moved to Ontario, where the production costs have been higher than in the US since at least the 90s. Canadian production by US auto manufacturers is set at about 1:1 to sales, so while there may have been some degree of geographical reconfiguration of the supply chain, what you're describing cannot really be described as "outsourcing".

An integrated supply chain was exactly what is desired of out free trade with Mexico, but it continues to run into roadblocks.

[Reaganfan]

The main problem that liberals have is that they try and back up true facts with false reasoning.

For example, they'll say that women get paid less than men. That's true. But they'll base their claims on falsehoods like "sexism". It could be...women get maternity leave or women work more part-time jobs than men, or more women are enrolled in college than men. All of those factors could make the numbers skew towards men making more on average overall. But that's not how they frame the debate.

Same thing with police shootings. Liberals will freak out that white Americans don't care when a "black person gets shot by the cops." They leave out one really big truth...white Americans don't care when a WHITE person gets shot either.

Liberals will say "blacks get more prison time for the same crimes committed by whites". That's true. But what they leave out is that more often than not, the black people have more multiple offences. If You break one law, you'll get a slap on the wrist. But if it's your sixth time, you'll do hard time.

Liberals ignore facts, leaping to conclusions about race or gender or discrimination, because they cannot fathom that the reason they keep losing is their policies.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist, and only voted for him so as to not get called racist. 

-How does that make any sense?

It never does but thats not the point. Its like back in 2012 where so many dems tried to argue that mitt romney wanted the naacp to boo him on purpose so as to pander to the "racist" vote. Because apparently until then racists might have been tempted to vote for the black guy. Just remember, if you reduce all problems down to "the other side is icky" you automatically win any argument.

You can be racist and vote for the Black person.  How is that a difficult concept to get.

I think the problem is we are defining "racist" and "not racist" as discrete labels rather than a continuum. If the Dems were to rule out everybody who has some racialised views, you wouldn't have many voters at all - because society as a whole has internalised racism. The problem with the Clinton campaign is they lost a large amount of people in the sort of mid-region of the racism continuum; who voted for Obama in their droves because he presented himself as postracial.

The 2016 election year, with the overwhelming fixation on racial  and identity issues by the media and Democrats (oscarssowhite, blm, Colin The Football Player etc) served to confuse and balkanise the electorate. These issues, which were wholeheartedly endorsed by the Democrats and their affiliates, were largely distant from whites living in homogenous areas, who concluded that the democratic party was not interested in picking up their votes. And the Democrats  allowed them. Even when they were handed issues on a plate, the Democrats tendency to racialise every issue bites them (the good example here being the Flint water crisis).

And yes, I know that there is truth to the notion behind white privilege or whatever. Ok? That doesn't really matter if you're running an election campaign? A rough comparison would be an election campaign that centred around how lucky Americans are compared to sweatshop workers and peasant farmers in Bangladesh: I.e. an non-viable campaign.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I remember when Lief said this election was a choice between conservatism and fascism, so it would seem these people are really certain about stopping conservatism based on his terminologies.

[Beet]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist, and only voted for him so as to not get called racist. 

-How does that make any sense?

It never does but thats not the point. Its like back in 2012 where so many dems tried to argue that mitt romney wanted the naacp to boo him on purpose so as to pander to the "racist" vote. Because apparently until then racists might have been tempted to vote for the black guy. Just remember, if you reduce all problems down to "the other side is icky" you automatically win any argument.

You can be racist and vote for the Black person.  How is that a difficult concept to get.

I think the problem is we are defining "racist" and "not racist" as discrete labels rather than a continuum. If the Dems were to rule out everybody who has some racialised views, you wouldn't have many voters at all - because society as a whole has internalised racism. The problem with the Clinton campaign is they lost a large amount of people in the sort of mid-region of the racism continuum; who voted for Obama in their droves because he presented himself as postracial.

The 2016 election year, with the overwhelming fixation on racial  and identity issues by the media and Democrats (oscarssowhite, blm, Colin The Football Player etc) served to confuse and balkanise the electorate. These issues, which were wholeheartedly endorsed by the Democrats and their affiliates, were largely distant from whites living in homogenous areas, who concluded that the democratic party was not interested in picking up their votes. And the Democrats  allowed them. Even when they were handed issues on a plate, the Democrats tendency to racialise every issue bites them (the good example here being the Flint water crisis).

And yes, I know that there is truth to the notion behind white privilege or whatever. Ok? That doesn't really matter if you're running an election campaign? A rough comparison would be an election campaign that centred around how lucky Americans are compared to sweatshop workers and peasant farmers in Bangladesh: I.e. an non-viable campaign.

The Democrats didn't start any of this stuff. Colin Kaepernick denounced Hillary himself. When racial identity politics rears its head, it makes things harder for Democrats, because we are the party with a multi-racial coalition. In the past, we could neutralize it by going full Bill Clinton 1992-on Sister Souljah, but the far left won't let us any more. On the other hand, we could go far left and all-out support all these movements, but then we alienate white working class voters. This is why I have always hated racial identity politics.