Did Appalachians vote their economic interests?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:33:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Dereich)
  Did Appalachians vote their economic interests?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Did Appalachians vote their economic interests?
#1
Yes, and wisely so.
 
#2
Yes, but they are probably regretting it now.
 
#3
Yes, but other factors were involved.
 
#4
No.
 
#5
Other
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 89

Author Topic: Did Appalachians vote their economic interests?  (Read 5724 times)
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 29, 2017, 10:01:01 AM »

I vote option 3. The conventional wisdom is that poor whites who vote Republican do so against their economic interests, in order to stick it to the Blacks, or the gays, or the feminists, or whatever former "out" group is flexing its political muscle.

While there is undoubtedly much truth to this (going back at least to 1968), in 2016 I feel economic factors were also involved: (1) Trump ran to the "left", if I can use that term, of Clinton on trade; and (2) the coal industry suffered tremendously under President Obama.

Thus, we have the spectacle of ancestrally Democratic, dirt-poor rural whites, many of them on welfare or disability or some other form of government assistance-- giving the GOP nominee for President 90%+ of the vote in some communities.

I have to believe economic factors were involved to some extent, whatever other factors may have contributed.
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,234
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2017, 10:47:13 AM »
« Edited: June 29, 2017, 10:49:44 AM by PragmaticPopulist »

Took me a long time to understand voting behaviors of Appalachians, but I think I get it now. While it's true that a number of them vote Republican to suppress minorities, gays, and feminists, it's a very small percentage. Most of them vote Republican because they feel Democrats are only working for the interests of cities, and want to raise taxes in order to fund cities, while rural Appalachia gets nothing. They see roads go into disrepair, limited to no access to public services, and little job opportunities, while cosmopolitan Democrats get everything.

To answer the question, I voted for the second answer, because Republicans are now not getting anything done about infrastructure or jobs, and are trying to take away health care. It may take some longer than others to turn on them though.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2017, 11:15:16 AM »

Does "cosmopolitan Democrats" include literally all Democrats who live in a major metro area?  Is the 35-year old Black woman in Chicago who never went to college and earns $30,000 per year and is a card-carrying Democrat a "cosmopolitan Democrat"?  I'd argue the Republican living in the small town of Galena, IL who went to college and makes $100,000 per year is more "cosmopolitan."
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,469
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2017, 12:18:28 PM »
« Edited: June 29, 2017, 12:20:14 PM by TDAS04 »

Lower-income Appalachians who voted for Trump did not vote their economic interests, though it's possible that many thought they were.  (Wait until Trump takes away Obamacare, but even that probably won't wing them back to the Democrats too quickly).

One reason why many people who aren't rich vote Republican is because Republicans have convinced large portions of the American public that taxing the rich will hurt everyone, and that cutting taxes for the wealthy will help lower-income people too ("trickle down" theory).  My state is full of people who think like that; I'm not entirely sure how Appalachians feel about taxing the wealthy these days, though.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2017, 07:19:38 PM »

Lower-income Appalachians who voted for Trump did not vote their economic interests, though it's possible that many thought they were.  (Wait until Trump takes away Obamacare, but even that probably won't wing them back to the Democrats too quickly).

One reason why many people who aren't rich vote Republican is because Republicans have convinced large portions of the American public that taxing the rich will hurt everyone, and that cutting taxes for the wealthy will help lower-income people too ("trickle down" theory).  My state is full of people who think like that; I'm not entirely sure how Appalachians feel about taxing the wealthy these days, though.

Somewhat true.

Appalachians very much view their economic well-being as tied to coal.  Trump was pro-coal.  Hillary said she wanted to shut down the coal mines.  That sort of thing tends to focus the issue.  Couple that with issues of gun ownership and social conservatism and the choice becomes a no-brainer.

There's lots of talk about the budget cuts and how these things hurt Appalachia.  Most of these "cuts" aren't cuts; they're reductions in the rate of growth.  Appalachian incomes are so low and many of the folks on public assistance there are on SSI/SSD for disabilities that these cuts aren't really going to impact THEM.  Especially given that KY, WV, and OH expanded Medicaid.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2017, 09:54:02 PM »

They voted on social issues since both parties are hostile to their economic interests.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2017, 04:57:02 PM »

You don't get to pick what people's "interests" are, and by implying that you do you are actively contributing to the tone deafness that causes national Democrats so much hurt between the coasts. 
Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 407
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2017, 06:08:05 PM »

Most of the appalchians who vote for the Republican Party (For the most part) aren't on disability or welfare checks. Turnout in Appalachia is notoriously low and the stereotypical "redneck on food stamps" are generally unreliable voters.

The average republican voter in these poor appalachian counties; is the lower middle class guy who isn't on welfare himself but probably knows someone who is on welfare, and is resentful of the "free ride" that person seems to be getting.
Logged
Lord Wreath
Rookie
**
Posts: 45


Political Matrix
E: 8.92, S: -4.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2017, 05:23:59 PM »
« Edited: August 15, 2017, 05:25:56 PM by Lord Wreath »





Look at this comparison between Clinton in 1996 and Trump in 2016 and tell me it wasn't about their economic interests.
Logged
Canis
canis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,509


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2017, 09:56:37 PM »





Look at this comparison between Clinton in 1996 and Trump in 2016 and tell me it wasn't about their economic interests.
which is which?
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2017, 11:26:59 PM »
« Edited: August 15, 2017, 11:59:34 PM by Shameless Bernie Hack »

Considering that no candidate represented their economic interests, absolutely:



(I voted yes, but they're probably regretting it now. They might not be, but it's okay. The parties need to actually earn their vote.)
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2017, 10:38:55 PM »

Most of the appalchians who vote for the Republican Party (For the most part) aren't on disability or welfare checks. Turnout in Appalachia is notoriously low and the stereotypical "redneck on food stamps" are generally unreliable voters.

The average republican voter in these poor appalachian counties; is the lower middle class guy who isn't on welfare himself but probably knows someone who is on welfare, and is resentful of the "free ride" that person seems to be getting.

This x100.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2017, 12:48:06 AM »

Lower-income Appalachians who voted for Trump did not vote their economic interests, though it's possible that many thought they were.  (Wait until Trump takes away Obamacare, but even that probably won't wing them back to the Democrats too quickly).

One reason why many people who aren't rich vote Republican is because Republicans have convinced large portions of the American public that taxing the rich will hurt everyone, and that cutting taxes for the wealthy will help lower-income people too ("trickle down" theory).  My state is full of people who think like that; I'm not entirely sure how Appalachians feel about taxing the wealthy these days, though.

Somewhat true.

Appalachians very much view their economic well-being as tied to coal.  Trump was pro-coal.  Hillary said she wanted to shut down the coal mines.  That sort of thing tends to focus the issue.  Couple that with issues of gun ownership and social conservatism and the choice becomes a no-brainer.

There's lots of talk about the budget cuts and how these things hurt Appalachia.  Most of these "cuts" aren't cuts; they're reductions in the rate of growth.  Appalachian incomes are so low and many of the folks on public assistance there are on SSI/SSD for disabilities that these cuts aren't really going to impact THEM.  Especially given that KY, WV, and OH expanded Medicaid.

If you cap your rate of growth of entitlements, than that is a cut. Let us say Medical Expansion is at 5% & you cap the entitlement at 3%, there will be huge cuts to services, cuts to the number of people. And there are wide ranging problems. Significant number of people in rural areas & rural hospitals benefit disproportionately from Medicaid. States which expanded Medicaid & states which are suffering from a major Opioid crisis like WV will suffer. Those are big cuts as are the cuts to food stamps, meals on wheels etc.

Anyways, red & rural American benefit disproportionately from the money from large blue cities (who contribute a lot of Federal taxes). Many of these folks are on the ACA & hated Obamacare (some don't know even know they are on it). I do feel in some part they vote their own self-interest given that Coal is so embedded to the economy & Dems are comparatively more anti-coal. But you have thing beyond coal, with more mechanisation & automation, coal jobs have been falling huge for decades while renewables are exploding at a cheaper cost & with massive jobs. In a few decades, coal will die. Unfortunately, many of these folks are struggling to food on the tablle & can't think long term but a 1 industry economy is incredibly risky.

Also, social factors are probably underrated. There were a significant section of Socially conservative or moderate Democrats who believed in a liberal economy policy. With the huge shift of the Dems towards Identity politics & overt campaign on social issues, these voters have been alienated. WV is also losing people, some people are going out of state for good jobs, education & these were likely Dem voters.
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2017, 06:39:32 PM »

The only reason that Appalachian and Southern whites are voting "against their economic interests" boils down to the fact that the Democrat's economic message is being communicated in way that doesn't necessarily peak the interest of the rural, white poor. Republicans for a long time have portrayed government programs as being a "minority thing" or an "urban thing". And for the past twenty or so years, the Democrats have really let them get away with it with only passing and half-hearted attempts to change this perception. Growing up in the rural South I can tell you that a lot of folks are on some form of government assistance, but when a politician starts talking about spending cuts most will assume that they are just cutting the programs that are used by city folk.

There needs to be a concentrated and honest effort by the Democratic Party to change the perception of government assistance in order for this phenomenon to come to an end.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2017, 09:43:52 PM »

Most of the appalchians who vote for the Republican Party (For the most part) aren't on disability or welfare checks. Turnout in Appalachia is notoriously low and the stereotypical "redneck on food stamps" are generally unreliable voters.

The average republican voter in these poor appalachian counties; is the lower middle class guy who isn't on welfare himself but probably knows someone who is on welfare, and is resentful of the "free ride" that person seems to be getting.

This x100.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2017, 10:52:41 PM »

They voted on social issues since both parties are hostile to their economic interests.
Logged
mianfei
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 322
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2019, 09:28:22 AM »

Took me a long time to understand voting behaviors of Appalachians, but I think I get it now. While it's true that a number of them vote Republican to suppress minorities, gays, and feminists, it's a very small percentage. Most of them vote Republican because they feel Democrats are only working for the interests of cities, and want to raise taxes in order to fund cities, while rural Appalachia gets nothing. They see roads go into disrepair, limited to no access to public services, and little job opportunities, while cosmopolitan Democrats get everything.

To answer the question, I voted for the second answer, because Republicans are now not getting anything done about infrastructure or jobs, and are trying to take away health care.
A highly sensible answer – except for a single very basic fact. I imagine that most Appalachians feel that there cannot be a separation between support for non-whites and for homosexuals on the one hand, and support for cities on the other. I do not deny the tight linkage between the two, because homosexuals and blacks – not to mention urban college students – are much more dependent upon welfare than poor rural whites. At least that is what I was reading (from a source that was not peer reviewed I must confess) re poverty in Virginia and Tennessee this evening.

What rural white America – of whom Appalachia is the absolute epitome – wants above all else is a total end to public aid to all black Americans, urban immigrants and urban students whom they feel as threatening their livelihood. This threat is both direct via taxation and indirect via regulation of the coal, oil and timber industries.

[For the “redneck on food stamps”, “PoliticalShelter”, eliminating public aid to blacks would likely be an even more absolute demand.]

A Democratic Party dominated by environmentally conscious and morally liberal college students will never be acceptable to Appalachia outside a few college towns (like Boone or Athens). Adding to that pressure from young urban nonwhite populations who grew up with the socially libertine radical politics of rap, industrial and heavy metal – and who no doubt favor a welfare state similar to or larger than European nations’ but which would be intolerable to a group whose cosmology is based upon superiority over nonwhite peoples – leaves no doubt that 21st century Appalachia will show an extreme degree of Republican loyalty.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2019, 07:37:08 AM »

Most White people in Appalachia, including those who themselves receive welfare benefits are legit too dumb to realize that White people are eligible to receive welfare benefits. So no they did not.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2019, 06:38:37 PM »

Most White people in Appalachia, including those who themselves receive welfare benefits are legit too dumb to realize that White people are eligible to receive welfare benefits. So no they did not.

lol ok
Logged
rosin
Rookie
**
Posts: 236
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2020, 04:03:38 PM »

They voted on social issues since both parties are hostile to their economic interests.

Very simplified, but mostly yes.
Logged
Esteemed Jimmy
Jimmy7812
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,406
United States
Political Matrix
E: 2.47, S: -1.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2020, 06:41:53 PM »

Most of the appalchians who vote for the Republican Party (For the most part) aren't on disability or welfare checks. Turnout in Appalachia is notoriously low and the stereotypical "redneck on food stamps" are generally unreliable voters.

The average republican voter in these poor appalachian counties; is the lower middle class guy who isn't on welfare himself but probably knows someone who is on welfare, and is resentful of the "free ride" that person seems to be getting.

This x100.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2020, 06:43:25 PM »
« Edited: January 05, 2020, 06:48:27 PM by President Griffin »

Appalachia objectively did not vote in its economic interests, but definitely voted for its self-interests. People often use that phrase ("they aren't voting in their own 'self-interests'!"), ignoring the reality that whatever somebody decides is their priority is their self-interest by definition; just because they prioritize something other than what you think they should doesn't change that.

However and has already been pointed out, there's a huge divide between who votes and who doesn't in Appalachia, lest people forget (as one notable example) that West Virginians who made less than $50k per year voted for Barack Obama in 2008. It can be argued that many people who voted in this region didn't even necessarily vote against their own economic interests (at least not acutely).

So you could perhaps grossly simplify it and say "Appalachia voted against its economic interests, but not Appalachians".
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,252
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2020, 06:02:21 PM »

To the extent that lower middle class and poorer Appalachians choose income wasn't at least indirectly tied at Community level to fossil fuels, both natural gas fracking as well as obviously Cole, then yes.

The question is whether or not the percentage of such working class and poor voters who one could argue voted against their economic interest over social issues for some basic factual ignorance over the parties relative economic policies, is notably larger a share of such voters outside of Appalachia.

In other words, there were plenty of people throughout this country including outside Appalachia who firmly convinced themselves that the plutocratic tax-dodging billionaire running on a souped-up version of Mitt Romney's platform was " the one truly For the Working Man". Plus there are a lot of struggling Appalachia voters who work more concerned with arguable justification about the Democrats having an anti Cole and anti-fracking environmental policies than they were about having their grandmother's disability check cut or the like. Take those into account, and I'm not sure if Appalachian voters voted against their economic interests any more than non Appalachian voters.

Not necessarily saying it was the same in Appalachia as elsewhere. Rather, I'm saying that under that analysis I'm just not sure it's clear cut.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2020, 06:16:48 PM »

I think they voted for the candidate who they believed respected them, their family and their communities MUCH more.  Whether or not you agree with that is another thing, but I think many of these people didn't have to infer all that much to come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats in other areas of the country thought VERY little of them (I mean, just look at a lot of the posts here), and they felt the only dignified thing to do was not vote for them ... kind of like a New York Republican who might have liked Ted Cruz's views refusing to vote for him after the "New York values" thing.

This is to say nothing *better* about the GOP platform for Appalachia, but it IS my opinion that Trump signaled a bit more dignity their way than Clinton or any past Republican or Democrat of the past twenty years.  So, they didn't "vote their economic interests," but I think a lot of them would readily admit that.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,252
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2020, 12:26:41 PM »

I think they voted for the candidate who they believed respected them, their family and their communities MUCH more.  Whether or not you agree with that is another thing, but I think many of these people didn't have to infer all that much to come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats in other areas of the country thought VERY little of them (I mean, just look at a lot of the posts here), and they felt the only dignified thing to do was not vote for them ... kind of like a New York Republican who might have liked Ted Cruz's views refusing to vote for him after the "New York values" thing.

This is to say nothing *better* about the GOP platform for Appalachia, but it IS my opinion that Trump signaled a bit more dignity their way than Clinton or any past Republican or Democrat of the past twenty years.  So, they didn't "vote their economic interests," but I think a lot of them would readily admit that.

Because Donald Trump is nothing else if not all about dignity.

it would be much more accurate to say that trumps campaign wasn't so much about extending dignity or respect towards such voters, but rather demonizing their perceived enemies and "the other".
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 15 queries.