Will the WWC become a long time voter base for the Republican Party?

[RINO Tom]

LOL, I don't hate poor Whites.  There's just no actual evidence of this imagined party system that - annoyingly - exists in both the minds of so-called "latte liberals" AND Trumpists.  It fits both their narratives.  Problem is it's not grounded in fact.

[MT Treasurer]

LOL, I don't hate poor Whites.  There's just no actual evidence of this imagined party system that - annoyingly - exists in both the minds of so-called "latte liberals" AND Trumpists.  It fits both their narratives.  Problem is it's not grounded in fact.

Who defines what "conservative" means? "Trumpists" (what a stupid term) are part of the Republican Party, whether you like it or not. And tbh, I'd much rather win the Midwest than places like Fairfax or Orange County. (And why shouldn't the GOP appeal to both suburban AND rural areas?)

[RINO Tom]

LOL, I don't hate poor Whites.  There's just no actual evidence of this imagined party system that - annoyingly - exists in both the minds of so-called "latte liberals" AND Trumpists.  It fits both their narratives.  Problem is it's not grounded in fact.

Who defines what "conservative" means? "Trumpists" (what a stupid term) are part of the Republican Party, whether you like it or not. And tbh, I'd much rather win the Midwest than places like Fairfax or Orange County. (And why shouldn't the GOP appeal to both suburban AND rural areas?)

They can...?  And why?  I'd rather appeal to vote-rich suburbs better than we're doing, especially because it would allow us to stay truer to our political legacy...

[Santander]

LOL, I don't hate poor Whites.  There's just no actual evidence of this imagined party system that - annoyingly - exists in both the minds of so-called "latte liberals" AND Trumpists.  It fits both their narratives.  Problem is it's not grounded in fact.

Who defines what "conservative" means? "Trumpists" (what a stupid term) are part of the Republican Party, whether you like it or not. And tbh, I'd much rather win the Midwest than places like Fairfax or Orange County. (And why shouldn't the GOP appeal to both suburban AND rural areas?)

They can...?  And why?  I'd rather appeal to vote-rich suburbs better than we're doing, especially because it would allow us to stay truer to our political legacy...

Wow. So it's bigoted to talk about "cultural integrity" or "Western civilization" but okay to be more committed to the demographic composition of your political party than actually trying to build a broad political movement? Shameful.

[RINO Tom]

Why does RINO tom hate poor whites?  Not nice.  We need to embrace everybody.

Because he's in denial about who exactly voted for Trump and which way the parties are trending.  If you point out the obvious fact that voters with a college degree voted for Hillary and trended democrat, while white voters with a college degree were split and also trended democrat... while voters without a college education trended hard for the Republicans... then you are a "latte liberal."  Oh and to be a "latte liberal" in his warped mind you have to support unions and trade wars and have a total protectionist economy and welfare state.  Even though this would clearly go against your socio-economic interests as someone who can afford daily "lattes" probably would rather have a tax cute than strong unions.

I think you overestimate how many "latte liberals" aren't, well, LIBERAL.  Polls show they largely support the party's economic agenda.

[RINO Tom]

RINO Tom, are you trying to lose the next election? Ceding even a small part of the rural vote would be a disaster for the GOP.

No, I'm not.  I'm trying to make a not-big-enough tent much larger.  The GOP can, as TN Vol suggested, continue to appeal to rural voters AND keep its more traditional suburban voters.

[Bismarck]

RINO Tom is right to a point. The idea that the party system right now is poor trailer people vs educated latte sippers is pretty ludicrous. Trump  won all the upper income brackets and Hillary won the lower ones. It is certainly true that the GOP is being embraced by lower middle class whites to a degree we have not been in the past, but the vast majority of these are not poor people. Trump was the worst possible republican  for educated whites and he still won them, and he won them overwhelmingly in most of the swing states.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Haven't they already? They have been voting in large majorities for Republicans for a while now.

It's possible the GOP's WWC ranks expand beyond this election, but one election itself doesn't signify a permanent shift, particularly an election between the 2 most hated nominees in modern history, with one being uniquely unsuited for WWCs for numerous reasons. It's just as possible that if Trump doesn't deliver on his big promises and/or if Republicans overreach on things like Medicare, that they end up sending many of them back to the Democratic Party. It's not enough to just win them over once with lots of promises. Republicans/Trump also have to show them that Republicans can more of a positive difference in their lives than Democrats.

-Rethink HRC and Her supposed unique unsuitability for the WWC:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=257209.msg5487873#msg5487873

It's true non-college Whites are the swingiest voting group, and that this has always been so.

[Virginiá]

-Rethink HRC and Her supposed unique unsuitability for the WWC:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=257209.msg5487873#msg5487873

It's true non-college Whites are the swingiest voting group, and that this has always been so.

What does 2008 vs 2016 primaries have to do with this? It's irrelevant what support she got 8 years ago. A lot of things changed. Particularly for Hillary, and not in a good way.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-Rethink HRC and Her supposed unique unsuitability for the WWC:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=257209.msg5487873#msg5487873

It's true non-college Whites are the swingiest voting group, and that this has always been so.

What does 2008 vs 2016 primaries have to do with this? It's irrelevant what support she got 8 years ago. A lot of things changed. Particularly for Hillary, and not in a good way.

-Things didn't change for Hillary as much as she changed them. She could have run the same campaign she did in 2008 and beaten Trump.

[Virginiá]

-Things didn't change for Hillary as much as she changed them. She could have run the same campaign she did in 2008 and beaten Trump.

How things changed is also irrelevant. Her husband's record, the massive mistakes she made between 2009-2013, her weaknesses as a campaigner that prevented her from rising above that stuff, and tying herself to an administration that in some regions wasn't as respected as Obama himself (it didn't help that Obama was pushing TPP while she was running) all contributed to her failure to win.

You could try and argue that if she ran the same campaign, she'd have won, but running a different campaign may have also weakened her support among the constituencies her actual campaign meant to target with no guarantee she'd make up enough to win from others. And all of this again ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton had numerous problems (as I listed above) that were wholly separate from a campaign strategy she was capable of carrying out. For instance, she can come out strong against TPP and pro-building up manufacturing yet the people she is after don't believe her because she has created a thick layer of distrust to makes her campaign message meaningless - particularly against an opponent who effectively made part of his campaign about her own character deficits.

So yes, I'd say Bill's pro-trade and criminal justice record combined with the negative effects of her tenure as SoS were unique.

[hopper]

Haven't they already? They have been voting in large majorities for Republicans for a while now.

It's possible the GOP's WWC ranks expand beyond this election, but one election itself doesn't signify a permanent shift, particularly an election between the 2 most hated nominees in modern history, with one being uniquely unsuited for WWCs for numerous reasons. It's just as possible that if Trump doesn't deliver on his big promises and/or if Republicans overreach on things like Medicare, that they end up sending many of them back to the Democratic Party. It's not enough to just win them over once with lots of promises. Republicans/Trump also have to show them that Republicans can more of a positive difference in their lives than Democrats.

-Rethink HRC and Her supposed unique unsuitability for the WWC:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=257209.msg5487873#msg5487873

It's true non-college Whites are the swingiest voting group, and that this has always been so.

They probably won't be in the future though.  Democrats should cut their losses with these people and move on.  There are bigger, growing states to focus on...

The Dems can't ignore Non-College Whites in 2020 and win though. Its not happening.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-Things didn't change for Hillary as much as she changed them. She could have run the same campaign she did in 2008 and beaten Trump.

How things changed is also irrelevant. Her husband's record, the massive mistakes she made between 2009-2013, her weaknesses as a campaigner that prevented her from rising above that stuff, and tying herself to an administration that in some regions wasn't as respected as Obama himself (it didn't help that Obama was pushing TPP while she was running) all contributed to her failure to win.

You could try and argue that if she ran the same campaign, she'd have won, but running a different campaign may have also weakened her support among the constituencies her actual campaign meant to target with no guarantee she'd make up enough to win from others. And all of this again ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton had numerous problems (as I listed above) that were wholly separate from a campaign strategy she was capable of carrying out. For instance, she can come out strong against TPP and pro-building up manufacturing yet the people she is after don't believe her because she has created a thick layer of distrust to makes her campaign message meaningless - particularly against an opponent who effectively made part of his campaign about her own character deficits.

So yes, I'd say Bill's pro-trade and criminal justice record combined with the negative effects of her tenure as SoS were unique.

-Her husband's record is now most remembered for its fast-rising real wages, its extraordinary job growth, and a lack of U.S. troops bogged down in the Middle East. Again, here's what HRC's message should have been had she wanted to win:

Working men and women of this country,

You may think Trump knows how to repair the economy because "he's a businessman", "he says he'll bring back jobs", and "he'll fix the deficit". But how does raising taxes on those who are neediest among us in the form of onerous protective tariffs on the goods you buy in furtherance of corporate welfare for politically-connected businesses help the working class? How does right-to-work (which Trump has repeatedly supported) help raise wages for the American laborer? How does bringing back exactly the same failed trickle-down anti-union corporate welfare policies of Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge restore to the laborer what he is rightfully deserving of? It doesn't. Rather, it enriches politically entrenched fat cats at your expense. Under Trump's policy of raising taxes on the imports you buy while helping cut your wages by crushing labor unions, you get hurt. There's a reason, after all, union leadership emphatically rejects Donald Trump and supports the tried and true policies of Mrs. Bill and Hillary Clinton. Under Clinton, wages rose, unemployment fell to 4%, and the job markets of Detroit and Tampa alike were both booming. Mr. Bill Clinton's wife can bring that back without any higher taxes on the goods and services you purchase. Trump can't do any of that. Vote him out.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Roosevelt. FDR was never in favor of Herbert Hoover's tried and failed idea of high protective tariffs on the goods and services you purchase. Instead, he cut tariffs on imports massively while getting firms to agree to wage increases for all working Americans. These are the policies with which Roosevelt flipped Youngstown from an absolute bastion of the Hooverite Republican Party to the stronghold of the Party of Jackson it is today. This was how FDR turned Macomb, Muskegon, and northern Minnesota to the party which fits them best today. And these policies of FDR are the very policies of the Democratic Party from the 1930s to today and, quite naturally, Mrs. Bill Clinton's wife. The Democrats work for you and your family. The Republicans work for the rich. Vote them out.

As for the deficit, Donald Trump calls for lower taxes on those who can most afford them, while not proposing any specific spending cuts worth more than a pittance. How can this reach a balanced budget? To do so, Trump must either massively cut spending for whom it serves most, or raise taxes on the middle class via onerous taxes on the imported goods and services you buy. Hillary Clinton opposes this big-budget-deficit, anti-working class, anti-poor, pro-corporate agenda. Unlike Donald Trump, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a plan to balance the budget. Look at Donald Trump's website. He has no such plan. Hillary Clinton does -go to .....com. Mrs. Bill Clinton's wife supports higher taxes on those who can most afford them -those earning over $xxxxx- to pay for the largest public infrastructure investment since World War II. The obstinate do-nothing Republican Congress continues to block this agenda. Vote them out.

On foreign policy, Donald Trump is too muddle-headed to propose any coherent course but to lower our standing in the world. FDR supported the present system of international alliances, as he understood its great benefit the U.S. So does Hillary Clinton. Trump's sheer incompetence on matters of foreign policy shows he cannot be trusted with the nuclear button. With Clinton's steady hand, you know the nation will be safe and secure -just as it was in Bill Clinton's time. So vote Donald Trump out.

The Affordable Care Act may not be perfect, but do you have any idea what the Republicans will replace it with? Here's a hint: every Republican plan is less generous to the elderly and to the most needy than Obamacare is at present. The Affordable Care Act needs reform. But it does not need the kind of anti-patient changes the Republicans want. Vote them out.

Hillary Clinton will govern effectively with a unified Democratic Congress. So let's go ahead and elect one, leaving the failed Hooverite policies of the GOP behind.

She was stupid not to run on WJC's legacy. Had she run on Bill's criminal justice policies, she would have won a larger portion of the White vote while not losing any of the Black. What are Blacks going to do? Vote Republican? Meanwhile, concerned citizens who like the Democratic platform, but feel threatened by the breakdown of law and order in some inner cities can easily vote Republican.

Who are the overeducated elitist hacks put off by Trump, but favoring inner-city crime and free trade, going to do? Vote for Trump? They were going to vote for anybody but Trump. What concrete concessions was she even targeting elite Republicans with? Most elite Republicans aren't even fans of inner-city crime.

Hillary made 70% of Her campaign about Trump's well-documented character deficits. That was nuts.

[Virginiá]

She was stupid not to run on WJC's legacy. Had she run on Bill's criminal justice policies, she would have won a larger portion of the White vote while not losing any of the Black. What are Blacks going to do? Vote Republican? Meanwhile, concerned citizens who like the Democratic platform, but feel threatened by the breakdown of law and order in some inner cities can easily vote Republican.

Do you feel like that would have gotten her past the primary (African Americans were crucial to her win)? Or should she have ran on what she did and then flip-flopped entirely?

At any rate, I'm not really interested in discussing her campaign strategy here. I've already made my point otherwise.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

She was stupid not to run on WJC's legacy. Had she run on Bill's criminal justice policies, she would have won a larger portion of the White vote while not losing any of the Black. What are Blacks going to do? Vote Republican? Meanwhile, concerned citizens who like the Democratic platform, but feel threatened by the breakdown of law and order in some inner cities can easily vote Republican.

Do you feel like that would have gotten her past the primary (African Americans were crucial to her win)? Or should she have ran on what she did and then flip-flopped entirely?

At any rate, I'm not really interested in discussing her campaign strategy here. I've already made my point otherwise.

-Obviously, flip-flopped entirely.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-Things didn't change for Hillary as much as she changed them. She could have run the same campaign she did in 2008 and beaten Trump.

How things changed is also irrelevant. Her husband's record, the massive mistakes she made between 2009-2013, her weaknesses as a campaigner that prevented her from rising above that stuff, and tying herself to an administration that in some regions wasn't as respected as Obama himself (it didn't help that Obama was pushing TPP while she was running) all contributed to her failure to win.

You could try and argue that if she ran the same campaign, she'd have won, but running a different campaign may have also weakened her support among the constituencies her actual campaign meant to target with no guarantee she'd make up enough to win from others. And all of this again ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton had numerous problems (as I listed above) that were wholly separate from a campaign strategy she was capable of carrying out. For instance, she can come out strong against TPP and pro-building up manufacturing yet the people she is after don't believe her because she has created a thick layer of distrust to makes her campaign message meaningless - particularly against an opponent who effectively made part of his campaign about her own character deficits.

So yes, I'd say Bill's pro-trade and criminal justice record combined with the negative effects of her tenure as SoS were unique.

-Her husband's record is now most remembered for its fast-rising real wages, its extraordinary job growth, and a lack of U.S. troops bogged down in the Middle East. Again, here's what HRC's message should have been had she wanted to win:

Working men and women of this country,

You may think Trump knows how to repair the economy because "he's a businessman", "he says he'll bring back jobs", and "he'll fix the deficit". But how does raising taxes on those who are neediest among us in the form of onerous protective tariffs on the goods you buy in furtherance of corporate welfare for politically-connected businesses help the working class? How does right-to-work (which Trump has repeatedly supported) help raise wages for the American laborer? How does bringing back exactly the same failed trickle-down anti-union corporate welfare policies of Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge restore to the laborer what he is rightfully deserving of? It doesn't. Rather, it enriches politically entrenched fat cats at your expense. Under Trump's policy of raising taxes on the imports you buy while helping cut your wages by crushing labor unions, you get hurt. There's a reason, after all, union leadership emphatically rejects Donald Trump and supports the tried and true policies of Mrs. Bill and Hillary Clinton. Under Clinton, wages rose, unemployment fell to 4%, and the job markets of Detroit and Tampa alike were both booming. Mr. Bill Clinton's wife can bring that back without any higher taxes on the goods and services you purchase. Trump can't do any of that. Vote him out.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Roosevelt. FDR was never in favor of Herbert Hoover's tried and failed idea of high protective tariffs on the goods and services you purchase. Instead, he cut tariffs on imports massively while getting firms to agree to wage increases for all working Americans. These are the policies with which Roosevelt flipped Youngstown from an absolute bastion of the Hooverite Republican Party to the stronghold of the Party of Jackson it is today. This was how FDR turned Macomb, Muskegon, and northern Minnesota to the party which fits them best today. And these policies of FDR are the very policies of the Democratic Party from the 1930s to today and, quite naturally, Mrs. Bill Clinton's wife. The Democrats work for you and your family. The Republicans work for the rich. Vote them out.

As for the deficit, Donald Trump calls for lower taxes on those who can most afford them, while not proposing any specific spending cuts worth more than a pittance. How can this reach a balanced budget? To do so, Trump must either massively cut spending for whom it serves most, or raise taxes on the middle class via onerous taxes on the imported goods and services you buy. Hillary Clinton opposes this big-budget-deficit, anti-working class, anti-poor, pro-corporate agenda. Unlike Donald Trump, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a plan to balance the budget. Look at Donald Trump's website. He has no such plan. Hillary Clinton does -go to .....com. Mrs. Bill Clinton's wife supports higher taxes on those who can most afford them -those earning over $xxxxx- to pay for the largest public infrastructure investment since World War II. The obstinate do-nothing Republican Congress continues to block this agenda. Vote them out.

On foreign policy, Donald Trump is too muddle-headed to propose any coherent course but to lower our standing in the world. FDR supported the present system of international alliances, as he understood its great benefit the U.S. So does Hillary Clinton. Trump's sheer incompetence on matters of foreign policy shows he cannot be trusted with the nuclear button. With Clinton's steady hand, you know the nation will be safe and secure -just as it was in Bill Clinton's time. So vote Donald Trump out.

The Affordable Care Act may not be perfect, but do you have any idea what the Republicans will replace it with? Here's a hint: every Republican plan is less generous to the elderly and to the most needy than Obamacare is at present. The Affordable Care Act needs reform. But it does not need the kind of anti-patient changes the Republicans want. Vote them out.

Hillary Clinton will govern effectively with a unified Democratic Congress. So let's go ahead and elect one, leaving the failed Hooverite policies of the GOP behind.

She was stupid not to run on WJC's legacy. Had she run on Bill's criminal justice policies, she would have won a larger portion of the White vote while not losing any of the Black. What are Blacks going to do? Vote Republican? Meanwhile, concerned citizens who like the Democratic platform, but feel threatened by the breakdown of law and order in some inner cities can easily vote Republican.

Who are the overeducated elitist hacks put off by Trump, but favoring inner-city crime and free trade, going to do? Vote for Trump? They were going to vote for anybody but Trump. What concrete concessions was she even targeting elite Republicans with? Most elite Republicans aren't even fans of inner-city crime.

Hillary made 70% of Her campaign about Trump's well-documented character deficits. That was nuts.

No but they could just stay home.  Every African American that stays home is basically a lost vote for Democrats.

-Indeed. And Hillary 2016 succeeded getting a lot of young Black men to stay home, anyway (relative to 2012). So if that was going to happen no matter what she did, she might as well have focused on the voters in the Democratic coalition most at risk of flipping; e.g., Bernie Sanders supporters in Wyandotte.

[Vosem]

Fun interesting fact that I noticed after going to check whether Wyandotte even voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary (which it did, 55-41, though with quite low voter turnout): Sanders actually carried the Grosse Points, and turnout there was a good deal higher than it was in Wyandotte. Why not focus on those Sanders voters?

The point being -- there's not a relationship between Sanders' strength in the primary and the swing to Donald Trump. Because the swing to Trump didn't come from Sanders supporters, and acting like it did is ludicrous.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why not focus on those Sanders voters?

-Because they were at a far lower risk of flipping to Trump.

[Vosem]

Why not focus on those Sanders voters?

-Because they were at a far lower risk of flipping to Trump.

It was a rhetorical question; my point being that basically all the polls showed that people who flipped to Trump weren't Sanders supporters. (Clinton did hemorrhage some Sanders supporters, but more went to non-voting or third-party support than to Trump). The voters Trump picked up were mostly those who frequently hadn't voted since 2008. The idea of there being a large (or even small) number of people whose preferences went 1-Sanders, 2-Trump, 3-Clinton has been disproved numerous times. (That plenty, maybe most of Trump supporters went 1-Trump, 2-Sanders, 3-Clinton is of course known, but that wouldn't really help the Democratic nominee).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why not focus on those Sanders voters?

-Because they were at a far lower risk of flipping to Trump.

It was a rhetorical question; my point being that basically all the polls showed that people who flipped to Trump weren't Sanders supporters. (Clinton did hemorrhage some Sanders supporters, but more went to non-voting or third-party support than to Trump). The voters Trump picked up were mostly those who frequently hadn't voted since 2008. The idea of there being a large (or even small) number of people whose preferences went 1-Sanders, 2-Trump, 3-Clinton has been disproved numerous times. (That plenty, maybe most of Trump supporters went 1-Trump, 2-Sanders, 3-Clinton is of course known, but that wouldn't really help the Democratic nominee).

-Disproven how?

[hopper]

-Things didn't change for Hillary as much as she changed them. She could have run the same campaign she did in 2008 and beaten Trump.

How things changed is also irrelevant. Her husband's record, the massive mistakes she made between 2009-2013, her weaknesses as a campaigner that prevented her from rising above that stuff, and tying herself to an administration that in some regions wasn't as respected as Obama himself (it didn't help that Obama was pushing TPP while she was running) all contributed to her failure to win.

You could try and argue that if she ran the same campaign, she'd have won, but running a different campaign may have also weakened her support among the constituencies her actual campaign meant to target with no guarantee she'd make up enough to win from others. And all of this again ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton had numerous problems (as I listed above) that were wholly separate from a campaign strategy she was capable of carrying out. For instance, she can come out strong against TPP and pro-building up manufacturing yet the people she is after don't believe her because she has created a thick layer of distrust to makes her campaign message meaningless - particularly against an opponent who effectively made part of his campaign about her own character deficits.

So yes, I'd say Bill's pro-trade and criminal justice record combined with the negative effects of her tenure as SoS were unique.

-Her husband's record is now most remembered for its fast-rising real wages, its extraordinary job growth, and a lack of U.S. troops bogged down in the Middle East. Again, here's what HRC's message should have been had she wanted to win:

Working men and women of this country,

You may think Trump knows how to repair the economy because "he's a businessman", "he says he'll bring back jobs", and "he'll fix the deficit". But how does raising taxes on those who are neediest among us in the form of onerous protective tariffs on the goods you buy in furtherance of corporate welfare for politically-connected businesses help the working class? How does right-to-work (which Trump has repeatedly supported) help raise wages for the American laborer? How does bringing back exactly the same failed trickle-down anti-union corporate welfare policies of Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge restore to the laborer what he is rightfully deserving of? It doesn't. Rather, it enriches politically entrenched fat cats at your expense. Under Trump's policy of raising taxes on the imports you buy while helping cut your wages by crushing labor unions, you get hurt. There's a reason, after all, union leadership emphatically rejects Donald Trump and supports the tried and true policies of Mrs. Bill and Hillary Clinton. Under Clinton, wages rose, unemployment fell to 4%, and the job markets of Detroit and Tampa alike were both booming. Mr. Bill Clinton's wife can bring that back without any higher taxes on the goods and services you purchase. Trump can't do any of that. Vote him out.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Roosevelt. FDR was never in favor of Herbert Hoover's tried and failed idea of high protective tariffs on the goods and services you purchase. Instead, he cut tariffs on imports massively while getting firms to agree to wage increases for all working Americans. These are the policies with which Roosevelt flipped Youngstown from an absolute bastion of the Hooverite Republican Party to the stronghold of the Party of Jackson it is today. This was how FDR turned Macomb, Muskegon, and northern Minnesota to the party which fits them best today. And these policies of FDR are the very policies of the Democratic Party from the 1930s to today and, quite naturally, Mrs. Bill Clinton's wife. The Democrats work for you and your family. The Republicans work for the rich. Vote them out.

As for the deficit, Donald Trump calls for lower taxes on those who can most afford them, while not proposing any specific spending cuts worth more than a pittance. How can this reach a balanced budget? To do so, Trump must either massively cut spending for whom it serves most, or raise taxes on the middle class via onerous taxes on the imported goods and services you buy. Hillary Clinton opposes this big-budget-deficit, anti-working class, anti-poor, pro-corporate agenda. Unlike Donald Trump, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a plan to balance the budget. Look at Donald Trump's website. He has no such plan. Hillary Clinton does -go to .....com. Mrs. Bill Clinton's wife supports higher taxes on those who can most afford them -those earning over $xxxxx- to pay for the largest public infrastructure investment since World War II. The obstinate do-nothing Republican Congress continues to block this agenda. Vote them out.

On foreign policy, Donald Trump is too muddle-headed to propose any coherent course but to lower our standing in the world. FDR supported the present system of international alliances, as he understood its great benefit the U.S. So does Hillary Clinton. Trump's sheer incompetence on matters of foreign policy shows he cannot be trusted with the nuclear button. With Clinton's steady hand, you know the nation will be safe and secure -just as it was in Bill Clinton's time. So vote Donald Trump out.

The Affordable Care Act may not be perfect, but do you have any idea what the Republicans will replace it with? Here's a hint: every Republican plan is less generous to the elderly and to the most needy than Obamacare is at present. The Affordable Care Act needs reform. But it does not need the kind of anti-patient changes the Republicans want. Vote them out.

Hillary Clinton will govern effectively with a unified Democratic Congress. So let's go ahead and elect one, leaving the failed Hooverite policies of the GOP behind.

She was stupid not to run on WJC's legacy. Had she run on Bill's criminal justice policies, she would have won a larger portion of the White vote while not losing any of the Black. What are Blacks going to do? Vote Republican? Meanwhile, concerned citizens who like the Democratic platform, but feel threatened by the breakdown of law and order in some inner cities can easily vote Republican.

Who are the overeducated elitist hacks put off by Trump, but favoring inner-city crime and free trade, going to do? Vote for Trump? They were going to vote for anybody but Trump. What concrete concessions was she even targeting elite Republicans with? Most elite Republicans aren't even fans of inner-city crime.

Hillary made 70% of Her campaign about Trump's well-documented character deficits. That was nuts.

No but they could just stay home.  Every African American that stays home is basically a lost vote for Democrats.

-Indeed. And Hillary 2016 succeeded getting a lot of young Black men to stay home, anyway (relative to 2012). So if that was going to happen no matter what she did, she might as well have focused on the voters in the Democratic coalition most at risk of flipping; e.g., Bernie Sanders supporters in Wyandotte.

A lot of black people under age 45 stayed home I think.

[JoshPA]

if you are implying that democrats from ca are smart then look at dave rubin videos they are the dumbest it dont matter if they go to college ( to whom need funds taking away until they fire and replace every one in the colleges and schools even daycare) many of them think that fdr and jfk live into this century.

[heatcharger]

if you are implying that democrats from ca are smart then look at dave rubin videos they are the dumbest it dont matter if they go to college ( to whom need funds taking away until they fire and replace every one in the colleges and schools even daycare) many of them think that fdr and jfk live into this century.

We've got a live one here folks!

[The_Doctor]

Bernie Sanders' message implies that Democrats can regain a lot of WWC voters. A lot of upscale white voters they have are Democrats because the party is a neoliberal and socially liberal version of a moderate Republican Party.

The day the WWC unites with downscale minority voters is the day the Democrats become the majority party. And probably within the next decade or 12 years we will see that happening.

[RINO Tom]

I personally think there is a ceiling with "WWCs" for the GOP, and they're pretty close to it.  We'll definitely see in the coming decades.