Koch Brothers believe Trump Presidency could lead to Far Left populism

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

Gerald Ford was many things, but an elitist intellectual is not one of them.

-He won the college-educated by a lot.

And Trump won the wealthy and lost the poor, is he no longer a man of the people?

According to exit polls, Trump won the $250k+ vote by 1%. Romney won it by 10% in 2012.

Also, exit polls are junk. They tend to be very inaccurate. Most national polls had Hillary ahead with the $250k+ group by a pretty solid margin.

The wealthiest communities in America (Greenwich, CT, Darien, CT, Atherton, CA, etc.) all OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Hillary (despite the fact that they voted for Romney in 2012).

To say that Trump won the wealthy is pretty false.

"The exit polls don't indicate what I want them to, so I am going to choose to ignore them."

That's pretty much what you just said, buddy.  Also, winning wealthy counties (read: counties where the median income - which is a trash statistic, if not adjusted for cost of living and purchasing power) does NOT mean that you won the wealthiest voters in those counties.  There are still FAR more non-rich people in rich counties than there are rich people, you know.  If we controlled for cost of living and looked at ACTUAL affluence (ya know, how affluently you can afford to live, how much stuff you can buy, spending cash, etc.), Trump likely won this group by even more.

I'm not talking wealthiest counties. I'm talking about wealthiest towns (towns with small populations where a large majority of people are wealthy).

Clinton overwhelmingly won extremely wealthy towns where 50%+ of the population make over $250k (like Atherton CA, Darien CT, etc.) Clinton overwhelmingly won towns where there are far more rich people then non-rich people (like Greenwhich, CT, etc). The wealthiest precincts in this country voted overwhelmingly for Hillary (despite voting for Romney in 2012).

And the 2012 election has proven that exit polls are junk. National polls tend be much more accurate, and every single national poll showed Clinton ahead comfortably with the $250k+ group.

Even if exit polls were to be believed, Trump only won the $250k+ group by 1 point (within the margin of error). National polls tend to be more accurate, and they all showed Trump losing the $250k+ group.

[RINO Tom]

I think 2016 proved that national polls were trash a lot more than 2012 proved exit polls were trash...

[DPKdebator]

I think 2016 proved that national polls were trash a lot more than 2012 proved exit polls were trash...

That's quite an understatement.

[Tintrlvr]

Far left populism is not really a good thing, but it is very important that the fat rich constantly live in fear of the guillotine. There needs to be an equilibrium. In the last few decades, the rich have lived carefree, comfortable lives; they need to FEAR again. That impulse will help fix things.

Fear is more likely to lead to repression than to concessions.

I think 2016 proved that national polls were trash a lot more than 2012 proved exit polls were trash...

The national polls were actually pretty good in 2016. There was a large last-minute shift to Trump, and the late national polls showed about a 2-4 point lead for Clinton, which is exactly where it ended up.

[Ljube]

Will Trump-denialism ever end?

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

Actually, Trump did lose whites with college degrees that make over $250k+. Look at this graph:



Also, national polls were very accurate this year. It was the state polls (specifically in the Rust Belt) that were inaccurate. IIRC, the national polling average before the election had Trump behind 2 points, which matches the popular vote. And most national polling showed Trump behind with the $250k+ group.

[Intell]

Actually, Trump did lose whites with college degrees that make over $250k+. Look at this graph:



Also, national polls were very accurate this year. It was the state polls (specifically in the Rust Belt) that were inaccurate. IIRC, the national polling average before the election had Trump behind 2 points, which matches the popular vote.

Yes, but Trump still won the votes of white people that were rich,

"$<30,000: Trump 58; Clinton 34 (T +24)
30-49,999: Trump 56; Clinton 36 (T+20)
50-99,999: Trump 62; Clinton 34 (T+28)
100-199,999: Trump 56; Clinton 39 (T+17)
200-249,999: Trump 52; Clinton 44 (T+8)
>$250,000: Trump 50; Clinton 42 (T+8)"

Trump won white voters of all income! As we can also see from that graph, it is quite obvious if you combine the votes of non-college educated whites + college educated whites, people that earn over $250 000 voted for Trump.

This election is sad, and any leftist should find it sad, not trying to find ways, of self-congratultory, we won the votes of those rich elite in Connecticut, yay!

[NeederNodder]

Here's Adam Schiff on the current state of the democratic voters

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-trailguide-updates-rep-adam-schiff-trump-administration-1485895271-htmlstory.html

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

The actual way to prevent this would not be through following Kochonomics.

This.

The Koch Brothers have built a tremendous business that affords many, many people good middle class livings.  But their greed keeps others from enjoying the same.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Here's Adam Schiff on the current state of the democratic voters

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-trailguide-updates-rep-adam-schiff-trump-administration-1485895271-htmlstory.html

Adam's right that they should be capturing the energy present in these rallies and protests, but at the same time, would it kill to turn just a bit to the left?

[Lief 🗽]

Here's Adam Schiff on the current state of the democratic voters

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-trailguide-updates-rep-adam-schiff-trump-administration-1485895271-htmlstory.html

Adam's right that they should be capturing the energy present in these rallies and protests, but at the same time, would it kill to turn just a bit to the left?

The Democratic Party has moved considerably to the left in the past twelve years. What has it earned them electorally?

[Person Man]

Here's Adam Schiff on the current state of the democratic voters

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-trailguide-updates-rep-adam-schiff-trump-administration-1485895271-htmlstory.html

Adam's right that they should be capturing the energy present in these rallies and protests, but at the same time, would it kill to turn just a bit to the left?

The Democratic Party has moved considerably to the left in the past twelve years. What has it earned them electorally?

There's probably a way forward whether through doubling down or triangulating. They just can't become off-brand Republicans or becoming nihilistically ideological.

[The_Doctor]

I thought Tom RINO was wrong; I'm kind of coming around to his opinion that the Republican Party will continue dominating among the richest segments. Or, let me amend it slightly...

I think that the Koch brothers are right in the sense that neoliberal economic policies have failed to account for those left behind by globalization, the support of the people who are absolutely electorally, politically crucial to the success of the institutions that undergird neoliberalism. So if they abandon the neoliberal regime we have had since 1980, you can expect the far left populist movement to take charge in drawing up a new paradigm.

It would follow this new populist left would take their base of support from the working class while the richer vote GOP. I do think that the rich liberals will stay voting Democratic until the GOP stops having an evangelical southern base and starts making inroads into urban and suburban areas fed up with Democratic rule in the cities. But right now, yeah, a ton of rich areas vote GOP and voted for Trump; I just dispute Tom RINO that it was a blowout among the rich in terms of Trump support. Probably majoritarian support but not say, on the order of maybe 60-65%?

I do think Trump understands this but doesn't have the political capital or power to overhaul the GOP to be far more populist. (Another area I'm slowly coming around to Tom RINO's opinion on).

There's simply too many people like Tom RINO to oppose him in Congress, the states, and political structure. The 46% Trump got (and his significant popular vote loss) also makes him exceedingly weak in forcing on a new populist GOP. So, the GOP will make feints towards populism but will retain its Reaganite identity as a neoliberal party.

[Intell]

Actually, Trump did lose whites with college degrees that make over $250k+. Look at this graph:



Also, national polls were very accurate this year. It was the state polls (specifically in the Rust Belt) that were inaccurate. IIRC, the national polling average before the election had Trump behind 2 points, which matches the popular vote. And most national polling showed Trump behind with the $250k+ group.

This board is in extreme denial about the fact that Hillary won whites with a college degree (and those with a college degree generally for that matter) despite the fact that it's pretty damn obvious that was the case.   That graph and other evidence won't sway people here.

I'm also suspect of exit polls that claim Trump won the wealthy vote simply based on the precincts that went heavily for Hillary Clinton.  She cleaned up in a lot of those precincts in NOVA, Fairfield County, etc.  Exit polling a micro-segment of society can lead to inaccuracies.  People can also flat out lie about their income.

Nobody denies that Hillary won whites with a college degree, rich white people voted for Trump, as did rich poor people. However this was the first election white rich people were more democratic than white poor people, and the white middle class were the most republican, followed by the white working class, while rich whites were the most democratic, though they still went to Trump.

[GoTfan]

When populism rises on one side, populism will rise on the other side too. Left-wing populism is inevitable at this point.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

When populism rises on one side, populism will rise on the other side too. Left-wing populism is inevitable at this point.

Question remains as to who, if anyone, may capture it: superstructuralists, or intersectionalists.