How do you think the union blue collar workers will vote once trump is gone?

[Keep cool-idge]

So we have seen blue collar workers vote republican before but I would say never at the rate they did for trump but once trumps gone what happens to them do they go back to being democrat or do they continue to be republican onething no one ever mentions is that they are socially conservative but fiscally to the left so what happens to them?

[Technocracy Timmy]

The economy is a big reason why these voters shift around so easily. So it depends on who's in office and how the economy is doing. 10-14% of the Trump coalition were Obama 2012 voters.

[darklordoftech]

The Obama-Trump voters will return to the Democratic Party when the GOP's donors reassert themselves.

[TheSaint250]

Trump really has no good successor with his policies.  No one really carries the mantle.  People like Corey Stewart try but are just way too far out there to win.  Therefore, they will most likely return, and the great realignment of the GOP to the Midwest and the Democrats to the Sun Belt is either on hold or done completely.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Probably stay with the republicans unless the Dems abandon their SJW mentality. Whiny SHWs who get offended by literally everything and preach about how we're all bigoted have no appeal with a gritty working man in the midwest

[RINO Tom]

Probably stay with the republicans unless the Dems abandon their SJW mentality. Whiny SHWs who get offended by literally everything and preach about how we're all bigoted have no appeal with a gritty working man in the midwest

They have.  Whether you think it's enough is a fair question, but it is objectively false that the Democratic Party is doubling down on SJW politics OR Clintonism.  The party, and all of its important leadership, has emphatically and very deliberately shifted slightly to the center on social issues (at the very least encouraged its candidates to not emphasize them) and to the left on economic issues (and, more importantly than their actual stances, have adopted a decidedly populist, kitchen table TONE, which is arguably more important than their stances in the first place). 

The people who deny this are just Republicans in the first place who have made hating an "out-of-touch, elitist, coastal Democratic Party" a part of their political identity; they're lost without that boogeyman.  However, these aren't the people the Democrats are trying to win back, they're trying to win the people who voted for Trump or stayed home and aren't wild about either party.

[heatcharger]

Probably stay with the republicans unless the Dems abandon their SJW mentality. Whiny SHWs who get offended by literally everything and preach about how we're all bigoted have no appeal with a gritty working man in the midwest

They have.  Whether you think it's enough is a fair question, but it is objectively false that the Democratic Party is doubling down on SJW politics OR Clintonism.  The party, and all of its important leadership, has emphatically and very deliberately shifted slightly to the center on social issues (at the very least encouraged its candidates to not emphasize them) and to the left on economic issues (and, more importantly than their actual stances, have adopted a decidedly populist, kitchen table TONE, which is arguably more important than their stances in the first place). 

The people who deny this are just Republicans in the first place who have made hating an "out-of-touch, elitist, coastal Democratic Party" a part of their political identity; they're lost without that boogeyman.  However, these aren't the people the Democrats are trying to win back, they're trying to win the people who voted for Trump or stayed home and aren't wild about either party.

Great post. Glad to have Tom on our side finally.

[SingingAnalyst]

As long as crime is perceived to be an issue, more Republican, at least for President.

The strong pro-Trump trend in Macomb Co MI, Richmond Co NY, and across the country, suggests that crime and "law and order", a sleeper issue for 20 years, reared its head in 2016.

As an example, take the 1994 midterms. The GOP won 52% of the nationwide congressional vote but, according to one poll, the GOP won 53% of the vote of those whose household had been touched by crime recently.

[AN63093]

They have.  Whether you think it's enough is a fair question, but it is objectively false that the Democratic Party is doubling down on SJW politics OR Clintonism.  The party, and all of its important leadership, has emphatically and very deliberately shifted slightly to the center on social issues (at the very least encouraged its candidates to not emphasize them) and to the left on economic issues (and, more importantly than their actual stances, have adopted a decidedly populist, kitchen table TONE, which is arguably more important than their stances in the first place). 

Don't you think it might be a little bit too early to be claiming this?

I think there is still quite a bit of tension in the party right now and it's premature to argue one faction or another has won out yet.  If the, for lack of better words, "Sanders wing" of the party gets the nomination in 2020, then I certainly think you're on to something, but if it's somebody like Harris or Booker, I'm not sure the party is heading in that direction, at least yet.

[AN63093]

Anyways, in response to the OP, does anyone have any actual data on union voters?

I know white voters without a college degree (especially males) were a Trump heavy demographic this cycle, but there is a difference between that and union voters, or as the OP labels them, "union blue collar workers."  Plenty of overlap sure, but not precisely the same thing.


To answer the question though, I suppose it depends on whether the GOP continues to go in a populist direction, or even just a populist tone in campaigning, and I think it's still way too early to say for sure on that.  If Trump wins re-election, we may not have a great answer until 2024, although we'll get clues in the various midterms.  If he doesn't win re-election, we may know earlier, although external factors could impact things as well (e.g., a national crisis that causes a realignment, such as this massive recession that is allegedly overdue).  All that being said, however, it should probably be noted that there isn't really a Trump "successor" building up prominence in the party, at least as of yet.

[Keep cool-idge]

Anyways, in response to the OP, does anyone have any actual data on union voters?

I know white voters without a college degree (especially males) were a Trump heavy demographic this cycle, but there is a difference between that and union voters, or as the OP labels them, "union blue collar workers."  Plenty of overlap sure, but not precisely the same thing.


To answer the question though, I suppose it depends on whether the GOP continues to go in a populist direction, or even just a populist tone in campaigning, and I think it's still way too early to say for sure on that.  If Trump wins re-election, we may not have a great answer until 2024, although we'll get clues in the various midterms.  If he doesn't win re-election, we may know earlier, although external factors could impact things as well (e.g., a national crisis that causes a realignment, such as this massive recession that is allegedly overdue).  All that being said, however, it should probably be noted that there isn't really a Trump "successor" building up prominence in the party, at least as of yet.

So what I meant by that that was wwc because southwest Washington is full of them and every area with unions as in logging or fishing went to trump yugely.

[AtorBoltox]

Hillary won union voters 51-42 according to CNN exit poll. There's a difference between the white working class and actual union members, many of whom are minorities

[NOVA Green]

Hillary won union voters 51-42 according to CNN exit poll. There's a difference between the white working class and actual union members, many of whom are minorities

You beat me to it----

Clinton clearly won the Union Vote by a decent margin.... The particular exit poll was "Union Households", and according the WP, and various Political Science studies, Non-Union Members of Union household tend to skew more towards general national voting patterns, so Clinton's Union support was likely even higher than +9 %, with an additional 7% going to 3rd Party.

Needless to say, this was a best support that a Republican has received from Union Households since Ronald Reagan in '84, so it's still significant anyway you look at it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/donald-trump-got-reagan-like-support-from-union-households/?utm_term=.adb5ed449ff8

Where I suspect Trump really moved the needle was in the population of former Union members (As in workers that were part of a trade or occupation with relatively constant Union membership over a period of decades within a certain industry in the 65+ age bracket....

Think traditionally heavily unionized industries such as Auto, Steel, Coal, Timber Mills, Shipyards, as well as certain types of public sector unions (Police, Firefighters, Prison Guards).

This probably had more of an impact in flipping MI, WI, & PA than shifts in percentages among existing union members, or the fancy Atlas theory that somehow declining African-American turnout in Metro Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philly was the main reason for Trump winning those three states.

[Virginiá]

So we have seen blue collar workers vote republican before but I would say never at the rate they did for trump but once trumps gone what happens to them do they go back to being democrat or do they continue to be republican onething no one ever mentions is that they are socially conservative but fiscally to the left so what happens to them?

If Trump can clean up his image, spend more of his term very popular among these voters and rack up some notable achievements that have positive tangible effects on these peoples' lives, then I'd say there is a chance he can lock some of them in for Republicans down the line.

However, right now he's deeply unpopular to the point where not only is he losing the new gains he made but he's falling behind even with blue collar whites that Republicans already locked up long ago. Considering Democrats seem to be toning down the attention to social issues, there is a big chance that Trump ends up being a net negative for Republicans with the white working class demographic. He is giving Democrats a prime opportunity to not only win back those Obama-Trump voters, but also make at least temporary inroads with some WWC voters they lost long ago.

So my point is, if Trump wants to bring these voters into the GOP for more than just one or two elections, he actually needs to help these people, or at least make them think he helped them, and leave office on a good note with them. So far there is little evidence that is happening and in fact, quite the opposite.

But, who knows. There is a lot of time left. We'll see how the Trump story unravels.

[NOVA Green]

So we have seen blue collar workers vote republican before but I would say never at the rate they did for trump but once trumps gone what happens to them do they go back to being democrat or do they continue to be republican onething no one ever mentions is that they are socially conservative but fiscally to the left so what happens to them?

If Trump can clean up his image, spend more of his term very popular among these voters and rack up some notable achievements that have positive tangible effects on these peoples' lives, then I'd say there is a chance he can lock some of them in for Republicans down the line.

However, right now he's deeply unpopular to the point where not only is he losing the new gains he made but he's falling behind even with blue collar whites that Republicans already locked up long ago. Considering Democrats seem to be toning down the attention to social issues, there is a big chance that Trump ends up being a net negative for Republicans with the white working class demographic. He is giving Democrats a prime opportunity to not only win back those Obama-Trump voters, but also make at least temporary inroads with some WWC voters they lost long ago.

So my point is, if Trump wants to bring these voters into the GOP for more than just one or two elections, he actually needs to help these people, or at least make them think he helped them, and leave office on a good note with them. So far there is little evidence that is happening and in fact, quite the opposite.

But, who knows. There is a lot of time left. We'll see how the Trump story unravels.

Well, one of things Trump could try to do, which would certainly win my support as well as that of many other Pro-Union "Never-Trump" people, would be a major infrastructure investment program.

The Economist in their latest edition, had a brief article and graph and did the old compare/contrast with various Global political and economic powers, and the US is pretty much in worst shape than countries such as India and China.

Now, for that to be real, it wouldn't be the type of cash payouts to MNCs and Big Business, it would have to be an federal infrastructure program where the benefits would go to big cities and rural areas alike, with more of a European style of competitive bidding.... (Rather than go to the cheapest bidder, you shoot for the mid-range bids to improve quality, reduce cost-overruns to taxpayers) and also give an edge to both Union businesses (Federal vs State contracts), with special exemptions for small family businesses with <100 employees, and fair shake to minority and female owned businesses, and also provisions that the subcontractors of the contractors awarded some of these piecemeal bids would be required to pay "prevailing wages".

I highly doubt any type of Progressive infrastructure bill would pass the Republican House and Senate, but it's one of the few items Trump might have on the plate to bring some Democrats and Republicans together, which could show that the dude can actually get something real done in Washington, that in generally a pretty popular concept among a large majority of Americans.

[Virginiá]

I highly doubt any type of Progressive infrastructure bill would pass the Republican House and Senate, but it's one of the few items Trump might have on the plate to bring some Democrats and Republicans together, which could show that the dude can actually get something real done in Washington, that in generally a pretty popular concept among a large majority of Americans.

I do agree that a major infrastructure investment program would be a good thing for the country and for Trump's "legacy," but, and I say this as objectively as possible, Trump doesn't seem capable of doing it, let alone in a way that would leave a real mark. Not only is his constant scandal/drama/general unpopularity causing him to lose even modest amounts of influence over Congress, but his inability to not go a month without being dogged by some new scandal would mean any goodwill he earns through major infrastructure investments would be quickly squandered. When you look at the actual state of the country and the economy, Trump should be more popular, but all this drama, scandal and incompetence is really hurting him and his party. Even recent polls show the character attributes taking the biggest hits are things like "is Trump levelheaded" and "is Trump a good leader." It's all totally self-inflicted, and there is no signs of anything changing.

But let's assume Trump even managed to get Congress to go for some sort of investment bill. Not only is it going to be underfunded, but it's unlikely they would do anything you just stated. The existing details of his plans suggest a typical conservative approach: tax incentives/cuts/etc, which is really ineffective for what we need to do. This is more likely to hand over what is essentially free money to fund projects already in progress and worst yet, to incentivize things we don't even need. The last thing we need to do is take hundreds of billions of dollars and just throw it away like this. I'd rather we do nothing than engage in such blatantly wasteful spending.

My opinion is that, put simply, Trump has spent his entire life cutting corners and that kind of mindset is unlikely to produce a positive legacy for himself. He doesn't seem capable of looking at his actions and assessing what he is doing wrong. His fragile ego instead insists on always shifting the blame and never doing anything that may suggest he understands he is wrong, which means he just doubles down on the actions that hurt him. That's a major character flaw to have for a guy trying to rebuild his image and leave on a positive note. I'd say it makes it impossible.

[AN63093]

Thanks for the statistics, AtorBoltox and NOVA Green.  That answers my question.  Also, interesting point made on the "real" reason WI/PA/MI flipped.. I don't want to necessarily go down that tangent in this thread, but intriguing point made nonetheless.  On an unrelated note, however, you did say something else I wanted to comment on:

The Economist in their latest edition, had a brief article and graph and did the old compare/contrast with various Global political and economic powers, and the US is pretty much in worst shape than countries such as India and China.

Now, for that to be real, it wouldn't be the type of cash payouts to MNCs and Big Business, it would have to be an federal infrastructure program where the benefits would go to big cities and rural areas alike, with more of a European style of competitive bidding.... (Rather than go to the cheapest bidder, you shoot for the mid-range bids to improve quality, reduce cost-overruns to taxpayers) and also give an edge to both Union businesses (Federal vs State contracts), with special exemptions for small family businesses with <100 employees, and fair shake to minority and female owned businesses, and also provisions that the subcontractors of the contractors awarded some of these piecemeal bids would be required to pay "prevailing wages".

I don't necessarily want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, since it's a tangent and perhaps not very interesting to people reading this thread, but all of these measures already exist.  I am an attorney in the world of government contracting.. I don't want to elaborate too much more on that, since I do like to preserve at least a little internet anonymity.  But, the way contracting works now (at least at the federal level), it is already set up so that the cheapest bid is not automatically awarded the contract.  Additionally, there is something called the 8(a) set aside, such that small businesses, minority businesses, women-owned business, and even disabled veteran owned businesses, get an exemption from competition.

I can't speak for state contracting, but federal contracting is a very highly regulated industry and practically everything you are advocating for, already exists.  If an infrastructure bill fails, I think it would have less to do with the contracting process itself (e.g., the mechanical nuts-and-bolts), and more so where the money is coming from... as Virginia suggests, whether we would be looking at a package comprised more of things like tax cuts, as opposed to new appropriations of discretionary spending.

[AN63093]

Considering Democrats seem to be toning down the attention to social issues, there is a big chance that Trump ends up being a net negative for Republicans with the white working class demographic. He is giving Democrats a prime opportunity to not only win back those Obama-Trump voters, but also make at least temporary inroads with some WWC voters they lost long ago.

So my point is, if Trump wants to bring these voters into the GOP for more than just one or two elections, he actually needs to help these people, or at least make them think he helped them, and leave office on a good note with them.

Along the lines of what I've already wrote to RINO Tom above- I'm not sure there is any real evidence this is happening right now (i.e., a "toning down" of the attention to social issues).  We are in between elections, the Dems are mostly pre-occupied with Russia currently, and notwithstanding that the Dems have revealed their "Better Deal," I don't think that says much of anything.  Mainly because one of the frequent criticisms I have seen from the Left (besides comparing its name to the Papa Johns ad campaign), is that it doesn't do enough for people of color.  This suggests to me that the tensions in the Democratic Party are still very real, and I believe it's premature to say where the party is going.  I think we'll know a lot more in 2020, and who ultimately wins the Dem nomination will be a much clearer indicator.

I would agree that if the Dems become more economic-based in messaging and tone, then yes, Trump has to deliver (or at least give the appearance of delivering).  If, however, the Dems do not become more economic-based, then I do not believe that is the case.  I talk about this a little more in the OR/WA trend thread, but I think one possible future party system is one in which there continues to be high party polarization in the future, based primarily in racial stratification among the parties (similar to South Africa).  If this is the path we are headed down, then I do not think Trump need to deliver much, if anything at all.

That may sound like something of a dark future to you, which it very well may be, but I nonetheless believe it one of several likely outcomes over the next few decades, and people who would dismiss it are perhaps a little too utopian and idealistic in their thinking.

[AN63093]

A coming economic crisis (and the subsequent dismantling of the Reagan system) seems to be the critical lynchpin of your theory, and I will say, that if a realignment in the manner in which you predict is to happen, then it would seem most likely rooted in such a crisis.

Not only that, I think this crisis would have to be particularly severe.  Because if not, I do not think the history of the US, nor its larger culture and society would suggest that "fault lines" would develop on economic issues.  Reason being, the US tends to have much lower levels of class consciousness, than it does, say, racial consciousness, or ethic strife.

This is not to suggest, of course, that inequality does not exist- of course it does, and it's quite ghastly in this country as well.  But people tend to identify first with race and ethnic group, than they do class.  History tends to bear this out as well- our most bitter violent periods of internal strife in history, such as the Civil War, or the Civil Rights Movement, and so on, were all rooted in one way or another in race and/or ethnic group.  Compare this, for example, to other countries such as France, Russia, or even England.. all having revolutions or civil wars which were all more class-based (of course, I'm simplifying matters terribly, the English Civil War was quite a bit more complicated that, and to some degree the American Civil War could be seen as a long-term after effect of the English Civil War that was originally rooted in that earlier conflict).  But I digress, the point is, the US has never had, for lack of better words, a Marie Antoinette, and I suspect we never will.

There are lots of reasons for this- the fact that we have never had a formal caste system or feudalism, no formal peerage, the fact that the national ethos of this country emerged in the Frontier and in the Industrial Revolution (quite unlike Europe) and the fact that everyone here originally immigrated here and so conflict tends to be rooted much more in whether you immigrated from the "right" places, than what your status was in that original place (since, after all, basically this entire country is consisted of "new money" commoners, outside of some of the original Virginia colonists).  But that's another discussion for another day.

[NOVA Green]

Thanks for the statistics, AtorBoltox and NOVA Green.  That answers my question.  Also, interesting point made on the "real" reason WI/PA/MI flipped.. I don't want to necessarily go down that tangent in this thread, but intriguing point made nonetheless.  On an unrelated note, however, you did say something else I wanted to comment on:

The Economist in their latest edition, had a brief article and graph and did the old compare/contrast with various Global political and economic powers, and the US is pretty much in worst shape than countries such as India and China.

Now, for that to be real, it wouldn't be the type of cash payouts to MNCs and Big Business, it would have to be an federal infrastructure program where the benefits would go to big cities and rural areas alike, with more of a European style of competitive bidding.... (Rather than go to the cheapest bidder, you shoot for the mid-range bids to improve quality, reduce cost-overruns to taxpayers) and also give an edge to both Union businesses (Federal vs State contracts), with special exemptions for small family businesses with <100 employees, and fair shake to minority and female owned businesses, and also provisions that the subcontractors of the contractors awarded some of these piecemeal bids would be required to pay "prevailing wages".

I don't necessarily want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, since it's a tangent and perhaps not very interesting to people reading this thread, but all of these measures already exist.  I am an attorney in the world of government contracting.. I don't want to elaborate too much more on that, since I do like to preserve at least a little internet anonymity.  But, the way contracting works now (at least at the federal level), it is already set up so that the cheapest bid is not automatically awarded the contract.  Additionally, there is something called the 8(a) set aside, such that small businesses, minority businesses, women-owned business, and even disabled veteran owned businesses, get an exemption from competition.

I can't speak for state contracting, but federal contracting is a very highly regulated industry and practically everything you are advocating for, already exists.  If an infrastructure bill fails, I think it would have less to do with the contracting process itself (e.g., the mechanical nuts-and-bolts), and more so where the money is coming from... as Virginia suggests, whether we would be looking at a package comprised more of things like tax cuts, as opposed to new appropriations of discretionary spending.

@ AN63093----

I come from more of a business background with private sector business contracts, where the "low bid" typically wins a competitive contract, and us working folks down the line need to absorb the inevitable impacts of everything from the decreased employer provided payments towards medical insurance, fewer PTO days, pay freezes, frequent workforce reductions/ layoffs to meet corp target budget numbers to hit quarterly P/L metrics, etc.....

Despite my private sector KSE (knowledge, skills, and experience for those not familiar with corp jargon), I am keenly aware of how competitive bidding works even in the Public Sector....

The fundamental point that I was making, is that if there were to be a massive infrastructure bill, it should be contracted under Federal contracts, and not left to the whim of individual states. This includes "prevailing wage" requirements for all Federal subcontractors....

We all know that America's infrastructure has been gradually crumbling for decades, as a result of extreme neglect and poor funding priorities from Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congressional leaders of both parties.

This impacts both rural areas, small towns, cities, and large Metro areas, regardless of regional location, nor partisan political affiliation.

When it comes to the European Model of competitive bidding, going more towards the Mid-Range of bidders, as opposed to the "Low-Bid" option, it appears to have been pretty successful as a mechanism of reducing cost over-runs for Government contractors, increased quality of services provided under the"Mid-Range" contract, as well as reducing items such as dramatic levels of serious injuries and fatalities, that frequently occur with "low bid" contracts.

So as many have mentioned, I still believe that it is extremely unlikely that Trump has the motivation, backbone, and will to try to actually move a major infrastructure plan through Congress that is something other than corporate bailouts to the wealthy, while we see no significant improvements in our various localities.

Still, this is likely the only "deal" that Trump might be able to pull out of his magic bag where he could claim success as proposing a plan, and driving it through the Legislative branch.

What else does he have?    Taxes?  That's going to be driven by the fat cat 'Pub types in the House/Senate, and there sure as hell isn't going to be any real populist deal like there was with Reagan and the EIC....

If I was sitting in the Poker room of the Trump White House, I would pivot hard towards infrastructure , because at this point realistically it's the only thing that he might be able to claim street cred for that will be politically popular regardless of partisan affiliation.

[RINO Tom]

The people who deny this are just Republicans in the first place who have made hating an "out-of-touch, elitist, coastal Democratic Party" a part of their political identity; they're lost without that boogeyman.  

Suuuure.

While I admit I am [making an ASS out of U and ME], that seems to be your main gripe with the Democratic Party, no?  At the same time, I can't see you moving toward the Democrats if they de-emphasized that stuff (which they did in their "A Better Deal" thingy), so it seems like you are hellbent on thinking of them as a coastal elitist party no matter how they brand themselves?  Not trying to come at ya, but that's how it comes across.

As for the OP, "Whites without a college degree" (which includes many professional, well-off Baby Boomers, a very Republican generation) will continue to skew Republican until that generation dies off.  That's just reality.  Union members, however, will remain Democratic through Trump and after him.

[PragmaticPopulist]

There will at least probably be a drop-off similar to how Black voters who turned out for Obama didn't turn out for Hillary Clinton. We can't forget that the WWC voting bloc, while it skews Republican as a whole, is the most elastic bloc.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In 2020; they will vote for Cory Booker, that's why he should pick Tim Ryan

[Strudelcutie4427]

In 2020; they will vote for Cory Booker, that's why he should pick Tim Ryan

Cory booker has zero working class appeal. He's a dude version of Hillary

[RINO Tom]

In 2020; they will vote for Cory Booker, that's why he should pick Tim Ryan

They WILL vote for Cory Booker, and that's why he needs to pick a certain person as his running mate?  LOL