Johnstown Never Believed Trump Would Help. They Still Love Him Anyway.

[TheSaint250]

Very interesting article: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/08/donald-trump-johnstown-pennsylvania-supporters-215800

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel as though I've written these posts on here word for word. No matter how little Trump accomplishes, his voters don't care. It's time for Democrats to accept this and swallow the REAL reasons why deplorables still love him. And it has nothing to do with policy.

Loyalty to party is quite strong

Except Johnstown and Cambria County, until the last 10-15 years, has historically been heavily Democratic.

I was just generally referring to voters that still like Trump, since most of them are Republicans or Republican-leaning voters.

[BlueSwan]

The Economic Anxiety Theory does not explain ardent Trump supporters or regular Republican voters. It solely pertains to Obama '12/Trump '16 voters (and, arguably, Obama '12/Abstain '16 voters). It's meant to explain their motivations; not those of any other person or group.

I still believe that it largely fails. What kind of creature is a Obama'12/Trump'16 voter anyway? Sure, it COULD be a working class white guy disillusioned with democrats voting for Trump in protest or because he has convinced himself that Trump fights for the little guy. But there are probably a whole host of other things going on:

1) Trump is not Romney. Romney was seen as aloof and elitist to an even greater extent than Obama, who at least seemed authentic and in touch with the people. So a lot of working class people may better have been able to identify with Obama than with Romney.

2) Trump excuded working class values. He talks like a working class guy, he acts like a working class guy. Again, much easier to identify with for many working class people than Hillary Clinton.

3) Trump excuded classic alpha male characteristics. Alpha males are popular, especially amongst working class people with authoritarian tendencies.

4) Arguably some working class people voted reluctantly for Obama. Good politics but too aloof and elitist. When given the chance to vote for someone who is sticking it to the elitists and the politically correct, they went for it.

And probably several other. My point is that identity politics is the primary appeal of Trump - even to those who voted Obama in 12.

[mvd10]

Don't worry, once Trump is gone these voters will be gone too. Trumpism is a personality cult, these people will never worship Magic Mike

[Gustaf]

Article 15,862,171,586 on how Trump supporters are retarded. Journalist goes to Johnstown. "I don't trust you," local guy says. Journalists #Persists. Finally, he discovers the holy grail--the N word has emerged from the mouth of the locals. His job is done.

Beet, are you questioning the economic anxiety theory? That sounds very elitist of you.

You mean the theory liberals (intentionally or unintentionally) seem incapable of comprehending?

I'm sure the guy who called the NFL "N***ers For Life" would be a solid Democratic voter if only they proposed seizing the means of production. Lol

Nice strawman argument. Except the economic anxiety theory has never applied to (a) regular Republican voters or (b) ardent Trump supporters. It's designed to explain the American voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016; I'd also contend that it should apply to those who voted for Obama in 2012 but abstained in 2016.

I don't think any rational person believes by adopting a Socialist or even Social Democratic/Populist policy program and rhetoric would win every working class voter. It's about reclaiming many of the White working-class voters who're open to such policies yet have been alienated from the Democratic Party, which could include many Republicans, but especially voters who don't participate. Turnout is always considerably higher the further you climb the socioeconomic ladder, so a lot of White working-class voters simply don't vote due to alienation from the existing political system. The point is to correct that; if we can drive up turnout for Democrats among currently abstaining White voters then you'll see the Republican percentage share of this demographic decline considerably.

This is an unusually good version of this argument.

I still am a bit skeptical because if you're anxious about your economic situation, a vote for "take away my healthcare to cut taxes for the rich" v "keep my healthcare and raise my wage" doesn't seem to make much sense.

Another aside is that I thought the economic anxiety was also used to explain Trump's primary victory which presumably involved very few Obama voters.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Article 15,862,171,586 on how Trump supporters are retarded. Journalist goes to Johnstown. "I don't trust you," local guy says. Journalists #Persists. Finally, he discovers the holy grail--the N word has emerged from the mouth of the locals. His job is done.

Beet, are you questioning the economic anxiety theory? That sounds very elitist of you.

You mean the theory liberals (intentionally or unintentionally) seem incapable of comprehending?

I'm sure the guy who called the NFL "N***ers For Life" would be a solid Democratic voter if only they proposed seizing the means of production. Lol

Nice strawman argument. Except the economic anxiety theory has never applied to (a) regular Republican voters or (b) ardent Trump supporters. It's designed to explain the American voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016; I'd also contend that it should apply to those who voted for Obama in 2012 but abstained in 2016.

I don't think any rational person believes by adopting a Socialist or even Social Democratic/Populist policy program and rhetoric would win every working class voter. It's about reclaiming many of the White working-class voters who're open to such policies yet have been alienated from the Democratic Party, which could include many Republicans, but especially voters who don't participate. Turnout is always considerably higher the further you climb the socioeconomic ladder, so a lot of White working-class voters simply don't vote due to alienation from the existing political system. The point is to correct that; if we can drive up turnout for Democrats among currently abstaining White voters then you'll see the Republican percentage share of this demographic decline considerably.

This is an unusually good version of this argument.

I still am a bit skeptical because if you're anxious about your economic situation, a vote for "take away my healthcare to cut taxes for the rich" v "keep my healthcare and raise my wage" doesn't seem to make much sense.

Another aside is that I thought the economic anxiety was also used to explain Trump's primary victory which presumably involved very few Obama voters.

Based on the experience of the Obama years, and problems that have continued under both Democrats and Republicans, many did not find much reason to believe that a vote for Democrats necessarily translated to good healthcare and higher wages.

For many the failure for Republican establishment to present a program relevant to their economic situation had a role in Trump's primary victory as well. MAGA did have an economic appeal as well as a cultural one.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't think any rational person believes by adopting a Socialist or even Social Democratic/Populist policy program and rhetoric would win every working class voter. It's about reclaiming many of the White working-class voters who're open to such policies yet have been alienated from the Democratic Party, which could include many Republicans, but especially voters who don't participate. Turnout is always considerably higher the further you climb the socioeconomic ladder, so a lot of White working-class voters simply don't vote due to alienation from the existing political system. The point is to correct that; if we can drive up turnout for Democrats among currently abstaining White voters then you'll see the Republican percentage share of this demographic decline considerably.

This is an unusually good version of this argument.

I still am a bit skeptical because if you're anxious about your economic situation, a vote for "take away my healthcare to cut taxes for the rich" v "keep my healthcare and raise my wage" doesn't seem to make much sense.

Another aside is that I thought the economic anxiety was also used to explain Trump's primary victory which presumably involved very few Obama voters.

The primary problem with this type of thinking is rooted in how he has expressed the situation accurately, but then attempts to reverse the "if" and "then":

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, if people earn more money, then they do turnout at higher rates. Getting people to turn out so that they'll earn more money, however, doesn't work anymore. It's also a solution without a foundation (wrt increasing turnout), and one we've all constantly heard ad nauseam (especially if you're involved with politics RL). I think it's also somewhat short-sighted even if there was a concrete way to implement it: these people may very well begin voting quite differently if/once they're instilled with the values of class consciousness and their incomes actually went up, but I digress - not the main point I want to make here.

The whole "if we can only increase turnout!" argument - usually rooted in vague gestures toward "movements and candidates who inspire" and whatnot - contradicts everything we've known and seen. Dramatically improving turnout among low-propensity, low-income voters isn't something that can be engineered. The vast, vast, vast majority of voting age Americans' attitudes about voting are baked in and aren't ever going to change, and in the situations where they actually do change to meaningful degrees, it's always due to a variable that can't be replicated (think Barack Obama) - and even then, it almost never transfers to other candidates, elections and causes. It also often creates a comparable, opposite reaction among other constituencies.

We can't engineer once-in-a-generation inspirational candidates for every contest, or any contest for that matter - nor can any message or movement. It's all organic and somewhat spontaneous, and so the notion that the lumps are going to be "activated" manually through careful deliberation and policy reform completely ignores what the electorate tells us every cycle.

[Reaganfan]

The Economic Anxiety Theory does not explain ardent Trump supporters or regular Republican voters. It solely pertains to Obama '12/Trump '16 voters (and, arguably, Obama '12/Abstain '16 voters). It's meant to explain their motivations; not those of any other person or group.

I still believe that it largely fails. What kind of creature is a Obama'12/Trump'16 voter anyway? Sure, it COULD be a working class white guy disillusioned with democrats voting for Trump in protest or because he has convinced himself that Trump fights for the little guy. But there are probably a whole host of other things going on:

1) Trump is not Romney. Romney was seen as aloof and elitist to an even greater extent than Obama, who at least seemed authentic and in touch with the people. So a lot of working class people may better have been able to identify with Obama than with Romney.

2) Trump excuded working class values. He talks like a working class guy, he acts like a working class guy. Again, much easier to identify with for many working class people than Hillary Clinton.

3) Trump excuded classic alpha male characteristics. Alpha males are popular, especially amongst working class people with authoritarian tendencies.

4) Arguably some working class people voted reluctantly for Obama. Good politics but too aloof and elitist. When given the chance to vote for someone who is sticking it to the elitists and the politically correct, they went for it.

And probably several other. My point is that identity politics is the primary appeal of Trump - even to those who voted Obama in 12.

I recommend looking into what liberal professor Joan Williams says about the working class white voter.

“Most working-class people have little contact with the truly rich,” Williams explains, “but they suffer class affronts from professionals every day: the doctor who unthinkingly patronizes the medical technician, the harried office worker who treats the security guard as invisible, the overbooked business traveler who snaps at the TSA agent.”

Williams chastises the professional-managerial elite, or PME, for the sort of thoughtless and condescending behavior that breeds animosity among the white working class, or WWC, as she dubbed it in the post-election Harvard Business Review essay that inspired this book (apparently you’re not an official socioeconomic segment without an acronym). The president, for one, knows better. “Brashly wealthy celebrities epitomize the fantasy of being wildly rich while losing none of your working-class cred,” Williams writes. “Trump epitomizes this.”

Trump is seen by white working class voters as rich but not a professional-managerial elite. White working class voters in places like Wisconsin, and Ohio loathe the PME, while white voters in places like Virginia, and Colorado are often themselves the professional-managerial elite.

Thus we get a Republican president elected with over 300 electoral votes who loses Reagan/Bush/Dubya states like Colorado and Virginia.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Smug liberal assholes being smug liberal assholes... Nice to see some things never change on here.

[IceSpear]

Smug liberal assholes being smug liberal assholes... Nice to see some things never change on here.

Well, I could choose to escape your condemnation by becoming bitter and using racial slurs. Will that help?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Smug liberal assholes being smug liberal assholes... Nice to see some things never change on here.

Well, I could choose to escape your condemnation by becoming bitter and using racial slurs. Will that help?

Being classist is just as bad as being racist.