Support NeoGAF

[numble]

Well it's about time someone noticed.



I don't know what that refers to specifically (all Trump voters are racist fallacy, I presume), but it's a rather silly point regardless, since the infrastructure for that is all in the cities, not rural areas, and would be insanely expensive to create for a few people living in the -excuse the term- boonies. If anything, the US should pursue a policy where people get reasonable chances to pack up their shit and move away from hopeless areas where no revival is coming. Be realistic, not idealistic. The only revival that is possible for those areas is something like kudzu farms to combat climate change, or just the good old weed farm, but nothing else is coming. Well, except for a mega-desert over the entire mid-west, so people are going to have to move anyway.

It's weird enough that the EU has a better ID system than the US has, when the greater distances in space, income, and opportunity should really lead (or have lead) to a singular national ID in the US, not that... amateur shit you guys have now. What I mean is that it's bizarre when it's far easier for a EU citizen to move around actual different nation-states with severe cultural differences and histories, then it is for a citizen of a singular nation-state to from one relatively similar state to another relatively similar state. That makes no sense.
(which is also yet another reason to trash the EC system, since some states have to ensure they don't 'bleed dry', but that's my perspective)

What? It is simple to move around states. They will change from becoming a resident of Ohio or wherever and become a California or Texas voter or wherever they move. The political system will still mean that rural states are over-represented in terms of the national legislature and electoral college.

 

[TyrantII]

This nonsense about "voting against their economic interest" is an article of faith for liberals, but if you care to actually look at how the average rural county has changed over the last 8 years under a Democratic president, you wouldn't see a place that is better off economically or socially. You'd see a place where young men are dropping out of the work force at a historic rate, where heroin abuse has become an epidemic, where live expectancy has declined for God's sake. Meanwhile, Wall Street and Silicon Valley are sucking up every ounce of the gains we've seen since the recession.

Tell me: what reason do rural voters have to believe that the Democratic party is the one that acts in their economic interests, exactly?

The Democrats had congress for two months. What the fuck were they supposed to do to combat 30 years of Reaganism in two fucking months?

Obama had a trillion dollar infrastructure bill, which would have provided jobs all over the country, that was repeatedly shot down by the GOP House and Senate. Not even allowed to be voted on. By the guy said he's going to make Obama a one term president.

Yes, they are voting against their interests from a position of pure apathy and ignorance, with a dash of frustration.

 

[Goodstyle]

Which is tragic because of how comprehensive Clinton's opioid plan was.

Ya, she had plans for so many things that most politicians wouldn't have taken a second look at. All the little minutia that gets lost in the discussion of broader policy goals. And we won't be getting any of that because 27% of Americans were dumb enough to fall for a cheap con man.

 

[TyrantII]

Some of them voted Obama in '12.

Minuscule. More stayed home, in numbers that would have out Clinton over the top.

Non-voters don't vote.

They voted for Obama. They'll also be the only place to break through the partisan bullshit.

You know who will never vote Democrat? The turd listening to Rush every morning and posting racist shit on Facebook "cause it funny cause it's true".

 

[tuxfool]

This nonsense about "voting against their economic interest" is an article of faith for liberals, but if you care to actually look at how the average rural county has changed over the last 8 years under a Democratic president, you wouldn't see a place that is better off economically or socially. You'd see a place where young men are dropping out of the work force at a historic rate, where heroin abuse has become an epidemic, where live expectancy has declined for God's sake. Meanwhile, Wall Street and Silicon Valley are sucking up every ounce of the gains we've seen since the recession.

Tell me: what reason do rural voters have to believe that the Democratic party is the one that acts in their economic interests, exactly?

Then there is their local government. In many of those places they consistently vote R, which never wants to spend any money on the real problems these people face, or are populated with idealogues. There is a degree at fault with democrats not targeting state elections, but there is also a degree of fault at the people that consistently reelect local governments that don't do anything for them.

 

[Black Mamba]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

It is:

As I keep repeating, Trump's best numbers were with white people making $50-100k a year, not poor whites.

These are uneducated white people who have made a successful business or work for a solid salary that are unexposed to non-white people and are racist as fuck.

Some of them voted Obama in '12.

Data showed by a 5:1 margin (IIRC) non-voters voted over obama switchers.

 

[Mass Effect]

It really depends on who you're talking about.

If you're talking about the 25% of the electorate that voted for Trump, forget about it. That's a syphian effort that is futile. Those folks are not voting Democrat minus the entire system collapsing into a pile of shit.

Wrong. Many of the communities we're talking about used to be safely Democratic areas. In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan...

It's weird enough that the EU has a better ID system than the US has, when the greater distances in space, income, and opportunity should really lead (or have lead) to a singular national ID in the US, not that... amateur shit you guys have now. What I mean is that it's bizarre when it's far easier for a EU citizen to move around actual different nation-states with severe cultural differences and histories, then it is for a citizen of a singular nation-state to from one relatively similar state to another relatively similar state. That makes no sense.
(which is also yet another reason to trash the EC system, since some states have to ensure they don't 'bleed dry', but that's my perspective)

What? There is literally nothing stopping people from moving to and from states outside of money (and certain criminal convictions I think).

 

[Heshinsi]

Nobody compares plans. That's not how voters work, or ever have worked. If you actually went to a candidate's website and read their blurb, you're in the top 5% most politically active Americans. Mostly, people consume their political information passively. They take in campaign ads that make television channels they watch, they read about the candidates in the local newspapers, and maybe they just about watch one or two of the debates. If you watched Clinton's campaign ads, all you saw her do was attack Trump and talk about her experience - never about her ideas or ethos. The local newspapers weren't reporting anything about Clinton because she didn't do any rallies in the key states - Wisconsin was untouched. In the debates, Clinton talked about the Rust Belt a grand total of once (ten minutes into the first debate) for a total of about a minute and a half. If that's your exposure to Clinton, which it is for most Americans, all you can think is: she's not even bothering to speak to people like me. She doesn't care.

Trump? Trump talked to these people. If you watched his campaign ads, he mentioned how your jobs were gone. He turned up in your local newspaper because he did campaign rallies in your state. In the debates, he hammered home again and again how trade and immigrants took your jobs and how the Mexicans were bringing the drugs. To a lot of people in these places: he seemed like he was listening. He was talking to them. And so when he started saying: the problem is immigrants, we need to build the wall, they believed him. The other candidate wasn't talking about their problems; they're following the only solution they've been given.

But he also told them that the reason manufacturing jobs left America, is because the Chinese and Mexicans stole them, and that he was going to correct this by taking those jobs back from those thieves. You said it yourself. So how do you separate the racism from why they supported him? He speaks to them with lies and bigoted nonsense, and they accept that and go, "yeah that man speaks to me and my needs!"

 

[titiklabingapat]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the geopolitical framework that we started out with as a country more than 200 years ago is no longer the ideal solution in an ever increasing period of rapid urbanization. The rise of the city-state like metro regions are now being hindered by state governments.

 

[Psychoward]

Umm unless you are asking why his supporters don't see him as a filthy liar, it's because they actually did think Trump was the right candidate for them. He made a lot of promises to the abandoned working class, they bought it.

So they didn't do a few minutes of research to compare his plans or his amount of lies and voted him in despite his personal and political bigotry? Hmm

Add on to the fact that whites at pretty much all income brackets voted for him more....

 

[kirblar]

The implications are kind of funny, maybe we should go back to a poll tax or just letting property owners vote.

I mean, they're paying for it all anyway. Only fair.

Huh?

The implication is that because cities are where the modern economy is thriving, yet rural areas are heavily over-represented in government relative to their population, we are going to run into serious issues with things like the EC going forward where they represent less and less of the population they're actually supposed to represent.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It is:

<snip>


As I keep repeating, Trump's best numbers were with white people making $50-100k a year, not poor whites.

These are uneducated white people who have made a successful business or work for a solid salary that are unexposed to non-white people and are racist as fuck.

These people (wealthy Trump supporters) exist, yes. They're the mainstay of Trump's support, yes. They are irredemeemably racist, yes. Thankfully, we also don't have to appeal to them. Why? Because they were the mainstay of Romney's support as well. These are people who always vote Republican; the Democrats are never going to reach them.

Look here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

You can see how the different demographics changed from Obama to Clinton. Have a look for the demographic that sees the largest swing. Found it? It's those earning $30,000 or less. Clinton still wins them - but she wins them by 16 percentage points less than Obama did. And they're nearly 40% of the country. That means they were the marginal demographic. That is - this election was lost because a significant number of poorer voters decided to vote Trump.

This is NOT the same as saying that all Trump voters are poor. It's not even the same as saying that most Trump voters are poor. As you and I both know, most Trump voters are wealthy. But the important Trump voters, the ones that used to be Democrats and then switched to Republican, giving him the win, especially in the Rust Belt, and the ones the Democrats need to win back? They're poor.

 

[RustyNails]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

Punished Crab

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Punished Crab

well, it's an improvement on YAAS QUEEN, I suppose.

 

[Window]

Just saw that the WaPo articles notes that "But it's not the case that the counties Clinton won have grown richer at the expense of the rest of the country &#8212; they represent about the same share of the economy today as they did in 2000. Instead, it appears that, compared to Gore, Clinton was much more successful in winning over the most successful counties in a geographically unbalanced economy."

So (geographic) economic inequality has been about the same for 16 years but the campaign performed particularly strongly in areas with high incomes while poorly in others compared to previous Dem campaigns. It would be interesting to see the figures for the past few decades on how much agglomeration has occurred over time in the US.

 

[Black Mamba]

These people (wealthy Trump supporters) exist, yes. They're the mainstay of Trump's support, yes. They are irredemeemably racist, yes. Thankfully, we also don't have to appeal to them. Why? Because they were the mainstay of Romney's support as well. These are people who always vote Republican; the Democrats are never going to reach them.

Look here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

You can see how the different demographics changed from Obama to Clinton. Have a look for the demographic that sees the largest swing. Found it? It's those earning $30,000 or less. Clinton still wins them - but she wins them by 16 percentage points less than Obama did. And they're nearly 40% of the country. That means they were the marginal demographic. That is - this election was lost because a significant number of poorer voters decided to vote Trump.

Yes, and data has shown these voters are new voters, not switchers. These are poor, racist white people who never voted before most likely because nobody racist ran for them before. Again, 5:1.

And these are UNEDUCATED poor people.

This is NOT the same as saying that all Trump voters are poor. It's not even the same as saying that most Trump voters are poor. As you and I both know, most Trump voters are wealthy. But the important Trump voters, the ones that used to be Democrats and then switched to Republican, giving him the win, especially in the Rust Belt, and the ones the Democrats need to win back? They're poor.

Democrats cannot win them back, only hope they stay home. These are not switchers. These are previous non-voters.

The biggest divide is education, NOT income. education and racial tolerance are indisputably linked.

And the exit polls were very wrong this election cycle. The turnout models were right in terms of overall demographics, so for the exit polls to be right, Hillary Clinton would be President (this is very obvious at the state level).

Exit polls are often highly inaccurate but you continue to push them endlessly. They do not match up with the actual data we know exists.

You want to cover your ears but the truth is racism was the driving factor in the change between Romney and Trump this election.

 

[AstroNut325]

What's California as a whole compared to the states.

And the implication to delegitimize "one person, one vote" became they don't live in a metropolis is a bit revolting.

For all the people asking, no other state even comes close to Cali:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2016/pdf/qgsp0716.pdf

Cali: $2.4 trillion
NY: $1.4 trillion
Texas: $1.5 trillion

Cali stays winning.

 

[Crocodile]

Did you vote to support the drone bombing of Afghanistani women and children walking back from their schools?

I mean Obama didn't campaign on that issue but yes, if you vote for someone you have to take responsibility for both the good and the bad. Or at least make peace with the bad things that you deemed "acceptable". There is no circumstance where Trump's explicit racism/sexism/etc. is or should be acceptable.

So, a lot of commentators have said basically just your last paragraph - that the Democratic Party needs to expand its tent with a much stronger campaign and message for the white working class, something you and I seem to agree on. However, there's also a fair amount of people, including a number on NeoGAF, who call this racial apologism and do not want to campaign for the WWC vote. They probably know who they are, which is why my original post was obliquely calling them out.

No rather people don't want to excuse people who voted for Trump for either because they were racist or ok with racism - neither is acceptable and those voters have to hold that L. That doesn't mean we can't try to persuade them in the future but you don't get to say "racism doesn't matter". People are also getting annoyed with "liberals" who seem so content to put issues of race (or gender or gender identity or etc.) aside or to the back-burner. The issue is that people often want to detangle issues of Race and Class when that is impossible to do. It matters that Trump scapegoated minorities. We know for a fact that white voters by and large come to resent social programs if they think minorities are also benefiting from them. There are measured policies and language you can use to address either issue but you can't address class issues in this country without contending with race and vice-versa.

This nonsense about "voting against their economic interest" is an article of faith for liberals, but if you care to actually look at how the average rural county has changed over the last 8 years under a Democratic president, you wouldn't see a place that is better off economically or socially. You'd see a place where young men are dropping out of the work force at a historic rate, where heroin abuse has become an epidemic, where live expectancy has declined for God's sake. Meanwhile, Wall Street and Silicon Valley are sucking up every ounce of the gains we've seen since the recession.

Tell me: what reason do rural voters have to believe that the Democratic party is the one that acts in their economic interests, exactly?

Republicans at the federal and local level by and large aren't going to make their lives better via their policies. That's kind of the issue where voters think the President is omnipotent so they hold them responsible for all that is wrong in the world. Trump sold them lies and "fuck the other" and they bought all that. This is a problem.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

What? There is literally nothing stopping people from moving to and from states outside of money (and certain criminal convictions I think).

Lack of money and thereby cumulative means was kind of what I meant, but I did (wrongly) assume IDs are state-bound. Can a person vote in another state with an ID from another one (assuming mandatory ID law is in effect in the former)?

I should point out that ID's are mandatory by default here and can be paid for by the respective state's welfare system. So everyone can basically move whenever without being restricted by monetary inconvenience as far as the EU goes. That was part of my intent there, anyway. Well, mistakes were made.

 

[nubbe]

California and New York should form their own union

 

[Palette Swap]

What % of the population do these counties represent ?
I don't mean to sidetrack or even undermine the argument, but I feel the description itself seems incomplete when you say "these counties represent 64% of the economy but she only won 400 counties out of 3000" if you ignore how these counties are distributed wrt population in the first place.

 

[Mii]

The good news of the Trump infrastructure plan is it blatantly will favor investors putting cash into 'profitable' opportunities they are familiar with, aka cities.

Roads and bridges in rural areas will be left to fall apart and cities with greater exposure to investors will have money poured onto them.

The jokes on you rural America. theythoughtitwouldtrickledown.jpg

 

[andythinkpad]

If population vote matters there would be lot of REP voters come out in CA and NY.

Hillary didn't even come close to win.

 

[numble]

Yes, and data has shown these voters are new voters, not switchers. These are poor, racist white people who never voted before most likely because nobody racist ran for them before. Again, 5:1.

And these are UNEDUCATED poor people.



Democrats cannot win them back, only hope they stay home. These are not switchers. These are previous non-voters.

The biggest divide is education, NOT income. education and racial tolerance are indisputably linked.

And the exit polls were very wrong this election cycle. The turnout models were right in terms of overall demographics, so for the exit polls to be right, Hillary Clinton would be President (this is very obvious at the state level).

Exit polls are often highly inaccurate but you continue to push them endlessly. They do not match up with the actual data we know exists.

You want to cover your ears but the truth is racism was the driving factor in the change between Romney and Trump this election.

Source for your 5:1 margin? The national exit poll did not ask about past votes.

 

[Black Mamba]

What % of the population do these counties represent ?
I don't mean to sidetrack or even undermine the argument, but I feel the description itself seems incomplete when you say "these counties represent 64% of the economy but she only won 400 counties out of 3000" if you ignore how these counties are distributed wrt population in the first place.

i don't know about these 400 counties, but if you took all the counties where Clinton defeated Trump, those counties represent 54% of the population.

 

[TyrantII]

Wrong. Many of the communities we're talking about used to be safely Democratic areas. In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan...

Data matters.

Trump did not get some crazy wave in those states, nor did he get a ton of Obama voters to switch their votes. The GOP vote was largely unchanged with the exception of Florida.

He ran up % in rural counties, not votes. Those % increased because Obama's coalition sat out in "counties she wouldn't win anyways".

You win a state by votes, and 5% Obama's coalition sat it out.

The question that needs to be answered is how to get those people back. Not how to get the teaparty to vote for a Democrat.

 

[Superkamikaze]

It is:

As I keep repeating, Trump's best numbers were with white people making $50-100k a year, not poor whites.

These are uneducated white people who have made a successful business or work for a solid salary that are unexposed to non-white people and are racist as fuck.

By any chance, is it possible that some of those people voted for Obama in 08?

 

[Ecotic]

What in the world are you talking about?? This isn't even a consensus between economists on whether the current GDP calculation is accurate.

Have the CBO or another governmental agency come up with a reasonable estimate of aggregate American GDP every 2 years and allocate seats in the Senate based upon that. If California is 15% of the nation's GDP then it gets 15% of the seats, and so on.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Sounds like the EC still serves a purpose.

 

[Superkamikaze]

Data matters.

Trump did not get some crazy wave in those states, nor did he get a ton of Obama voters to switch their votes. The GOP vote was largely unchanged with the exception of Florida.

He ran up % in rural counties, not votes. Those % increased because Obama's coalition sat out in "counties he wouldn't win anyways".

You win a state by votes, and 5% Obama's coalition sat it out.

The question that needs to be answered is how to get those people back. Not how to get the teaparty to vote for a Democrat.

Wisconsin hasn't voted Red since 1984.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Yes, and data has shown these voters are new voters, not switchers. These are poor, racist white people who never voted before most likely because nobody racist ran for them before. Again, 5:1.

And these are UNEDUCATED poor people.



Democrats cannot win them back, only hope they stay home. These are not switchers. These are previous non-voters.

The biggest divide is education, NOT income. education and racial tolerance are indisputably linked.

And the exit polls were very wrong this election cycle. The turnout models were right in terms of overall demographics, so for the exit polls to be right, Hillary Clinton would be President (this is very obvious at the state level).

Exit polls are often highly inaccurate but you continue to push them endlessly. They do not match up with the actual data we know exists.

You want to cover your ears but the truth is racism was the driving factor in the change between Romney and Trump this election.

Well getting back that those switchers even if they were outnumbered wins the election easily. She lost by like less than 1% is several key states.

And one thing I think we are overlooking here, is not just what is being messaged but how. Hillary had comprehensive policy but she was really sing songy and dancy in how she talked. I think a lot of what she was saying went over people's heads. Undereducated probably had a hard time following what she was saying. Perhaps in the future dumbing things down a notch may help appeal to a lot of those who turned out this time. It's another reason why I think Bernie did well with WWC voters that had nothing to do with "socialism". He didn't really mince words at all and almost anyone could easily understand what he was talking about or what he was saying. It got annoying and repeatitive for a lot of people on here but it might be necessary to take a similar approach to reach people in the future.

 

[Cymbal Head]

The Democrats had congress for two months. What the fuck were they supposed to do to combat 30 years of Reaganism in two fucking months?

Obama had a trillion dollar infrastructure bill, which would have provided jobs all over the country, that was repeatedly shot down by the GOP House and Senate. Not even allowed to be voted on. By the guy said he's going to make Obama a one term president.

Yes, they are voting against their interests from a position of pure apathy and ignorance, with a dash of frustration.

For better or worse, the presidency has a hugely disproportionate effect on people's perception of politics. As someone said upthread, people don't pay attention to policy platforms, nor do they typically give a shit about what's happening in congress until it has an immediate, perceptible effect on their day-to-day life. They know who the president is, and they know whether they feel better off since that person became president.

Then there is their local government. In many of those places they consistently vote R, which never wants to spend any money on the real problems these people face, or are populated with idealogues. There is a degree at fault with democrats not targeting state elections, but there is also a degree of fault at the people that consistently reelect local governments that don't do anything for them.

The state and local levels are more complicated. Right now, gerrymandered districts are guaranteeing Republicans an electoral advantage in state legislatures.

Tons of republicans run unopposed for local office in rural areas, because they have party organization that the Democrats lack. Frequently, there is literally no choice to vote for the other guy at the local level.

 

[numble]

If population vote matters there would be lot of REP voters come out in CA and NY.

Hillary didn't even come close to win.

I think it would actually mean that Democratic turnout would be higher in CA and NY--a lot of Democrats don't vote because they know the state will be blue. At least in California, there usually are ballot propositions that bring out Republicans. Both 2016 and 2012 had voters voting on taxes on high income and businesses, and 2008 featured a vote on same-sex marriage.

 

[Black Mamba]

Source for your 5:1 margin? The national exit poll did not ask about past votes.

I'm having trouble finding the article with the data (it might have been 4:1 I can't recall which).

It wasn't based on exit poll data, either. It was based on rural county data (way more voters voted than ever before in these counties which accounts for the difference that vote switchers cannot).

By any chance, is it possible that some of those people voted for Obama in 08?

Of course some did as some went 3rd party. And a bunch of Romney voters switched to Hillary, which is obvious in the education gap data.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm not sure why the assumption is that a high income medium education white vote shift towards Trump makes for irredeemable racism any more than a low income low education white vote shift?

I'm also not sure why my black best friend President Obama keeps being brought up as making racial resentment and white fragility impossible as motivators.

 

[legend166]

If I was rewriting the Constitution, the House would remain the same but the Senate would be based upon GDP. I believe such a Congress could rapidly institute progress in this country.

edit: The House should remain based on population, I mean. I don't agree with gerrymandering. I'd even prefer a straight proportional, parliamentary style vote.

Did... did you just suggest that wealthy people should have actual, not-just-lobbying, increased representation in the government?

 

[TyrantII]

Wisconsin hasn't voted Red since 1984 though.

And there's estimates 300,000 were turned away from WI polls alone due to new voter ID laws. The margin trump won WI by was in the 10,000s.

There's no one answer to a very complicated process. But there is to getting teaparty and alt-right folks to vote for a party thats demonized daily in their media/propaganda bubble.

It. Will. Never. Happen.

It's complete mis-allocating resources and time better spent building a larger coalition with people that will possibly listen to you.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yes, and data has shown these voters are new voters, not switchers.

[citation needed]

In my corner, I present Nate Cohn. If you want, I can quote all the points your post history where you talked about how amazing Nate Cohn was, so I trust you'll accept him as an adequate source.

Democrats have to grapple with the fact that they lost this election because millions of white working-class voters across the United States voted for Obama and then switched to Trump.

So, why are Cohn and I wrong?

The biggest divide is education, NOT income. education and racial tolerance are indisputably linked.

It's not as simple as income, per se, that's just a convenient shorthand. For example, a student graduate right out of college can expect to be earning about $24,000, which puts them in the bottom category of income - but over their lifetime, they can expect to earn a fair amount, being college graduates. They have a set of skills that are demanded by the new economy, and they know their economic prospects are good. By contrast, you can be a truck driver in Kansas and earn a good $42,000 a year without a college degree, putting you around the median - but you know that this job probably won't exist for your kids. Your economic prospects are poor. Education is a good predictor of future/lifetime income, which is why it matches with Trump voting.

And the exit polls were very wrong this election cycle. The turnout models were right in terms of overall demographics, so for the exit polls to be right, Hillary Clinton would be President (this is very obvious at the state level).

Exit polls are often highly inaccurate but you continue to push them endlessly. They do not match up with the actual data we know exists.

Cohn actually discusses this. It's true that exit polls aren't entirely accurate, but in the absence of any other data, they provide us a reasonable snapshot. Put it this way: the swing for those earning $30,000 from Obama to Clinton was -16 percentage points. Even if the exit polls overstimated by this by a factor of 2 (and this would be an error on a scale almost unheard of), the swing would be -8 percentage points. Given that this is, again, nearly 40% of the American electorate, that still makes them the marginal group that caused the Democrats to lose.

You want to cover your ears but the truth is racism was the driving factor in the change between Romney and Trump this election.

Racism was a factor. But it wasn't the primary factor. Clinton lost because Trump won over Obama voters. The fact they voted for Obama means that at the very least they are willing to overlook their racism sometimes. I agree that probably even the majority of Trump voters were motivated purely by racism. But that doesn't get Trump to a win. What gets him to a win is adding to his core base of racists the worried, the angry, the left behind, who Clinton failed to reassure.

But I suspect whatever I say, nothing will persuade you. It's sort of like talking to a Trump voter - in one ear, out the other. I'd have thought after Clinton's loss, you might have started questioning some of your theories, but at this rate I can only hope the Democrats realise before another loss in 2020.

 

[numble]

I'm having trouble finding the article with the data (it might have been 4:1 I can't recall which).

It wasn't based on exit poll data, either. It was based on rural county data (way more voters voted than ever before in these counties which accounts for the difference that vote switchers cannot).

Of course some did as some went 3rd party. And a bunch of Romney voters switched to Hillary, which is obvious in the education gap data.

Multiple different exit polls in Rust Belt states showed that union demographics swung towards Trump from Obama.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/11/08/election/01-new-president-main-story.html#

And Trump showed his muscle with traditional Democratic voters. For example, the billionaire won union households by 5 points, 49 percent to 44 percent, exit polls in Ohio showed. Obama took that group in 2012 by 23 points.

...

Trump was correct to emphasize issue of trade because 46 percent of Ohio voters say it takes away jobs, while 34 percent contend it creates jobs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/09/fox-news-general-election-exit-poll-summary.html

Trump’s criticism of international trade played particularly well in Ohio. Nearly half of Ohio voters (48 percent) think trade with other countries takes away jobs, compared 32 percent who think it creates jobs.

Those who think trade hurts jobs broke for Trump by 67-29 percent margin.

His message on trade also appears to have helped him among union voters. He won a majority of union members – 52 percent – a dramatic improvement over the 37 percent Romney took home in 2012.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/20...-dominates-among-working-class-whites-n681146

Trump's protectionist views on trade policy resonated deeply with these voters. A clear majority of working-class whites in the Rust Belt say that trade with other countries takes away U.S. jobs, compared to about a quarter who say it has no effect and 7 percent who say it creates more jobs.


Among these working-class white voters who said that trade takes away U.S. jobs, about three-quarters voted for Trump.


These are the types of voters who feel left behind by globalization and are strongly disaffected with the government. A clear majority of them no longer feel at home in the Democratic Party, and in Trump they have found a candidate who they hope can bring about some of the change — particularly economic change — that they are looking for.

Please find the data. If you keep repeating 5:1, 5:1, you have to prove it. Looking at voter turnout wouldn't give you information on who was switching, either. Unless someone can randomly make up such data.

 

[Byakuya769]

Local governments and states are the "laboratories of democracy."

Only right that the failing ones determine our Presidential elections.

 

[Ecotic]

Did... did you just suggest that wealthy people should have actual, not-just-lobbying, increased representation in the government?

Not exactly, although it sounds counter-intuitive. As explained above I would suggest a Senate that allocates seats to the states based upon GDP. Since that would weight blue states like California and New York much more strongly and ruby red states like Wyoming less so, the net effect would not be favorable to the ultra wealthy in this country. The net effect would ultimately lead to more vocal support for mega infrastructure projects and reforms like single-payer healthcare, which enjoy more support in the wealthier states.

 

[Superkamikaze]

Of course some did as some went 3rd party.

So they all can't be racist. I'm not a huge fan of blanket statements, they're dangerous, and get people like Trump elected.

There's no one answer to a very complicated process. .

Nationally voting turnouts were down, primarily dems. Democrats didn't show up, Hillary lost. The dems winning is simple, pick a better candidate, campaign hard in swing states.

 

[Byakuya769]

By any chance, is it possible that some of those people voted for Obama in 08?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/on-road-western-pennsylvania/

So a canvasser goes to a woman’s door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she’s planning to vote for. She isn’t sure, has to ask her husband who she’s voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, “We’re votin’ for the n***er!”

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: “We’re voting for the n***er.”

 

[TyrantII]

Nationally voting turnouts were down, primarily dems. Democrats didn't show up, Hillary lost. The dems winning is simple, pick a better candidate, campaign hard in swing states.

It's almost of contesting every contest in some sort of fifty state strategy created coattails of enthusiasm in places where Democrats still didn't have much of a chance.

But they picked up a few more votes here and there.

Who would have thought!

 

[Haunted]

Time for Dredd-style megacities.

 

[BlazinSkatinAxel]

That less than sign in the OP bothers me.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

And you think those very same people won't call out your post and try to rationalize how all politics can logically be boiled down to racist vs non racist?


Umm unless you are asking why his supporters don't see him as a filthy liar, it's because they actually did think Trump was the right candidate for them. He made a lot of promises to the abandoned working class, they bought it.

So some of them are not racist, just OK with racism, and/or they are complete idiots utterly lacking in critical thinking.

Well that's reassuring! xD

Did you vote to support the drone bombing of Afghanistani women and children walking back from their schools?

Did Obama campaign on that? Did he make it the core of his campaign, even? Enough with the false equivalences.

Ya, she had plans for so many things that most politicians wouldn't have taken a second look at. All the little minutia that gets lost in the discussion of broader policy goals. And we won't be getting any of that because 27% of Americans were dumb enough to fall for a cheap con man.

That and the media coverage that was all about the emails and almost never about policy.

As I keep repeating, Trump's best numbers were with white people making $50-100k a year, not poor whites.

These are uneducated white people who have made a successful business or work for a solid salary that are unexposed to non-white people and are racist as fuck.

Yup. Really makes "economic anxiety" being a major factor sketchy as hell.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-pennsylvania/

Wow.

Really makes me wonder how the Obama/McCain election would have gone if McCain had campaigned with racism and xenophobia pandering...

 

[kirblar]

In '08 it wouldn't have mattered. Bush was that hated and Bill was a fonder memory.

 

[Mass Effect]

Data matters.

Trump did not get some crazy wave in those states, nor did he get a ton of Obama voters to switch their votes. The GOP vote was largely unchanged with the exception of Florida.

He ran up % in rural counties, not votes. Those % increased because Obama's coalition sat out in "counties she wouldn't win anyways".

You win a state by votes, and 5% Obama's coalition sat it out.

The question that needs to be answered is how to get those people back. Not how to get the teaparty to vote for a Democrat.

It seems to me that it's a combination of both. It doesn't take a "ton" of voters to flip states, as we've seen by the margins in the states I listed. Hell, this also applies to congressional seats as well. He flipped enough Obama voters (and a seemingly sizeable amount IF the exit polls are to be believed) to win. And that's bad, because like I said, many of them used to vote Democrat. We need to get them back. And yes, we CAN get some of them back. I'm not talking Tea Partiers either.

As for your main point, yes, we need to find a way to get people who stayed home to vote in the future. Obviously I don't have the answer to that question, but what I think will help is (and what would have helped Hillary), is you know, having a presence in those places. Hillary not showing up even once in Wisconsin is madness. And another poster mentioned how in many cases, Republicans control so many state and local legislatures simply because there is no opposition. The dems need to at least try to set up some kind of local/state game in some of these places. It would go a long way to helping.

Lack of money and thereby cumulative means was kind of what I meant, but I did (wrongly) assume IDs are state-bound. Can a person vote in another state with an ID from another one (assuming mandatory ID law is in effect in the former)?

I should point out that ID's are mandatory by default here and can be paid for by the respective state's welfare system. So everyone can basically move whenever without being restricted by monetary inconvenience as far as the EU goes. That was part of my intent there, anyway. Well, mistakes were made.

I mean you can still move to a state with no money, but it won't be easy times obviously. Though it was pretty common up until recently that people would just move with nothing and just pick up a job there when they arrived. That's much harder to do nowaways. But it's not required that you have 'x' amount of money before you're allowed to move.

In the EU, are you required to have a certain amount of money before being allowed to move to a different country?

And voting is a bit more complicated when you're not a resident of the state you live in. You can do absentee ballots, but honestly, I'm not so sure how that process works, especially when Voter ID laws are involved.

 

[Maxim726X]

Umm unless you are asking why his supporters don't see him as a filthy liar, it's because they actually did think Trump was the right candidate for them. He made a lot of promises to the abandoned working class, they bought it.

Don't really understand why people can't believe this.

He had a message. He's full of shit, but he had a message. And he drove it home constantly.

She did not. I hope some important lessons being learned.