Support NeoGAF

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Isn't this common sense? Democrats win in cities and other places that make up a majority of our economy. Northeast + California is like half the country.

 

[Black Mamba]

[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.

You'll also find me criticizing Cohn a few times, but I'm sure you'll cherry-pick.

So, why are Cohn and I wrong?

For one, Cohn is jumping the gun as millions of votes are still out there, especially last week when this was published (your link is broken BTW, I found it otherwise).

Cohn's argument for his case is that WWC counties went more for Trump than Romney which means voters had to have switched.

Unfortunately for this premature argument, this would only ring true if the vote totals were roughly the same, which we know isn't true. Turnout in 2016 was up. Nearly 4% in swing states alone. Florida is the perfect example of this where Clinton won places like Miami-Dade by 300k+ more than Obama had won.

The other issue is he hasn't proven that Obama voters stayed home and were replaced by racist white people voting for the first time. He's just assuming the non-voters stayed home and people switched when in reality Obama voters could have stayed home, Clinton gained with educated Romney voters, and new racist white voters overwhelmed them.

It's funny you post a link of a convo with Cohn when he basically argues in the link to ignore exit polls...

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.

Laughable argument. I don't even know how to address it.

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.

But there is other data out there...

You can't show this swing occurred because obama voters switched. Cohn even basically admits this in your link when saying we don't have enough data.

The Trump campaign and GOP were arguing there were missing white voters out there. guess what they were right! And Trump figured out how to bring them to the polls (be racist!).

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.

There is no proof of this. And there is no proof Obama switchers exceeded Romney switchers.

in Florida, Clinton got more votes than Obama, but Trump won. In Ohio, turnout was down across the board. Wisconsin had voter ID issues. Penn had about 250k more voters, and Trump's increase over Romney is...just about 250k.

Hillary Clinton is on pace to get almost the same amount of votes as Obama. He missed 66 million last election. She's going to break 65 million and win by 2-2.5 million votes. Trump will beat Romney by around 1.5 million.

You cannot explain this election away by saying Obama voters switched to Trump.

You can explain this election by saying in some places Obama voters didn't turn out as much (they stayed home or voter ID) and in almost all these places Trump turned out new voters.

There is no way to explain this election without noticing new uneducated white voters in swing states. It is impossible. If the electorate was as educated as 2012, Clinton wins. There are not enough vote switches out there to make the numbers work.

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.

What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't believe in the "missing white voter" theory so I changed my mind once the data came in. I was wrong.

Now it's you who won't listen to anyone but yourself. You were convinced from the start Hillary was a bad choice and now you're trying to retrofit everything to prove it.

And Hillary might have been a bad choice but there is nothing that can conclusively show Obama voters switched.

You keep mentioning the swing in voters based on low income but that is easily explained. More uneducated poor racists voted this year and less black people voted this year (who are more likely to be poor). This all makes sense. The belief in the Hillary win was that the drop in black vote (no obama) would be countered by educated whites. And this was probably true. Only no one saw the non-voting white person showing up.

 

[FStop7]

Isn't this common sense? Democrats win in cities and other places that make up a majority of our economy. Northeast + California is like half the country.

Except the people voting Trump are the ones who whine about being the heartland and the hardest workers and all that bootstraps horseshit, when the fact is they're the biggest entitlement riders of all.

 

[kirblar]

Isn't this common sense? Democrats win in cities and other places that make up a majority of our economy. Northeast + California is like half the country.

Gore got 54% in 2000.

Things are polarizing.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm really glad that the big cities don't seem afraid to throw their weight around and do what's right, but I'm also tremendously disheartened by how much worse things are going to get for anyone growing up now who's not fortunate enough to live in an urban center

 

[Deleted member 231381]

but you don't get to say "racism doesn't matter".

Who is saying this? Which liberals? Find them, quote them. I want the receipts. I certainly don't see many if any of them on GAF, so why do you keep talking about them?

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.

As above. Where are these strange liberals hiding? Who on GAF has argued that the Democrats-as-office-holders shouldn't push for racial justice reforms?

 

[perfectchaos007]

rural farmers are vastly underpaid for their work

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Except the people voting Trump are the ones who whine about being the heartland and the hardest workers and all that bootstraps horseshit, when the fact is they're the biggest entitlement riders of all.

Sure but I thought that was common sense. It's rather worrying that people think it's a revelation that large cities along the coast that are major hubs don't subsidized rural farmers. This has been the case for generations. Farmers haven't been a powerhouse of the economy since plantations ended.

54%of what? GDP?

 

[kirblar]

Sure but I thought that was common sense. It's rather worrying that people think it's a revelation that large cities along the coast that are major hubs don't subsidized rural farmers. This has been the case for generations. Farmers haven't been a powerhouse of the economy since plantations ended.

54%of what? GDP?

GDP.

We're still subsidizing them, but it's not longer shielding them from the technological revolution.

 

[Black Mamba]

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


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.

I'm trying hard to find it. Seriously. I am just having trouble.

As for your links, again it doesn't show a change. It could just be from people not showing up.

Quick example. If 4 years ago out of 100 total union voters, they went 70-30 Obama but now this year turnout dropped and they went 60-30 Hilary, this does not show any shift. If shows some Obama supporters stayed home and the percentages will change, but it doesn't show vote changing.

This is the problem with looking solely at percentages. turnout matters. It could also be the case it went from 70-30 to 70-45.


But let me reiterate this. Even if people switched from Obama to Trump (which obviously some had to as every election has switches), it does not explain this election. Because based on education data, Romney voters must have switched to Hillary too. Considering turnout is up, the only explanation is that new voters turned out. And I don't mean people who turned 18 this year. These are unlikely voters.

It's explains everything. how rural counties had turnout way above previous levels. How exit polling was wrong. how pre-election polling was wrong (these people miss their voter screens), how poor people shifted heavily to Trump. Etc. It easily solves all the election problems in modeling the vote.

So I don't know why people don't want to believe it?

edit: regarding union it could also show a decline in union households, with that decline overrepresented by obama voters. There's many reasons for the data change in percentages there that could be explained by things that aren't vote switching.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

GDP.

We're still subsidizing them, but it's not longer shielding them from the technological revolution.

Ok? Not sure what this has to do with me

 

[kirblar]

Ok? Not sure what this has to do with me

54/46 is still in the 50/50 ballpark. 64/36 is nearly 2/3rds. The country's economy is polarizing just like everything else. Even tho NY/CA were always powerhouses, the degree to which they're powerhouses relative to flyover country has been magnified.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

54/46 is still in the 50/50 ballpark. 64/36 is nearly 2/3rds. The country's economy is polarizing just like everything else. Even tho NY/CA were always powerhouses, the degree to which they're powerhouses relative to flyover country has been magnified.

Yes and it will continue

 

[Black Mamba]

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.

Anyone who voted for Trump is racist or doesn't see racism as a disqualifier. No way around that.

But again, my statement was that racism explains this election because Trump's increasei in vote totals is likely explained by an influx of uneducated white people who usually never vote, voting.

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.

Wrong. Turnout is up this election.

We go through this every election. Election results come in slowly in some states and absentee ballots get counted late.

Votes are still being tallied.

Hillary is on pace to hit 65 million votes and win by 2-2.5 million votes nationally. Her total won't be far behind Obama. Trump is easily outpacing Romney.

There were almost 800k more votes in Florida, ALONE.

There are already almost 5 million more votes this election, likely to be 6 million more.

 

[TyrantII]

rural farmers are vastly underpaid for their work

Everyone not in the top quintile is vastly underpaid. Wages have been stagnant since the early 2000s.

 

[numble]

I'm trying hard to find it. Seriously. I am just having trouble.

As for your links, again it doesn't show a change. It could just be from people not showing up.

Quick example. If 4 years ago out of 100 total union voters, they went 70-30 Obama but now this year turnout dropped and they went 60-30 Hilary, this does not show any shift. If shows some Obama supporters stayed home and the percentages will change, but it doesn't show vote changing.

This is the problem with looking solely at percentages. turnout matters. It could also be the case it went from 70-30 to 70-45.


But let me reiterate this. Even if people switched from Obama to Trump (which obviously some had to as every election has switches), it does not explain this election. Because based on education data, Romney voters must have switched to Hillary too. Considering turnout is up, the only explanation is that new voters turned out. And I don't mean people who turned 18 this year. These are unlikely voters.

It's explains everything. how rural counties had turnout way above previous levels. How exit polling was wrong. how pre-election polling was wrong (these people miss their voter screens), how poor people shifted heavily to Trump. Etc. It easily solves all the election problems in modeling the vote.

So I don't know why people don't want to believe it?

edit: regarding union it could also show a decline in union households, with that decline overrepresented by obama voters. There's many reasons for the data change in percentages there that could be explained by things that aren't vote switching.

The election is explained by what happened in the swing states--Rust Belt + Florida. Obviously a lot of Romney voters in California switched to Clinton. Turnout is not higher in Ohio, for instance. I can buy that a surge in new voters won Florida, but I can also argue that the margins were so close in the Rust Belt that even preventing whatever the 1 represents in your 5:1 data could swing the election.

I still don't buy that there can be data on a 5:1 difference between new voters and swing voters--you cannot have data on which votes were swing votes and which votes were new voters--you can approximate what new voters were based on turnout, but by your same math arguments, it could be that 100% of the preexisting Obama voters swung to Trump in the Rust Belt, and Trump and Clinton more or less split new voters.

 

[Laevateinn]

Anecdotally, my father in law never went to high school, is incredibly racist, and has lived in one of the shittiest part of Ohio nearly his whole life. This is the first time he has ever voted. We had to beg my democratic mother in law to vote.

 

[kirblar]

Everyone not in the top quintile is vastly underpaid. Wages have been stagnant since the early 2000s.

Healthcare has been sucking up pay increases.

 

[NHarmonic.]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

wow nice try there, hillary was far more prepared to deal with this issues. The illusion of Trump is really strong i guess, if you actually believe he was more appropriate for the task.

 

[Black Mamba]

The election is explained by what happened in the swing states--Rust Belt + Florida. Obviously a lot of Romney voters in California switched to Clinton. Turnout is not higher in Ohio, for instance. I can buy that a surge in new voters won Florida, but I can also argue that the margins were so close in the Rust Belt that even preventing whatever the 1 represents in your 5:1 data could swing the election.

I still don't buy that there can be data on a 5:1 difference between new voters and swing voters--you cannot have data on which votes were swing votes and which votes were new voters--you can approximate what new voters were based on turnout, but by your same math arguments, it could be that 100% of the preexisting Obama voters swung to Trump in the Rust Belt, and Trump and Clinton more or less split new voters.

We're going to have around 6-7 more votes this election. The votes have to come from somewhere!

The 5:1 is very easy to believe, especially if the number of actual switchers is low.

The only swing states with lower turnout are Iowa (-1%), Ohio, and Wisconsin. And we all have seen that roughly 300k in Wisconsin were likely turned back due to the voter laws.

As of right now, California turnout is down 6%...though that is going to change as more data comes in. New York saw a less than 1% increase. Mass down 1%.

A lot of California Romney voters are voting 3rd party (already a 500k increase with more to come).


Obviously, there is no single factor that generally determines these things. I think in the rust belt we have numerous issues. But I think the most predominant one is going to be new non-voters in rural and ex-urban areas turning out with some decrease in Obama voters here. I don't think there were any more Obama switchers in this election than previous elections (in terms of party switching). So I don't think that really explains much.

These rural counties are showing very high turnout levels. Clinton matched or exceeded Obama's turnout in almost all urban areas nation-wide. We know the education gap that exists.

I mean, Occam's razor, right? The "missing white voter" theory fits it perfectly. We all mostly laughed at it, but it was probably correct.

 

[Crocodile]

Who is saying this? Which liberals? Find them, quote them. I want the receipts. I certainly don't see many if any of them on GAF, so why do you keep talking about them?

As above. Where are these strange liberals hiding? Who on GAF has argued that the Democrats-as-office-holders shouldn't push for racial justice reforms?

A) Any discussion of this election that discounts its racist elements or ends with "it was just economics" or "some of these people probably voted for Obama in the past so they can't be racist (WHICH IS FALSE)" is missing a large portion of this picture. Everybody would love to uplift the parts of rural America that are lagging, that includes pretty much every Democrat and included Clinton. However Trump's message was more resonant for those people, despite being full of lies, because of the racism. Populism usually succeeds when it has a good scapegoat. For Trump that scapegoat was minorities and anything foreign to the US. Trump didn't win despite of the racism, he won because of it. The last bit can never be forgotten or brushed aside - it was a bug, it was a feature of his campaign AND his message. There is no version of his message that didn't include the racist elements.

B) I mean the examples are kind of innumerable, especially elsewhere online, so I'm not sure where to start other that to dredge through OT topics for the past week and start quoting people en masse?

 

[numble]

We're going to have around 6-7 more votes this election. The votes have to come from somewhere!

The 5:1 is very easy to believe, especially if the number of actual switchers is low.

The only swing states with lower turnout are Iowa (-1%), Ohio, and Wisconsin. And we all have seen that roughly 300k in Wisconsin were likely turned back due to the voter laws.

As of right now, California turnout is down 6%...though that is going to change as more data comes in. New York saw a less than 1% increase. Mass down 1%.

A lot of California Romney voters are voting 3rd party (already a 500k increase with more to come).


Obviously, there is no single factor that generally determines these things. I think in the rust belt we have numerous issues. But I think the most predominant one is going to be new non-voters in rural and ex-urban areas turning out with some decrease in Obama voters here. I don't think there were any more Obama switchers in this election than previous elections (in terms of party switching). So I don't think that really explains much.

These rural counties are showing very high turnout levels. Clinton matched or exceeded Obama's turnout in almost all urban areas nation-wide. We know the education gap that exists.

I mean, Occam's razor, right? The "missing white voter" theory fits it perfectly. We all mostly laughed at it, but it was probably correct.

You cannot apply Occam's razor to fake data (this 5:1 ratio you keep touting).

For Ohio to get an 11% swing from 2012 to 2016 with lower voter turnout, and Iowa to get a 15% swing with lower voter turnout (both Rust Belt states), Occam's razor says many people switched votes.

You need to provide data regarding the lack of party switching. The only data you have provided so far is that 5:1 ratio. Occam's razor applied to multiple Rust Belt exit polls indicates that many voters switched their votes.

 

[NimbusD]

Hillariously sad considering she ran on taxing the rich to provide for the worst off.

 

[Black Mamba]

You cannot apply Occam's razor to fake data (this 5:1 ratio you keep touting).

For Ohio to get an 11% swing from 2012 to 2016 with lower voter turnout, and Iowa to get a 15% swing with lower voter turnout (both Rust Belt states), Occam's razor says many people switched votes.

You need to provide data regarding the lack of party switching. The only data you have provided so far is that 5:1 ratio. Occam's razor applied to multiple Rust Belt exit polls indicates that many voters switched their votes.

I think you misunderstood my comment. It has nothing to do with the 5:1.

Ohio's turnout was down. That explains most of the swing.

I don't need to provide any data for lack of party switching. You, or someone, has to provide data of party switching. My first entry in this convo was a counter to an unsubstantiated claim that there was party switching.

The only "evidence" is that the percentages changes. Um, okay. we have no evidence of this cause.


Here is my argument. Turnout is up 5-7 million. Hillary Clinton is going to end up getting about 99% of the vote Obama got. Meanwhile, third party votes will more than double. Trump will get somewhere between 4-6% more than Romney. So how does vote switching account for her loss if this is the case? How could this possibly explain this. Ignore the 5:1 comment. What is the coherent argument?

If voters truly did switch, as some claim, there is no way Hillary should be getting the totals she's getting right now. Even in swing states,

Turnout is up in all swing states except Iowa (almost the same), Ohio, and Wis (again, voter ID). It's up in Fla, Zona, Penn, Mi, Va, NH, etc. And it's on par with the rest of the US. Roughly 5% in swing states, 6% in the rest.

Hillary got almost 300k more votes in Fla.
150k more in Zona
+8k in Nv
Same as Obama in NC
Iowa had 5x as many 3rd party voters (about 100k)

Most of these states are still counting ballots. In places Hillary is behind Obama, she catches up every day and closes the gap on Trump. In Michigan, it's now under 10k after she gained almost 2k today. Yes, in the rust belt she will underperform Obama in the end. But black turnout is down, overall, here. So that explains a significant portion of this. After that, (I'm going to ignore Wis again due to voter ID), there was massive 3rd party voting compared to the last election. So what is the evidence for vote switching from Obama to Trump?

What explains rural voting being up?

If there was vote switching, it was to third parties. Not to Trump. I see no evidence people switched from Obama to Trump in any way different than what is normal in every election. if you have evidence otherwise, present it.

 

[numble]

I think you misunderstood my comment. It has nothing to do with the 5:1.

Ohio's turnout was down. That explains most of the swing.

I don't need to provide any data for lack of party switching. You, or someone, has to provide data of party switching. My first entry in this convo was a counter to an unsubstantiated claim that there was party switching.

The only "evidence" is that the percentages changes. Um, okay. we have no evidence of this cause.


Here is my argument. Turnout is up 5-7 million. Hillary Clinton is going to end up getting about 99% of the vote Obama got. Meanwhile, third party votes will more than double. Trump will get somewhere between 4-6% more than Romney. So how does vote switching account for her loss if this is the case? How could this possibly explain this. Ignore the 5:1 comment. What is the coherent argument?

If voters truly did switch, as some claim, there is no way Hillary should be getting the totals she's getting right now. Even in swing states,

Turnout is up in all swing states except Iowa (almost the same), Ohio, and Wis (again, voter ID). It's up in Fla, Zona, Penn, Mi, Va, NH, etc. And it's on par with the rest of the US. Roughly 5% in swing states, 6% in the rest.

Hillary got almost 300k more votes in Fla.
150k more in Zona
+8k in Nv
Same as Obama in NC
Iowa had 5x as many 3rd party voters (about 100k)

Most of these states are still counting ballots. In places Hillary is behind Obama, she catches up every day and closes the gap on Trump. In Michigan, it's now under 10k after she gained almost 2k today. Yes, in the rust belt she will underperform Obama in the end. But black turnout is down, overall, here. So that explains a significant portion of this. After that, (I'm going to ignore Wis again due to voter ID), there was massive 3rd party voting compared to the last election. So what is the evidence for vote switching from Obama to Trump?

If there was vote switching, it was to third parties. Not to Trump. I see no evidence people switched from Obama to Trump in any way different than what is normal in every election. if you have evidence otherwise, present it.

If you say the 5:1 is very easy to believe, I don't see how your post has nothing to do with the 5:1 ratio.

Iowa's turnout was about the same, it has traditionally extremely high turnout at over 70%, and votes are still being counted so the 1% decreased turnout may mean nothing when all votes are in. The large swing cannot be explained except if you accept that a large number of voters switched.

If the voters switched away from Obama to a third party, that still means there are issues with attracting such voters to the Democratic party.

Multiple Ohio exit polls have indicated that Trump won amongst union voters, amongst voters that were against trade deals, and amongst voters that had economy as their top issue--these demographics went for Obama in prior exit polls. A majority of Ohioans in exit polls also viewed Obama positively. Despite Ohio turnout being down, even in rural areas I believe, Trump received more votes than Romney.

Again, the point is that the margins are small that even under your 5:1 ratio, an extra 500,000 new voters means 100,000 former Obama voters not voting for Clinton, and the 100,000 is enough to win the election.

 

[legend166]

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.

What do you mean not exactly? You've literally just proposed giving greater representation to the wealthy.

 

[Breads]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

We can't call racists racists without throwing helpless oppressed victims of the R word into the arms of white supremacists and we can't make fun of racists trying to monopolize economic anxiety as their shield without the blanket statements coming out.

White fragility knows no bounds.

Isn't this common sense? Democrats win in cities and other places that make up a majority of our economy. Northeast + California is like half the country.

We live in a country where will of the people doesn't mean will of the people.

 

[DorkLord54]

54/46 is still in the 50/50 ballpark. 64/36 is nearly 2/3rds. The country's economy is polarizing just like everything else. Even tho NY/CA were always powerhouses, the degree to which they're powerhouses relative to flyover country has been magnified.

Which makes it sadder that, within the Rust Belt itself, the only cities that really have a good chance of a comeback are Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee due to being along the lake and Michigan and Ohio's proximity to Ontario. The rest of the towns that aren't college towns or already healthy cities are likely to die.

 

[Jmanunknown]

I'm assuming you voted for him in 2012, when it was patently obvious from the last 4 years that this was going to be the main approach of the Obama administration. Would it have been okay if Trump had only said really racist things after he was elected instead of before?

Do you not realize its not just trumps words that are racist its his actions too? The man has been racist for most his life their is an actual legit 40 year paper trail going back to when he was 27 and he is 70 now.

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

No but like a adult I accepted the reality of the situation and what my vote meant. Like I said you do not get to pick and choose which issues you support when you vote for a candidate its all or nothing.

 

[kaching]

Aside from the earlier reply to this these people in these areas don't want new engines of growth they want the factory or the coal mine or whatever closed down 30 years ago to reopen so they don't have to retrain for anything. The cities are growing and the cities are are flourishing because they are engines of innovation and not simply wanting back what was there decades ago

I can't help but agree that this really seems to be the primary source of the problem. Having watched my father get into local politics in central New York state, in exactly the kind of rural areas that Clinton didn't win, he's been really frustrated by the response to even basic measures to try to improve infrastructure and help reinvigorate the area's capability for growth. It took him years to get even a basic wind turbine farm approved by the locals up there, claims of noisiness outweighing the benefit of some energy indenpendence and the ability to sell energy back into the system to help local budgets. He's been Republican, he's been Democrat, he's worked with state politicians to get high-tech jobs into these areas, which local leadership promptly refuses. Basically, because it isn't MAGA.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

The America we see and live in today was built in the factories and ports of the big cities.

The Real America (TM) is rural America meme pisses me the fuck off.

 

[bplewis24]

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...The other candidate wasn't talking about their problems; they're following the only solution they've been given.

Purely revisionist and idiotic bullshit ^^^

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.

Emphasis mine. Thanks for pointing out with that section exactly how it was racist, and how your first post was simply being an apologist for racist apologists.

The rest of your post (which I didn't quote) only articulates why it's the voters faults who decided to latch on to racist rhetoric and assumptions rather than actually doing their own homework. But to suggest for even a second that Trump "talked to them" in a way that Clinton did not, and pretend that the difference was somehow policy based and had more substance, is poppycock. Just pure tripe. You know exactly what the difference was, as you explained it and inadvertently confirmed the point you were trying to argue against.

 

[call_kotaku]

The "white working class voters felt cornered and Trump was the only option they felt like they had" only holds weight if you assume that they did no research on his policies or that Hillary immediately disqualified herself as a viable choice. Essentially, you have to assume that people made their decisions early enough in their own considerations that policy had no impact (since Trump had no concrete policies outside of bigotry).

There's no evidence that the majority of his supporters are as deeply racist as he and his close associates are, but the reason Trump gained so much traction among Whites isn't because he provided any meaningful economic alternatives to them. Rather it was because he was the only candidate that directly addressed that many white people in America feel persecuted and threatened by globalization and multiculturalism (a feeling directly informed by white privilege and institutional racism), and that was the consistent thread throughout his campaign.

Give Trump voters some credit, they knew who they were voting for and why, and they've been extremely vocal about demonstrating that.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

I'm really glad that the big cities don't seem afraid to throw their weight around and do what's right, but I'm also tremendously disheartened by how much worse things are going to get for anyone growing up now who's not fortunate enough to live in an urban center

Yep. The bigotry and ignorance of rural communities should never be catered to, but flushing them all down the toilet for not being born in CA/the northeast doesn't sit right with me.

 

[ZaCH3000]

The problem with Clinton's DNC is the same problem lots of posters have in this very thread. Yall are patronizing as fuck.

There is so much sitting around speculating if Trump voters are racist, or in economic depression or both. All their issues from the opiate epidemic, to crumbling economies and dwindling jobs, to the many socially backward opinions prevailing rural America are merely a snapshot of this large group of people.

The judgements I see here and from articles describing the state of the DNC start and end with this snapshot of rural America.

As shitty as it is that this group of people voted against their interests and either supported or ignored the garbage spewing from Trump's mouth regarding immigration and minorities, these are fucking people all possessing the right to vote. They have a right to be heard. In order to hear them you have to fucking talk to them.

That's my advice to the DNC and many other liberals (I identify Progressive). Listen to these people's plights. Ask them questions and hear their stories. If we as progressives cast them out, we are not only holding back progress for green solutions, wealth redistribution, better education, single payer health care or some better alternative to ACA, etc.

Hear them out to understand what most concerns them. If the Democratic Party engages rural America and we as progressives listen as well, we can bridge the divide and establish trust between each other. From there, as long as the democratic politicians meet and pass laws and plans that addresses rural America's most fundamental needs, rural America won't care about immigration, PC culture and other GOP rhetoric because their lives improve.

One group has to say enough is enough with the division in this country and I believe it will be the progressives that do it.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

That's a dumb metric. And a vote is a vote.

 

[SURGEdude]

Republican voters are losers by almost any metric.

 

[SURGEdude]

The problem with Clinton's DNC is the same problem lots of posters have in this very thread. Yall are patronizing as fuck.

There is so much sitting around speculating if Trump voters are racist, or in economic depression or both. All their issues from the opiate epidemic, to crumbling economies and dwindling jobs, to the many socially backward opinions prevailing rural America are merely a snapshot of this large group of people.

The judgements I see here and from articles describing the state of the DNC start and end with this snapshot of rural America.

As shitty as it is that this group of people voted against their interests and either supported or ignored the garbage spewing from Trump's mouth regarding immigration and minorities, these are fucking people all possessing the right to vote. They have a right to be heard. In order to hear them you have to fucking talk to them.

That's my advice to the DNC and many other liberals (I identify Progressive). Listen to these people's plights. Ask them questions and hear their stories. If we as progressives cast them out, we are not only holding back progress for green solutions, wealth redistribution, better education, single payer health care or some better alternative to ACA, etc.

Hear them out to understand what most concerns them. If the Democratic Party engages rural America and we as progressives listen as well, we can bridge the divide and establish trust between each other. From there, as long as the democratic politicians meet and pass laws and plans that addresses rural America's most fundamental needs, rural America won't care about immigration, PC culture and other GOP rhetoric because their lives improve.

One group has to say enough is enough with the division in this country and I believe it will be the progressives that do it.

Identity over economy. We lost the moment Trump said radical islamic terrorism and tied whiteness and racism to economic justice..

 

[Tallshortman]

Yes it's been established over and over again that certain segments of the lower middle and lower class consistently vote against their own economic interests

 

[dramatis]

The problem with Clinton's DNC is the same problem lots of posters have in this very thread. Yall are patronizing as fuck.

There is so much sitting around speculating if Trump voters are racist, or in economic depression or both. All their issues from the opiate epidemic, to crumbling economies and dwindling jobs, to the many socially backward opinions prevailing rural America are merely a snapshot of this large group of people.

The judgements I see here and from articles describing the state of the DNC start and end with this snapshot of rural America.

As shitty as it is that this group of people voted against their interests and either supported or ignored the garbage spewing from Trump's mouth regarding immigration and minorities, these are fucking people all possessing the right to vote. They have a right to be heard. In order to hear them you have to fucking talk to them.

That's my advice to the DNC and many other liberals (I identify Progressive). Listen to these people's plights. Ask them questions and hear their stories. If we as progressives cast them out, we are not only holding back progress for green solutions, wealth redistribution, better education, single payer health care or some better alternative to ACA, etc.

Hear them out to understand what most concerns them. If the Democratic Party engages rural America and we as progressives listen as well, we can bridge the divide and establish trust between each other. From there, as long as the democratic politicians meet and pass laws and plans that addresses rural America's most fundamental needs, rural America won't care about immigration, PC culture and other GOP rhetoric because their lives improve.

One group has to say enough is enough with the division in this country and I believe it will be the progressives that do it.

The problem with that thinking is that these people's votes already weigh more than the votes of those who are voting in major cities.

You for instance, do not ask of this group of people to listen to the plights of minorities or of women. How can you promote 'unity' when you only favor one side? Moreover, you're asking the side that has been systematically discriminated against and been disenfranchised to 'be nice' and listen to the plights of those who did not care about those who have suffered for hundreds of years. Is it really so irritating to you that this side would be extremely angry with that group of people?

We can listen all we can, but if they spurn regulation because that's what they've been taught, if they fear socialism because that's what they've been taught, if they classify all drugs as bad and refuse legalizing MJ because that's what they've been taught, no amount of listening will do. Democratic politicians can try to pass laws—but this group keeps voting the Republicans in, so the only people with the power to make their lives better are Republicans. It's a spiral of self-destruction.

Hillary asked for unity. None of them answered her call for it.

Minorities are tired of being second class citizens, and now speak out loudly against attempts to oppress them into being so, with attacks on their voting rights, their citizenship, their liberty. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. To say that doing so is 'divisive rhetoric' and 'PC culture' and 'patronizing as fuck' is narrow minded and not particularly progressive or unifying in itself.

 

[Miletius]

A graph like the one in the OP is horrifying to me, because it shows more clearly why people voted than anything else out there. Wealth inequality, which is traditionally a leftist ideal, has been completely co-opted by the far right. So, we have to work on a way to include these folks in the New American Century. Or Democrats can continue to lose elections. One or the other.

 

[jWILL253]

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why appeasing White people is a justifiable means to an end.

Like... do none of you have a fucking spine in your bodies? Are you so unwilling or unable to actually have some standards, that you'll be willing to see a shift to the right from Dems just so they can win elections? Are you so selfish, that you're willing to put minorities under the bus just so the candidate with a D next to their name can be elected?

This is about more than just elections. This is about EQUALITY & JUSTICE. And pray tell, how do we as a society deliver equality & justice when moderates and liberals in here are suggesting pandering to an audience that has been fundamentally conditioned not to listen to them? Hell, how do you solve the deep racial problems in this country when half of the time, people are unwilling to acknowledge racism as more than a symptom?

This is ridiculous. We need steadfast heroes more than ever, and every day, I see and hear people that are all too willing to either give up, or heavily compromise in the name of a victory that will NEVER come.

 

[kirblar]

The problem with Clinton's DNC is the same problem lots of posters have in this very thread. Yall are patronizing as fuck.

There is so much sitting around speculating if Trump voters are racist, or in economic depression or both. All their issues from the opiate epidemic, to crumbling economies and dwindling jobs, to the many socially backward opinions prevailing rural America are merely a snapshot of this large group of people.

The judgements I see here and from articles describing the state of the DNC start and end with this snapshot of rural America.

As shitty as it is that this group of people voted against their interests and either supported or ignored the garbage spewing from Trump's mouth regarding immigration and minorities, these are fucking people all possessing the right to vote. They have a right to be heard. In order to hear them you have to fucking talk to them.

That's my advice to the DNC and many other liberals (I identify Progressive). Listen to these people's plights. Ask them questions and hear their stories. If we as progressives cast them out, we are not only holding back progress for green solutions, wealth redistribution, better education, single payer health care or some better alternative to ACA, etc.

Hear them out to understand what most concerns them. If the Democratic Party engages rural America and we as progressives listen as well, we can bridge the divide and establish trust between each other. From there, as long as the democratic politicians meet and pass laws and plans that addresses rural America's most fundamental needs, rural America won't care about immigration, PC culture and other GOP rhetoric because their lives improve.

One group has to say enough is enough with the division in this country and I believe it will be the progressives that do it.

The problem is that they lash out and blame minorities because they're an easy scapegoat.

This is not unique to the US, it's been happening in lots of other countries.

What IS unique is the EC and their mass over-representation in the presidential vote.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The future impact of this will be city states, especially outside the US.
UK, Canada, maybe France eventually.
Then people in rural areas will have no choice but to move.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why appeasing White people is a justifiable means to an end.

I think you missed an adjective there.

If you didn't, the answer is right there in the word "minority". You need a majority to accomplish anything in law and politics, which means you need white people.

 

[Miletius]

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why appeasing White people is a justifiable means to an end.

Like... do none of you have a fucking spine in your bodies? Are you so unwilling or unable to actually have some standards, that you'll be willing to see a shift to the right from Dems just so they can win elections? Are you so selfish, that you're willing to put minorities under the bus just so the candidate with a D next to their name can be elected?

This is about more than just elections. This is about EQUALITY & JUSTICE. And pray tell, how do we as a society deliver equality & justice when moderates and liberals in here are suggesting pandering to an audience that has been fundamentally conditioned not to listen to them? Hell, how do you solve the deep racial problems in this country when half of the time, people are unwilling to acknowledge racism as more than a symptom?

This is ridiculous. We need steadfast heroes more than ever, and every day, I see and hear people that are all too willing to either give up, or heavily compromise in the name of a victory that will NEVER come.

It's not an either/or proposition. You can fight for racial equality while also fighting for economic justice. You make it sound like people who (reasonably) argue that we need to highlight issues of economic justice on the table are calling for the reinstatement of Jim Crow. Sure, it might be possible to progress without inclusion of working class whites. Why would any progressive want to do that though? This isn't a war, there aren't any battle lines drawn here. The uptick of the fortunes of minorities does not necessarily mean that the fortunes of white working class America will decline. It only does if you subscribe to a dark and bleak worldview.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm not entirely sure why people prattle on about listening to rural America. Or the WWC really to an extent. Only to then pretend that their pet issues like college debt or single payer or weed legalisation or Glass Steagall or green energy or whatever else one personally cares about are the tipping points for their votes.

I mean I'm well aware issues like not dying from police brutality also aren't going to be their deciders. Or being treated like any other human with the same rights.

 

[digdug2k]

The problem with Clinton's DNC is the same problem lots of posters have in this very thread. Yall are patronizing as fuck.

There is so much sitting around speculating if Trump voters are racist, or in economic depression or both. All their issues from the opiate epidemic, to crumbling economies and dwindling jobs, to the many socially backward opinions prevailing rural America are merely a snapshot of this large group of people.

The judgements I see here and from articles describing the state of the DNC start and end with this snapshot of rural America.

As shitty as it is that this group of people voted against their interests and either supported or ignored the garbage spewing from Trump's mouth regarding immigration and minorities, these are fucking people all possessing the right to vote. They have a right to be heard. In order to hear them you have to fucking talk to them.

That's my advice to the DNC and many other liberals (I identify Progressive). Listen to these people's plights. Ask them questions and hear their stories. If we as progressives cast them out, we are not only holding back progress for green solutions, wealth redistribution, better education, single payer health care or some better alternative to ACA, etc.

Hear them out to understand what most concerns them. If the Democratic Party engages rural America and we as progressives listen as well, we can bridge the divide and establish trust between each other. From there, as long as the democratic politicians meet and pass laws and plans that addresses rural America's most fundamental needs, rural America won't care about immigration, PC culture and other GOP rhetoric because their lives improve.

One group has to say enough is enough with the division in this country and I believe it will be the progressives that do it.

Watch me ignore you, but having moved from the country to the big city, I don't think people are that patronizing. They don't give much of a shit about where I'm from, but its not because they think they people there are all dumb or anything. They care about those people's problems (i.e. lack of jobs, drugs, etc.) Its not as if those plights are mysteries to people who live in urban areas.

They could care less that you love truck nuts or have your walls plastered in antlers. They think people (not everyone, but the people who believe this shit) are dumb because Donald Trump says "I'll get you your old job back!" or "Obamacare has death panels" or "The Clinton Foundation is just a cover for the Clintons to launder money" or "Those elites sitting in their ivory towers in cities want to take away your religion!" and those people believe him. That is dumb. Its really really fucking dumb.

IMO, its not an issue of listening with the party. The issues facing rural and urban people are basically the same. Its that they can't get a message through to those rural people. Things like "Hey, we don't want to kill babies at 9 months either" or "Hey, sucks you lost your job, but we've got a plan to get you a better job than your old one. One that won't go away as easily" or even simple "Hey, we don't fucking hate you and think you're idiots. We like you. We're really mostly the same." Hillary and her campaign said all that shit, but it doesn't get through.

Some stuff the Dem party has pushed recently seems dumb to me. Pushing the "bakeries can't discriminate in gay weddings" issue is probably just feeding the "war on christians" fire without gaining much for gay rights in the end (yay! you can have some bigots you don't know at your wedding). Same for banning guns. Hillary didn't even campaign on it, but basically picked it up because of fake news and a lot of people on the right who are campaigning on it. Listening (from both sides) would probably help everyone there. But those aren't the issues I see people talking about being things that lost this election.

 

[ZaCH3000]

The problem with that thinking is that these people's votes already weigh more than the votes of those who are voting in major cities.

You for instance, do not ask of this group of people to listen to the plights of minorities or of women. How can you promote 'unity' when you only favor one side? Moreover, you're asking the side that has been systematically discriminated against and been disenfranchised to 'be nice' and listen to the plights of those who did not care about those who have suffered for hundreds of years. Is it really so irritating to you that this side would be extremely angry with that group of people?

We can listen all we can, but if they spurn regulation because that's what they've been taught, if they fear socialism because that's what they've been taught, if they classify all drugs as bad and refuse legalizing MJ because that's what they've been taught, no amount of listening will do. Democratic politicians can try to pass laws—but this group keeps voting the Republicans in, so the only people with the power to make their lives better are Republicans. It's a spiral of self-destruction.

Hillary asked for unity. None of them answered her call for it.

Minorities are tired of being second class citizens, and now speak out loudly against attempts to oppress them into being so, with attacks on their voting rights, their citizenship, their liberty. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. To say that doing so is 'divisive rhetoric' and 'PC culture' and 'patronizing as fuck' is narrow minded and not particularly progressive or unifying in itself.

In reaponse to the bolded: minorities in urban cities have different issues than white Americans in rural economies. Our elected officials can enact policy that solves issues affecting urban American minorities and enact a separate policy that solves issues affecting rural white Americans.

Rural America will not care nor pay attention to minorities protesting their plights and benefitting from change of policy so long as rural America stops seeing their children, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles dying from opiate overdose, and economic investment bringing forth appreciable positive changes in their communities. That's my theory.

Since Reagan, the white working class has been boned by greed on Wall Street, Corporate America, and corrupt politicians prioritizing special interests over the populace, and minorities have been fucked unfairly by the Justice system leading to higher incarceration rates, systemic legal discrimination, and corrupt politicians prioritizing special interests perpetuating an unjust system at the expense of minority rights.

Both groups have different socio-economic backgrounds with different issues and different priorities. Both rural white America and urban minority Americans have access to poor education. Both have been fucked by corrupt politicians I argue; one's fucked doggy while the other is fucked missionary. To make matters worse, both sides are fighting each other, when they should be pushing back against their elected officials. The US government has failed millions of Americans.
.

 

[Illucio]

This election was misinformation, people taking about racism or trying to explain why the other person is a bigger piece of shit. And here I am like:

"please just talk about the issues. "

I have never been proud of my country, I have no positive outlook for my future even when I graduate from college and find a job for my career. I'm scared of our future, but a part of me, very deep down, just wants to step on people and get ahead of everyone through corruption and deceit so I'm able to join a seat of power and just be ignorant of the damage Ive done just so I can ignore these problems and live in luxury. But I could never live with myself if I did.

Could be worse, I could have been born in North Korea.