Support NeoGAF

[MagnaderAlpha]

Let's not over-complicate things. The thinking (for those who can be swayed) can be summed up as:

1. Obama has been president for 8 years, and my life hasn't gotten appreciably better.
2. I'm not voting D next time

That's it.

1. George W Bush's administration sees huge Recession, fucks EVERYBODY and cripples the Economy.

2. That shit is dumped in the lap of Obama and G.W exits, stage left, in cartoon fashion.

3. Republicans in the Senate and House block a good number of Obama's ideas, then state Obama is a bad President cause he can't get nothing done!

4. Economy DOES start to get better, but from how it was crippled by the previous administration, it is going up slowly (it was REALLY fucked, dude).

5. People take the Republicans' criticism of Obama to be "God's word", he "didn't do anything for the country" (even though he DID and other things, he TRIED but was obstructed by the Rs)

6. Republicans say they'll help those hit by the failing Economy, even though in their heart of hearts, they could give a rat's ass about the little man. They are all richies, anyway, and probably are in league with those very same people who lead to the Recession in the first place (laughing about the poor simpletons plight at their ski lodges and tropical vacations).

 

[Suikoguy]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this, because that's not true.

Doing some googling, I can't find the article.

But, considering the vast disagreement between what Trump inherited and what he is worth now, it does not matter much.

 

[Maxim726X]

How does this correlate with Trump voters magically going from thinking the economy was in the shitter to doing great as soon as Trump took office?

He's a used car salesman.

People were convinced that he'd be behind the scenes, making deals on their behalf.

It worked.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Aside from my number rounding for conciseness, did I say anything untrue?

Well, yeah. He's run 'hundreds of successful businesses?' Uh, that's just factually untrue lol, he's not even ran a fraction of that many businesses, period, and he's got a much bigger failure rate than success. What businesses are you talking about? You don't think he actually runs all of those Trump buildings, do you?

And he gained back a billion? When, how do you know? We have no idea what he's gained or lost past a small section of his '95 and '05 tax returns. We have no idea what he's worth, or how much he gained in any time frame.

You can't be serious with that.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Democratic policies favor the wealthy. So let's elect a billionaire.

Take that liberals.

People bought into "He has so much money, he owes nobody anything, plus he's played the system and knows how it works". It's pretty good marketing, however stupid!

 

[Rentahamster]

Doing some googling, I can't find the article.

But, considering the vast disagreement between what Trump inherited and what he is worth now, it does not matter much.

Check any inflation calculator. Even if you assume he inherited 200 million bucks back in the mid 80s, that's only around 400 million in 2017 dollars.

 

[Xe4]

I have some problems with the PAC's presentation of the polls done. First of all, they show pretty well what drop-off and Obama-Trump voters felt in terms of the economy and other issues. That's good and helpful, but ultimately doesn't say why they flipped from Obama to Trump or did not vote. The simplest thing they could have done was take a baseline of the entire population (or even of Obama-Hillary) and compared their interests to Obama-Trump voters. That would've told us more where they disagreed to the point of voting for Trump. To give an example, I can't think of many people who aren't concerned about jobs and the economy. They're incredibly important issues, and impact everyone in America. However, if Obama-Trump voters cared more about the economy than others, that may explain their flipped vote.

Secondly, their methodology is shoddy. They interviewed, for instance, "drop off" voters, who either voted for Clinton in 2016 but not 2014, or for Obama in 2012 but not 2016, yet they made no effort to separate these groups. These are groups who may have strikingly different views on topics, yet they didn't think it was important enough, and decided to lump the two of them together? On top of that, we don't know what they controlled for. Did they adjust numbers for race, population, income, etc? At the very least it would've been nice to see a breakdown of that.

As I've said before, I'd like to see an actual, well done, peer reviewed study published in a respectable journal. As of yet, I haven't found one, yet I have had different studies telling me different things. In one study, it was less the economy and more racism that flipped voters, and in this, it was more the economy and less racism that flipped voters. Surely, studies will differ, but they should not to the point where they have conclusions completely opposite of one another.

More studies need to be done, certainly, and I'm not ready to accept either hypothesis for the reason of voters flipping.

Check any inflation calculator. Even if you assume he inherited 200 million bucks back in the mid 80s, that's only around 400 million in 2017 dollars.

Well sure, but you could put those $200 million in any index fund and get about the same ROI as Trump did during his time of business. That's not very impressive.

 

[Particle Physicist]

He's a used car salesman.

People were convinced that he'd be behind the scenes, making deals on their behalf.

It worked.

So it's really not about the economy but rather about being better at messaging about the economy. Even if you lie through your teeth.

 

[Lightbreaker]

Does anybody remember that quote from LB Johnson about race? That quote could be used for this situation.

 

[Suikoguy]

Check any inflation calculator. Even if you assume he inherited 200 million bucks back in the mid 80s, that's only around 400 million in 2017 dollars.

I think I mixed inflation with stock market or something similar.

 

[Jmanunknown]

You'd be surprised. Trump's most loyal base wasn't the lower class, less educated, rural voter (at least, they weren't the majority). Turns out it was the middle/upper-middle class suburban voters that put him over. I wish I could easily find the stats to put up for you to see, but what you're talking about wouldn't keep him from being elected.

here is the article from fivethirtyeight by nate silver

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

 

[kirblar]

So it's really not about the economy but rather about being better at messaging about the economy. Even if you lie through your teeth.

Hillary Clinton is and was a terrible liar. It was a problem, as it's a necessary skill for a politician.

 

[Version 3.0]

So these people will clearly turn on Trump now that he has repeatedly sucked up to the 1%, right?

...

I'd say if there's a silver lining here, yes,that's it. A person who voted for Obama and then Trump clearly has no fucking idea who stands for what. So I would think their next vote is up for grabs, too.

 

[Maxim726X]

So it's really not about the economy but rather about being better at messaging about the economy. Even if you lie through your teeth.

IMO, yes.

Much like the stock market, it's all about perception.

Spicer has literally said 'those job numbers (referring to Obama's) are fake, but ours are real'.

And his supporters just believe him, I guess. I'm at a loss too.

 

[Abinash117]

Mostly with Obama - Trump voters, they aren't necessarily concerned with him being rich. Many Americans, especially the ones that lean on the right side do not have the same extreme distrust of the rich that some of the left do.


Them voting for Trump make sense in the context of the rich being hard workers and since they are rich means they are smart enough to be rich. Trump is also a businessman so he knows how the economy works was also an idea. It is kind of obvious even after Trump got Goldman Sachs and other wealthy individuals in his administration that many supporters were OK with that.

In the report, while a large number of Trump supporters think the rich and wall street need to be taxed more and kept in check about 45%( overall Trump supporters) , there were not the main priorities. They are even less considered with him favoring special interest or wealthier people judging by the report.

They seem more concerned about protecting medicaid and SS. Either way, it makes some sense for reason some voted the way they did.

So these people will clearly turn on Trump now that he has repeatedly sucked up to the 1%, right?

...

Not fully, look at the report.

Majority aren't concerned about that.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Only one of them had a tax plan that would've actually taxed the one percent...

 

[Rentahamster]

You can't be serious with that.

I am serious. This is my serious face.

Well, yeah. He's run 'hundreds of successful businesses?' Uh, that's just factually untrue lol, he's not even ran a fraction of that many businesses, period, and he's got a much bigger failure rate than success. What businesses are you talking about?

http://www.investopedia.com/updates/donald-trump-companies/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization

The company owns, operates, invests, and develops residential real estate, hotels, resorts, residential towers, and golf courses in different countries, as well as owning several hundred thousand square feet (several hectares) of prime Manhattan real estate. It lists involvement in 515 subsidiaries and entities with 264 of them bearing Trump's name and another 54 including his initials.

You don't think he actually runs all of those Trump buildings, do you?

I also know how Trump licenses out his brand to property developers, yes. Good return, less risk. Smart move.

And he gained back a billion? When, how do you know? We have no idea what he's gained or lost past a small section of his '95 and '05 tax returns. We have no idea what he's worth, or how much he gained in any time frame.

Trump loses a billion smackers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-rudoy/think-trump-will-close-th_b_12299572.html

It appears that Donald Trump successfully lost $915 million in 1995. We say “successfully” because it allowed him to avoid paying federal income taxes for up to two decades (at $50 million per year) and it may not have cost him a cent.

How does one lose close to a billion dollars in one year? With a flock of accountants and a congress of lawyers.

Trump is worth now:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33644498

The exact value of the Trump empire has long been a topic of speculation. When it submitted its paperwork last week, the Trump campaign boldly asserted in a news release that "as of this date, Mr Trump's net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS".

Bloomberg News suggests the number is around $2.4bn, while Forbes magazine puts it closer to $4bn - still enough to buy plenty of gold escalators.
According to the FEC report, the total for all Mr Trump's assets minus his liabilities is $1.35bn (£870m). This is a bit misleading, however, as the FEC asks only for a dollar range to the assets listed, and the top category is "over $50,000,000".

 

[Gallbaro]

I mean yeah, but there's poor messaging and then there's an inability to perceive reality.

The reality these voters are perceiving is that all the wealth gains of the recovery went to the top 5% of the economy.

Spoiler

I am in the top 5% and voted Hilldawg.

 

[Pryce]

Nearly every bad motivation you can ascribe to Trump voters is true on some level. But the economy factor has been mostly underrated. I don't think enough people who take an active interest in politics really get the vibe among most Americans, including many who voted for Hillary. There's a sense of panic, reacting to the very true fact that neither party really has the interests of people outside elite circles in mind.

Yes, it's fucking idiotic to have voted for Trump over Clinton to many of us. But it's really not hard to see why so many would simply throw their hands up and vote for a candidate promising to burn the existing structure down as much as they can, rather than the one with the "America is already great!" plan.

A lot of people voted for Trump to throw a bomb at the system as we know it. Racism/sexism/homophobia was a big part of that impulse -- that's what confirmed that Trump was a willing bomb-thrower for many, really -- but we can't sit back and use that as a shield for the entirety of the story of what happened in 2016.

My latino family is filled with Trump supporters. People from Chicago. If you want to solve the conundrum of how the fuck we ended up in this situation, you can't oversimplify how we got here.

Sure! Look, Obama did good things, but let's not overlook that the vast majority of the wealth created since the great recession, the overwhelming majority, went to the riches of the country. If you have a guy who you perceive to throw bombs at the entire structure (he could fix it!) or a billionaire (millionaire? does it matter? she's beyond rich) who's been in Washington for many years, who do you pick? You could probably go from Obama to Trump.

Now yes, racism and bigotry played a role, of course. And yes, anyone who thought Trump policies were going to help more than Clinton's didn't look close enough or pay attention, but damn, the economy isn't working and someone going up there and saying "shit's fucked up" is really appealing (also, Bernie Sanders in the other direction of Trump).

 

[zelas]

One finding from the polling stands out: A shockingly large percentage of these Obama-Trump voters said Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy — twice the percentage that said the same about Trump. I was also permitted to view video of some focus group activity, which showed Obama-Trump voters offering sharp criticism of Democrats on the economy.

So basically republicans were smart enough to back their party and Bernie's rhetoric flipped enough dems to give them an edge.

 

[JP_]

See here's why I don't believe that: these people aren't mad at Trump now, despite him stuffing his cabinet with wealthy bankers and oil execs and everything else

Like if they really cared about all of that, wouldn't we expect to hear them being upset?

Probably helps if you imagine they're idiots and/or don't pay close attention to politics. I'd bet money most of them don't know what a Mnuchin is.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Remember, your average poor white rural person thinks they'd be rich if it weren't for the government, and everybody "knows" that the Republicans are the "small government" party.

 

[The Technomancer]

Sure! Look, Obama did good things, but let's not overlook that the vast majority of the wealth created since the great recession, the overwhelming majority, went to the riches of the country. If you have a guy who you perceive to throw bombs at the entire structure (he could fix it!) or a billionaire (millionaire? does it matter? she's beyond rich) who's been in Washington for many years, who do you pick? You could probably go from Obama to Trump.

Now yes, racism and bigotry played a role, of course. And yes, anyone who thought Trump policies were going to help more than Clinton's didn't look close enough or pay attention, but damn, the economy isn't working and someone going up there and saying "shit's fucked up" is really appealing (also, Bernie Sanders in the other direction of Trump).

This is true to an extent, but I think, as posted upthread, we really need to keep these statistics in mind, because where these people are directing their anger doesn't fully align with where we'd like to think its being aimed

Its not just that racism and bigotry play a role, they're a very core component of said anger and how it is directed

 

[Maxim726X]

Sure! Look, Obama did good things, but let's not overlook that the vast majority of the wealth created since the great recession, the overwhelming majority, went to the riches of the country. If you have a guy who you perceive to throw bombs at the entire structure (he could fix it!) or a billionaire (millionaire? does it matter? she's beyond rich) who's been in Washington for many years, who do you pick? You could probably go from Obama to Trump.

Now yes, racism and bigotry played a role, of course. And yes, anyone who thought Trump policies were going to help more than Clinton's didn't look close enough or pay attention, but damn, the economy isn't working and someone going up there and saying "shit's fucked up" is really appealing (also, Bernie Sanders in the other direction of Trump).

I find this is especially true of younger voters, who just have no faith in politicians and would risk watching the country crumble to blow it all up.

Meanwhile, our institutions are saving us all and he's just another politician who can't get anything accomplished, just this time one who is incredibly stupid and spectacularly incompetent.

This is true to an extent, but I think, as posted upthread, we really need to keep these statistics in mind, because where these people are directing their anger doesn't fully align with where we'd like to think its being aimed

Its not just that racism and bigotry play a role, they're a very core component of said anger and how it is directed

There is value in figuring out the driving forces behind the Obama--> Trump voter, but they'll never admit it's racism. Clearly it is a core mechanism to their belief system/thought process but they'll never admit it. Focusing on the economy is much more simple and not nearly as divisive.

 

[kirblar]

This is true to an extent, but I think, as posted upthread, we really need to keep these statistics in mind, because where these people are directing their anger doesn't fully align with where we'd like to think its being aimed.

Its not just that racism and bigotry play a role, they're a very core component of said anger and how it is directed

(This is why RW populism beats out LW populism virtually every time, and why it's a losing game for the left.)

Go full Macron.

 

[Rentahamster]

I think I mixed inflation with stock market or something similar.

You're partially remembering the stories about how Trump would be worth more if he'd just invested the money in index funds, which Xe4 references:

Well sure, but you could put those $200 million in any index fund and get about the same ROI as Trump did during his time of business. That's not very impressive.

That doesn't mean anything. You know who uses that as an investment strategy? Fuckin' nobody, because you're looking back in time with the benefit of hindsight at market performance and doing market timing analysis with that advantage.

No one can time the market perfectly.

A non-diversified investment portfolio is asking for trouble.

Even IF he did that perfectly, it's still assuming he's reinvesting ALL of the earnings back in, which means he has zero money for personal spending. You can't buy gold elevators with that.

 

[pigeon]

Probably helps if you imagine they're idiots and/or don't pay close attention to politics.

Again, it's really weird to me that "don't assume they're idiots, it's condescending" has somehow morphed into "assume they're idiots or it's condescending" once the consequences of their beliefs for the country became clear.

What if they're not idiots, they're totally honest about what they believe, and they just believe that the Democrats aren't on their side because they believe that supporting people of color is stealing from poor white people?

 

[Realyst]

Really, I think the democrats lost the 2016 election (and economic messaging) back in the lead up to the 2014 midterm elections.

Congressional democrats ran away from Obama's economic accomplishments, even though everything was improving at a slow but steady pace. State governments that flipped from democrats' control should've been a cautionary tale for democrats at the federal level. Because of their timid campaigning on their legislative wins prior to 2011 (ACA, saving the economy, improved standing in the world, etc.), democrats gave Hillary zero momentum leading into the primaries and the general election.

 

[Maxim726X]

Again, it's really weird to me that "don't assume they're idiots, it's condescending" has somehow morphed into "assume they're idiots or it's condescending" once the consequences of their beliefs for the country became clear.

What if they're not idiots, they're totally honest about what they believe, and they just believe that the Democrats aren't on their side because they believe that supporting people of color is stealing from poor white people?

You may very well be right, and people probably don't want to admit that because it says that at our core, we're still pretty shitty.

If this is the case (and there is certainly a strong argument to be made that it is), it's a messaging problem, and the narrative needs to shift.

 

[kirblar]

Again, it's really weird to me that "don't assume they're idiots, it's condescending" has somehow morphed into "assume they're idiots or it's condescending" once the consequences of their beliefs for the country became clear.

What if they're not idiots, they're totally honest about what they believe, and they just believe that the Democrats aren't on their side because they believe that supporting people of color is stealing from poor white people?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/16/the-education-gap-among-whites-this-year-wasnt-about-education-it-was-about-race/

Education doesn't fix this problem. Something else (living working, etc. around these people and having them normalized to you) does.

 

[pigeon]

You may very well be right, and people probably don't want to admit that because it says that at our core, we're still pretty shitty.

If this is the case (and there is certainly a strong argument to be made that it is), it's a messaging problem, and the narrative needs to shift.

If people are racist and oppose policies that will help working-class people because they're too supportive of people of color, that's not a messaging problem.

 

[SolarPowered]

I don't blame them for feeling that way if they're mostly wrong. Unfortunately it's on the democratic party for allowing that room for doubt to grow in the first place. I still believe to this day that the seed was planted when Obama decided not to go after the wall street bankers that nearly crashed the economy in 2008 and it only grew after the taxpayer funded stimulus bill (not to mention the "golden" parachutes many CEOs were receiving). The democratic party really lost the trust that year and I bet it affected their performance in congressional races afterwards.

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

Trump voters are people who get conned into a pyramid scheme.

 

[Maxim726X]

If people are racist and oppose policies that will help working-class people because they're too supportive of people of color, that's not a messaging problem.

It's not that people are inherently against being supportive of people of color, it's the perception that the support they're receiving is coming at their expense.

Basically the root of the 'fuck you, got mine, want to keep mine' mentality.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Remember, your average poor white rural person thinks they'd be rich if it weren't for the government, and everybody "knows" that the Republicans are the "small government" party.

fwiw, this isn't true at all.

I can't think of one person around me here in SE Indiana right now who gives a shit about the size of the government.

 

[Kusagari]

You need to promise delusions of grandeur to get elected in America at this point. Reelection is an entirely different animal but I think it's incredibly hard to get elected president at this point if you're not seen as attacking the system in some way and promising the moon.

Even Obama's entire 08 campaign was effectively based on this with the hope and change rhetoric.

 

[LumpOfCole]

I think of lot of folks not really paying attention (and this the majority of Americans, if we're being honest) voted for Trump because he was the Mystery Box. Middle Americans experiencing gradually shittier and shittier lives over the past few decades thanks to the middle class continuing to shrink might think along the lines of "Sure, he could be a total disaster, but at least the status quo will change somehow."

Because he is so outlandish and extreme and non-sensical, a vote for Trump must've seemed like a complete gamble, like buying a scratch-off ticket. To a lot of Americans, that might have had an appeal in itself. Unfortunately, just like real gambling, it's not going to turn out well in the end.

 

[Realyst]

(Probably) The only candidates Trump & Clinton could win against in the general were eachother. Both Trump & Clinton were lazy assholes when it comes to campaigning (flying home every night smh) but I disagree - the rookie birther followed campaigning 101 by dominating the media and trail/rallies vs his opponent. It was the Hillary camp that tried to go against the traditional models by skipping WI, not polling well, skipping TV and other traditional ads, etc. What Trump really changed was exploiting social media. Meanwhile Hillary had a streak of no press conferences as she hid away from the FBI and public eye. She should never have been allowed to been the party's favorite, way too risky and terrible @ campaigning.

I partially agree with you regarding Clinton not doing everything she could have (like in WI), but Trump definitely did not run a traditional campaign. Very little money was spent on advertising, not a whole lot was contributed to his campaign via small donations, and he wasn't trying to get any big name endorsements. He ran on a message that he didn't need any of that (he was an "anti-establishment candidate"...in quotes), and could win on populism alone.

 

[tearsintherain]

I seriously believe Democracy needs a set of standards when it comes to voting.

It's always been too dangerous when you let people vote for any reason or refuse to do any fact checking before hand.

Just like how you have to pass a test or meet a certain requirement to apply for a job, voting needs similar regulations.

This is a great idea, what could go wrong.

 

[Robdraggoo]

They will go right back to voting dem next cycle I'm sure. When they are nothing changes. Its a sad reality but the industries of the rust belt are not comming back. No matter who the president is. They should also realize that ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan had Republican governors for some time

 

[proto]

My latino family is filled with Trump supporters. People from Chicago. The types of voters I know many of you reading this simply assume should've voted for Hillary in a massive bloc, no questions asked. If you want to solve the conundrum of how the fuck we ended up in this situation, you can't oversimplify how we got here.

A Latino friend of mine recently revealed to me that he voted for Trump, he also told me he voted for Obama.

His main reasoning was that Obama didn't get enough done in his two terms, and that Obamacare was too socialistic i.e., it took too much money away from people who deserved it and gave to those who didn't.

I don't really agree with his two points, but I can definitely see where he's coming from. He makes a livable wage for a single person (~30k a year), but I also know he has to keep a tight budget, and paying an extra 695 dollars a year for not having health insurance is a big deal, and taxes already take away a sizeable portion of his income as well. So he ends up feeling slight changes in taxes a lot more.

I don't mind paying a little bit more on my taxes for social programs, but the lower to middle class end up paying A LOT more taxes relative to their standard of living (not income or wealth, that's not what I'm saying, I'm talking relative to their lifestyle). So I can see why a candidate who promises to lower taxes and cut government programs is appealing, because it actually means a lot more if you're in that kind of situation.

But if you're mega rich and want lower taxes, you can fuck right off cause at that point you're just being greedy.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Trump promised to make the Economy better for a specific type of person. Where exactly do these Obama -> Trump voters come from again?



I'm sorry, but no.

If Bernie Sanders was the type of populist the party needed, he would have won. Point blank. Trump was the populist his party needed, and he won. Obama was the type of populist 2008 Dems needed, and he won.

Maybe Hillary Clinton wasn't the right candidate for the time, but then neither was the guy whose ass she thoroughly whooped in the primaries.

The next great Democratic leader has not made themselves known yet, but I'm sure we've seen their face.

Yeah, thats not really how "Needed" works. You can need something and be so oblivious to what you need that you go against your own interests.

Sanders losing doesn't mean he isn't what those people need. It just means that he isn't what they picked.

 

[Maxim726X]

They will go right back to voting dem next cycle I'm sure. When they are nothing changes. Its a sad reality but the industries of the rust belt are not comming back. No matter who the president is. They should also realize that ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan had Republican governors for some time

You are of course right, but 'real' doesn't win elections. Hillary was real with them, and even offered them a realistic alternative where they could thrive... Not good enough.

We're creatures of comfort. Promise people get to keep their jobs (not true), that they'll get free healthcare (not true), free college (lol), and that we'll go after the top %1.

Populism, baby.

 

[elrechazado]

So it's really not about the economy but rather about being better at messaging about the economy. Even if you lie through your teeth.

Yes? That's politics and how elections are won.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Trump voters themselves are much more honest about why they chose him

We're not coming back from this

 

[Foffy]

Nearly every bad motivation you can ascribe to Trump voters is true on some level. But the economy factor has been mostly underrated. I don't think enough people who take an active interest in politics really get the vibe among most Americans, including many who voted for Hillary. There's a sense of panic, reacting to the very true fact that neither party really has the interests of people outside elite circles in mind.

Yes, it's fucking idiotic to have voted for Trump over Clinton to many of us. But it's really not hard to see why so many would simply throw their hands up and vote for a candidate promising to burn the existing structure down as much as they can, rather than the one with the "America is already great!" plan.

A lot of people voted for Trump to throw a bomb at the system as we know it. Racism/sexism/homophobia was a big part of that impulse -- that's what confirmed that Trump was a willing bomb-thrower for many, really -- but we can't sit back and use that as a shield to boil down the entirety of what happened in 2016 into an easily-digestible story.

My latino family is filled with Trump supporters. People from Chicago. The types of voters I know many of you reading this simply assume should've voted for Hillary in a massive bloc, no questions asked. If you want to solve the conundrum of how the fuck we ended up in this situation, you can't oversimplify how we got here.

I agree in full. Mark Blyth taps into a lot of this as well. People are going to the side of neonationalism because it has a stronger self-narrative -- job restoration campaigns are easier sells than the looming automation paradigm shift inching along in society, which is why the Dems are avoiding this issue in full which will deeply cost them... -- and that people have been feeling adverse effects of neoliberal ideology for the last 30 years. People would rather see the thing topple then be told "everything is good" when this qualitative claim is not seen in their lives. You don't have to get far to see this decoupling of prosperity: look at productivity per capita and wages. Who gives a shit about record stock market abstractions when people don't even have $500 in savings, that one mistake is as if one fell down a mountain of razor blades? Must we be truly alarmed by those in a micro-scale sense are suffering and act out while being told from a macro-scale sense that everything has improved? It feeds right into the rise of far-right ideology.

In many instances, we had a choice between the house fire continuing but at a slow burn, or to drive an oil tanker through it. We chose the tanker, and this is far more problematic. Neonationalism promises to do all of the harm neoliberalism has done, and thus its a far more dangerous system for any society adopting it. It's like intentionally taking cancer cells and injecting them into as many organs as you can.

 

[JP_]

Again, it's really weird to me that "don't assume they're idiots, it's condescending" has somehow morphed into "assume they're idiots or it's condescending" once the consequences of their beliefs for the country became clear.

What if they're not idiots, they're totally honest about what they believe, and they just believe that the Democrats aren't on their side because they believe that supporting people of color is stealing from poor white people?

Looking back, I'm not sure I've ever been on the "don't assume they're idiots" side.

To your second point, I believe there's certainly an element of that. But that wouldn't be them being honest. Unless you think they think black people are the 1%. What you describe could definitely be within the "for the party/themselves" though -- I think there's obviously some political correctness employed. I guess for some of them 1% would be code for (((soros))).

I think it's pretty clear that racism played a big part in this election and I don't think I've ever denied that. But it's probably safe to say that most (not all) of the racism-driven voter patterns will be placed outside of the Obama->Trump populations. Unless you're talking about the broader institutional, deeply ingrained in society racism that permeates just about everything in American society -- you could consider that a driving factor in pretty much anything.

But it's not that these people are especially stupid -- I don't think most people in general pay attention to politics to the level of knowing the background of Trump's cabinet.

Less than half can name a supreme court justice

Only a bit over a third can name all three branches of government

Over 3/4th young people can't name one of their own senators:

And I even found a stat for this very topic: About two-thirds can't name a Trump cabinet pick

And it's not that being out of touch idiots excuses their responsibility. It's still a problem, still has consequences that they own. I'm merely suggesting that it's probably a good idea, when specifically thinking about people's intent, to acknowledge that they very well might not be operating with full understanding of the current reality. Most people aren't mirror images of political wonks like us that operate with the same information but simply hold different beliefs. Most of them are just processing the surface level information at play and I think it's important that we remain cognizant of that because it's key to understanding the mechanisms of popular opinion and voting. For some of these people, it's completely possible for them to trust Trump will fight for the little guy -- not in spite of Trump's wall st cabinet -- in total irrelevance to his cabinet, because they aren't even aware of those contradictions in the first place. There must be other factors driving some of these sentiments that we'll overlook if we focus on the stuff we wonks pay attention to.

 

[Frost Walrus]

"I don't trust this baby-sitter with my kids. I think I'll hire this Freddy Krueger fellow to look after them instead."

 

[JordanN]

This is a great idea, what could go wrong.

Well look what happened this election. An unhinged lunatic made it past the primaries,generals and the electoral college because of ignorance. And now everyday he threatens the world with war or climate change denial.

If that's not a reason to make democracy more like a job interview, I don't what is.

Edit: It's also not like there aren't some regulations in place. There are term limits, a minimum voting age, citizenship etc. Time for America to build on it to not let another Trump happen again.

 

[Jombie]

Bullshit.